HomeDark Eldar WikiDark Eldar ResourcesNull CityFAQUsergroupsRegisterLog in
Share | 
 

 rant about GW and play testers

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 12 ... 19  Next
AuthorMessage
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
avatar

Posts : 6702
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Fri Jun 09 2017, 21:54

zergavas wrote:
I saw a Space wolf deathstar earlier today, it was even worse than before.

I find that hard to believe. Care to give us some details?

_________________

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?
Back to top Go down
HERO
Wych
avatar

Posts : 546
Join date : 2012-04-13

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Fri Jun 09 2017, 23:16

Count Adhemar wrote:
zergavas wrote:
I saw a Space wolf deathstar earlier today, it was even worse than before.

I find that hard to believe. Care to give us some details?

I'd be interested in this as well... since you know, I've been digging through the books non-stop for broken ass combos and I'm having a damn hard time Wink

_________________
HERO's Gaming Blog
A webway to better gaming
Back to top Go down
http://lkhero.blogspot.com/
TeenageAngst
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1331
Join date : 2016-08-29

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Fri Jun 09 2017, 23:20

HERO wrote:
Count Adhemar wrote:
zergavas wrote:
I saw a Space wolf deathstar earlier today, it was even worse than before.

I find that hard to believe. Care to give us some details?

I'd be interested in this as well... since you know, I've been digging through the books non-stop for broken ass combos and I'm having a damn hard time Wink

Are you being sarcastic or not?

_________________
Really terrible videos about tiny plastic space elfs intended to help you get gud scrub:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcZP8WGIhte5TmCWQXsZO4A

Flawless pieces of literary perfection:
https://www.fanfiction.net/u/2805979/
Back to top Go down
HERO
Wych
avatar

Posts : 546
Join date : 2012-04-13

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Fri Jun 09 2017, 23:24

TeenageAngst wrote:
HERO wrote:
Count Adhemar wrote:
zergavas wrote:
I saw a Space wolf deathstar earlier today, it was even worse than before.

I find that hard to believe. Care to give us some details?

I'd be interested in this as well... since you know, I've been digging through the books non-stop for broken ass combos and I'm having a damn hard time Wink

Are you being sarcastic or not?

I'm not Smile

Do you have some 5-7th Ed. comparables?

_________________
HERO's Gaming Blog
A webway to better gaming
Back to top Go down
http://lkhero.blogspot.com/
Leninade
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 77
Join date : 2014-09-23

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Fri Jun 09 2017, 23:30

7th has been all but dead in my local community for almost a year now, so frankly any change is welcome
Back to top Go down
TeenageAngst
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1331
Join date : 2016-08-29

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Fri Jun 09 2017, 23:45

HERO wrote:
TeenageAngst wrote:
HERO wrote:
Count Adhemar wrote:
zergavas wrote:
I saw a Space wolf deathstar earlier today, it was even worse than before.

I find that hard to believe. Care to give us some details?

I'd be interested in this as well... since you know, I've been digging through the books non-stop for broken ass combos and I'm having a damn hard time Wink

Are you being sarcastic or not?

I'm not Smile

Do you have some 5-7th Ed. comparables?

The Razorwing Flocks and Brimstone Horror spam I've mentioned are a level of broken never seen in 7th edition. 40 wolves is a lot, but 200 bases of Razorwings Flocks? We're in uncharted broken territory here.

_________________
Really terrible videos about tiny plastic space elfs intended to help you get gud scrub:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcZP8WGIhte5TmCWQXsZO4A

Flawless pieces of literary perfection:
https://www.fanfiction.net/u/2805979/
Back to top Go down
HERO
Wych
avatar

Posts : 546
Join date : 2012-04-13

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Sat Jun 10 2017, 00:02

TeenageAngst wrote:
HERO wrote:
TeenageAngst wrote:
HERO wrote:
Count Adhemar wrote:
zergavas wrote:
I saw a Space wolf deathstar earlier today, it was even worse than before.

I find that hard to believe. Care to give us some details?

I'd be interested in this as well... since you know, I've been digging through the books non-stop for broken ass combos and I'm having a damn hard time Wink

Are you being sarcastic or not?

I'm not Smile

Do you have some 5-7th Ed. comparables?

The Razorwing Flocks and Brimstone Horror spam I've mentioned are a level of broken never seen in 7th edition. 40 wolves is a lot, but 200 bases of Razorwings Flocks? We're in uncharted broken territory here.

Those are not a concern for me, as they're out of reach except ...Offensive remark removed

_________________
HERO's Gaming Blog
A webway to better gaming
Back to top Go down
http://lkhero.blogspot.com/
TeenageAngst
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1331
Join date : 2016-08-29

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Sat Jun 10 2017, 00:20

Gaming groups usually have communal pools of models. The folks I talk to are going all in on a 600 model bulk purchase from China on Brimstone Horrors. Each player might put in like $20 and be able to pull as many models as they need for a tourney list like a library. So yeah, not out of reach at all.

_________________
Really terrible videos about tiny plastic space elfs intended to help you get gud scrub:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcZP8WGIhte5TmCWQXsZO4A

Flawless pieces of literary perfection:
https://www.fanfiction.net/u/2805979/
Back to top Go down
HERO
Wych
avatar

Posts : 546
Join date : 2012-04-13

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Sat Jun 10 2017, 00:46

TeenageAngst wrote:
Gaming groups usually have communal pools of models. The folks I talk to are going all in on a 600 model bulk purchase from China on Brimstone Horrors. Each player might put in like $20 and be able to pull as many models as they need for a tourney list like a library. So yeah, not out of reach at all.

Except for identifying as offensive comment removed - Count Adhemar.  Whatever gets you guys off I guess.

_________________
HERO's Gaming Blog
A webway to better gaming
Back to top Go down
http://lkhero.blogspot.com/
4thDimensionWizard
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 67
Join date : 2017-05-25

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Sat Jun 10 2017, 00:55

HERO wrote:
TeenageAngst wrote:
Gaming groups usually have communal pools of models. The folks I talk to are going all in on a 600 model bulk purchase from China on Brimstone Horrors. Each player might put in like $20 and be able to pull as many models as they need for a tourney list like a library. So yeah, not out of reach at all.
.

Ok, now I'm really wanting to know how "He Who Shall Not Be Named" got banned if people are allowed to say things like this. I guess negativity about GW is bannable, but namecalling and suggesting property damage to opponent's models when you don't like their list is acceptable? It is not acceptable behaviour for anyone. SC

I'm not trying to change the status quo here, so if this is all kosher, then by all means continue. I'd just like to know what the status quo is so that I know where to draw my own lines.

_________________
"Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice."
Back to top Go down
TeenageAngst
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1331
Join date : 2016-08-29

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Sat Jun 10 2017, 01:51

HERO wrote:
TeenageAngst wrote:
Gaming groups usually have communal pools of models. The folks I talk to are going all in on a 600 model bulk purchase from China on Brimstone Horrors. Each player might put in like $20 and be able to pull as many models as they need for a tourney list like a library. So yeah, not out of reach at all.

Except for identifying .........  Whatever gets you guys off I guess.

Get a loada this guy here.

_________________
Really terrible videos about tiny plastic space elfs intended to help you get gud scrub:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcZP8WGIhte5TmCWQXsZO4A

Flawless pieces of literary perfection:
https://www.fanfiction.net/u/2805979/
Back to top Go down
Massaen
Klaivex
avatar

Posts : 2249
Join date : 2011-07-05
Location : Western Australia

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Sat Jun 10 2017, 02:02

TeenageAngst wrote:
Gaming groups usually have communal pools of models. The folks I talk to are going all in on a 600 model bulk purchase from China on Brimstone Horrors. Each player might put in like $20 and be able to pull as many models as they need for a tourney list like a library. So yeah, not out of reach at all.

I have never ever heard of this sort of communal library idea you speak of - I personally don't lend models to anyone unless they are my closest friends... and that's not everyone I play with in the group

_________________
Objective Secured - Western Australia's Premier 40k Event Organisers and Website
OBJECTIVE SECURED


Last edited by Massaen on Sat Jun 10 2017, 12:36; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
http://objectivesecured.com.au/
CurstAlchemist
Wych
avatar

Posts : 849
Join date : 2015-05-01
Location : Las Vegas

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Sat Jun 10 2017, 02:12

I've never seen or heard of a communal pool of models myself. The only people I lend models to or have seen others lend to are those that are close friends.
Back to top Go down
TeenageAngst
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1331
Join date : 2016-08-29

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Sat Jun 10 2017, 02:15

Well... there's a reason the guys I know tend to win tournaments over and over.

_________________
Really terrible videos about tiny plastic space elfs intended to help you get gud scrub:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcZP8WGIhte5TmCWQXsZO4A

Flawless pieces of literary perfection:
https://www.fanfiction.net/u/2805979/
Back to top Go down
4thDimensionWizard
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 67
Join date : 2017-05-25

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Sat Jun 10 2017, 06:40

I've seen a lot of people use other people's models/armies at bigger tournaments. They don't normally volunteer that it's not their army unless you ask some questions. Probably because some people get upset about other people having access to 12 different armies with the full model range when they only paid for 1.

I don't think getting mad at someone for participating in such a system is logical. The models are expensive. If you can loan your 1 army out on occasion to get access to 11 other armies if and when you need them, that's a pretty good deal.

Haters just have army envy. Very Happy

_________________
"Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice."
Back to top Go down
spellcheck2001
Le Maitre Macabre
avatar

Posts : 1280
Join date : 2013-03-28
Location : La La Land

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Sat Jun 10 2017, 07:40

Any personal attacks are not acceptable. This thread is for venting if you feel the need about the change to 8th, not at each other.

_________________
clown  My DE project log  jocolor :- Harlequin Carnivale - La Danse Macabre

study  My Wargaming blog   cherry  :- Objective Secured
Back to top Go down
http://www.objectivesecured.blogspot.co.uk
The Shredder
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2714
Join date : 2013-04-11

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Sat Jun 10 2017, 11:15

TeenageAngst wrote:

We had this discussion at the shop. There were about 10 or so of us of all ages gathered around discussing 8th as we were playing it yesterday. The teenagers were upset there were no more gifts of Chaos and no more challenges. They named all their HQs and now they can't fight with them in units or anything now so a lot of that magic is gone for them.

Yeah, the new HQ rules seem really clunky and rather nonsensical. It comes across as yet another case of bad rules used to prop up yet more bad rules.

I mean, not being able to pick out characters made sense when they were attached to squads. Now though, a towering daemon prince can apparently blend into a squad of cultists to the degree that trained super-soldiers can't pick him out.

I also think it just takes a way a lot of the fun and feel of the game. In previous editions you could have a Terminator Captain leading his squad of Terminators. In 8th, those terminators apparently took out a restraining order against him, thus he must keep several meters away from his men at all times.

TeenageAngst wrote:
He was upset the game was boring, that there was no tactical depth to it.

Was there much tactical depth to 7th?

Virtually all the important decisions seemed to be made during the list-building stage. Once armies reached the table they practically played themselves.

Granted, 8th doesn't seem to have done anything to improve this, but I'm not sure it's worse either.
Back to top Go down
CptMetal
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2679
Join date : 2015-03-03
Location : Ruhr Metropolian Area

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Sat Jun 10 2017, 11:23

The Shredder wrote:
TeenageAngst wrote:

We had this discussion at the shop. There were about 10 or so of us of all ages gathered around discussing 8th as we were playing it yesterday. The teenagers were upset there were no more gifts of Chaos and no more challenges. They named all their HQs and now they can't fight with them in units or anything now so a lot of that magic is gone for them.

I also think it just takes a way a lot of the fun and feel of the game. In previous editions you could have a Terminator Captain leading his squad of Terminators. In 8th, those terminators apparently took out a restraining order against him, thus he must keep several meters away from his men at all times.

But h can stay with them. Just put him in the middle of his men and nothing changed. The new rules are just streamlined, so one solid fundament and not so many whacky exceptions.

TeenageAngst wrote:
He was upset the game was boring, that there was no tactical depth to it.

Are we talking about an ork player? Did he prefer playing a vastely inferior army?

_________________
+++++INCOMING TRANSMISSION+++++
The Dark Eldar Codex sucks. You probably won just because your enemy loaded his dice to loose. Never forget this mantra and spread the word. Mention it in every discussion possible, people can´t get enough of that valuable information and need to be reminded regularely.
+++++END OF TRANSMISSION+++++
http://www.thedarkcity.net/t12720-tainted-reborn
Back to top Go down
4thDimensionWizard
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 67
Join date : 2017-05-25

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Sat Jun 10 2017, 16:20

The Shredder wrote:

Was there much tactical depth to 7th?

There was. The only time it didn't seem like there was is if you were severely outclassed in listbuilding. You couldn't just toss together 1850 points worth of models haphazardly and expect to do well against a tournament focused gimmick list or a list built around synergy.

The Shredder wrote:
Virtually all the important decisions seemed to be made during the list-building stage. Once armies reached the table they practically played themselves.

This isn't true at all, so long as you were playing against the appropriate skill level of opponents, who constructed the same types of lists(fluffy, competitive, etc.) Most blowouts I saw were due to a skill disparity between the players. Of course, most players won't say that to the guy who loses, because no one is trying to hurt people's feelings. Most people will just casually agree with said guy's excuses, such as: "Skyhammer is OP". "Yeah, it's pretty buff."

It's a shame that people take constructive criticism so poorly so often. If the same guy instead responded in a manner attempting to inform the guy who lost how he could have constructed a list to be prepared for null deployment, and how to deploy against a skyhammer or something, said guy would probably be offended, thinking that by offering advice on how to improve his list and/or game, the other guy was claiming superiority over him. So most people just don't offer unsolicited advice, and casually agree with/ignore the excuses of people who lose. I know "the unluckiest guy in the world" because he believes the dice are to blame for every loss, and he gets angry if anyone tries to tell him differently. I'm sure he'll love 8th edition.

The Shredder wrote:
Granted, 8th doesn't seem to have done anything to improve this, but I'm not sure it's worse either.

Oh yeah, it's definitely worse. It takes away tactical decisions, like targeting synapse creatures when playing against nids, then targeting nids out of synapse with pinning weapons and things from loss of synapse. Now that we can't target characters(even the monstrous creature ones), much of target selection is taken away from us. There are many, many other cases in 8th where decision-making has been taken away, like with flamer templates no longer existing, thus eliminating the decision on whether to bunch up behind cover to try to make sight lines as small as possible, or string out your squad to lower the number potentially hit by templates. Now it's a no-brainer: Of course you bunch up your squad to eliminate sight lines.

I could go on and on with demonstrating how tactical decision-making in 8th has gone the way of the dodo, but I doubt anyone wants to hear me rant further. Those with a fundamental understanding of the game likely already know what I'd be saying, and those that don't probably wouldn't agree even if you explained it to them.

_________________
"Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice."
Back to top Go down
The Shredder
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2714
Join date : 2013-04-11

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Sat Jun 10 2017, 18:12

CptMetal wrote:

But h can stay with them. Just put him in the middle of his men and nothing changed. The new rules are just streamlined, so one solid fundament and not so many whacky exceptions.

He can, but if you want him leading from the front he'll be dead on the first turn.

Because whilst it's impossible to pick out a daemon prince from behind cultists (in spite of him being several times their size), it's a piece of cake to target a single terminator (and only that terminator) standing in a unit of near-identical terminators. Neutral

With regard to streamlining, it can (and I'd argue has) go too far. The ability for characters to join units didn't need to be removed. What needed to be changed was the wound-allocation rules, along with the nonsense about LoS, challenges etc. That was what was cluttering up the character rules.

4thDimensionWizard wrote:
There was. The only time it didn't seem like there was is if you were severely outclassed in listbuilding. You couldn't just toss together 1850 points worth of models haphazardly and expect to do well against a tournament focused gimmick list or a list built around synergy.

But that's the whole point - so much of 7th was about what army and detachments/formations you used.

It wasn't that some lists had an edge over other lists (that's to be expected), it's that many lists were orders of magnitude stronger than others.

4thDimensionWizard wrote:

This isn't true at all, so long as you were playing against the appropriate skill level of opponents, who constructed the same types of lists(fluffy, competitive, etc.)

But that's the thing - there shouldn't be huge gaps in power between 'fluffy' lists and 'competitive' lists. That's just terrible design.

What's more, this again feeds into what I said - that list building frequently mattered far more than tactics.

You could (and frequently did) end up in situations whereby one list is completely outclassed by the other.

4thDimensionWizard wrote:
Most blowouts I saw were due to a skill disparity between the players. Of course, most players won't say that to the guy who loses, because no one is trying to hurt people's feelings. Most people will just casually agree with said guy's excuses, such as: "Skyhammer is OP". "Yeah, it's pretty buff."

Sorry, but there was a huge disparity in the power level of many units in 7th, which was then further compounded by imbalanced Formations and the like.

Now, if the lists were genuinely balanced, then I agree with you. My point is that this was rarely the case.

(As for Skyhammer, I can't recall ever seeing it used so I have no idea whether it was broken or not.)

4thDimensionWizard wrote:

It's a shame that people take constructive criticism so poorly so often. If the same guy instead responded in a manner attempting to inform the guy who lost how he could have constructed a list to be prepared for null deployment, and how to deploy against a skyhammer or something, said guy would probably be offended, thinking that by offering advice on how to improve his list and/or game, the other guy was claiming superiority over him.

Again, we're having to go back to list-building. That's not tactics. Nor should it give such a large advantage to one army over another.

To be clear, I do agree that advice and constructive criticism is a good thing. I just don't think huge disparities between lists were a point in the game's favour.

Also, I don't consider list building to come under the banner of 'tactics' (maybe strategy). To me, tactics is what you do when you army is actually on the table. And, in that regard, I find 40k quite shallow. Mostly because units just don't have many options (move, run, shoot, charge, maybe use a psychic power). I'm not saying that there were no tactics in 7th, just that they weren't very deep and tended to be overshadowed by list-building.

I mean, the counterexample I'd use for a more tactical game is Warmachine.
- You have to carefully plan the order in which your units activate each turn
- Movement is much most important (weapons tend to have much shorter ranges and exact positioning of models is critical)
- You've got the resource-/risk-management aspect with Focus/Fury.
- You've got various abilities and such (e.g. some might get improved armour for bunching up, but this obviously puts them more at risk of blasts.)
- You have to constantly protect your Warcaster/Warlock above all else.
- You have opportunity attacks (so, for example, if a melee unit is out of charge range you could instead run them into melee with a ranged unit. They can't attack that turn, but the ranged unit will have to either fight with inferior weapons or else pull back and risk one or more attacks in the process. Alternatively, the player could activate a different unit to try and clear the melee units before the ranged units activate. etc.)
- You've got various reposition effects to drag models closer, move them out of the way, hit them into other models etc.

Basically, there's a lot more to think about when the models are actually on the table. Of course, this comes at the cost of having basically no customisation at all, which is a definite drawback.

4thDimensionWizard wrote:

Oh yeah, it's definitely worse. It takes away tactical decisions, like targeting synapse creatures when playing against nids, then targeting nids out of synapse with pinning weapons and things from loss of synapse.

That's a good point, actually.

4thDimensionWizard wrote:
Now that we can't target characters(even the monstrous creature ones), much of target selection is taken away from us.

Actually, I think most Tyranid characters can be targeted (as they have 10+ wounds).

4thDimensionWizard wrote:
There are many, many other cases in 8th where decision-making has been taken away, like with flamer templates no longer existing, thus eliminating the decision on whether to bunch up behind cover to try to make sight lines as small as possible, or string out your squad to lower the number potentially hit by templates. Now it's a no-brainer: Of course you bunch up your squad to eliminate sight lines.

I completely agree.
Back to top Go down
4thDimensionWizard
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 67
Join date : 2017-05-25

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Sat Jun 10 2017, 19:49

The Shredder wrote:

With regard to streamlining, it can (and I'd argue has) go too far.

We agree here.

The Shredder wrote:
4thDimensionWizard wrote:
There was. The only time it didn't seem like there was is if you were severely outclassed in listbuilding. You couldn't just toss together 1850 points worth of models haphazardly and expect to do well against a tournament focused gimmick list or a list built around synergy.

But that's the whole point - so much of 7th was about what army and detachments/formations you used.

It wasn't that some lists had an edge over other lists (that's to be expected), it's that many lists were orders of magnitude stronger than others.

I don't view this as a problem. I think you should be able to make a list that is significantly better than another list of the same points value. Not being able to do so is a weakness of design, in my opinion. If a 10 year old with ADHD can pick 1850 points of models that doesn't do terrible against a well-constructed tournament list built by one of the best players in the game, then list design means nothing, and I don't like that at all.

The Shredder wrote:
4thDimensionWizard wrote:

This isn't true at all, so long as you were playing against the appropriate skill level of opponents, who constructed the same types of lists(fluffy, competitive, etc.)

But that's the thing - there shouldn't be huge gaps in power between 'fluffy' lists and 'competitive' lists. That's just terrible design.

I view "fluffy" lists as lists where someone just picks the models they like the look/fluff of, and makes an army out of them without regard for their rules, while competitive lists focus on making the most rule-efficient army possible. So long as we agree on these definitions of fluffy/competitive, if you still don't think there should be a huge power gap between them, then we'll probably never agree on this point of contention.

The Shredder wrote:
What's more, this again feeds into what I said - that list building frequently mattered far more than tactics.

It mattered, and should matter in my opinion. Whether it mattered more than tactics or not depended on the list-building skill of each player. If both players designed top-notch lists that considered the various powerful things they might face, and put thought into how they would deal with these various things, the result was normally vastly different lists that both had some very good synergy and/or gimmicks, but where how you played them on the tabletop made all the difference, because you both designed good, well thought out lists.

I imagine this would be the case if, for instance, 2 well known and skilled players from here played against one another, like if @TeenageAngst played a competitive match against @BetrayTheWorld. They'd both design good but utterly different lists, and how they used them would be paramount.

The Shredder wrote:
You could (and frequently did) end up in situations whereby one list is completely outclassed by the other.

I never felt like my lists were completely outclassed by someone else. Not once. I did have situations where I faced a player who didn't think list-building was and/or should be a part of the game, and just got dominated by my own list. But I don't think that is a reason to change it. This is a strategy wargame, after all, and unit selection should matter. If this weren't 40k, but rather some sort of WW2 wargame, you wouldn't have a single person arguing otherwise, because making strategic choices for units that synergize well together should be very effective.

The problem is that GW created a tabletop wargame, a genre that is very strategy/tactics focused, then spent 20 years encouraging people to view it less as a strategy game and more like friends playing with toy soldiers in order to broaden the appeal to people who weren't particularly good or interested in becoming good at strategy wargames. They didn't remove the strategy/wargame elements though, because that would lose them the other side. These 2 views are diametrically opposed viewpoints, so virtually anything good for one group is bad for the other, aside from aesthetic or story issues.

The Shredder wrote:
4thDimensionWizard wrote:
Most blowouts I saw were due to a skill disparity between the players. Of course, most players won't say that to the guy who loses, because no one is trying to hurt people's feelings. Most people will just casually agree with said guy's excuses, such as: "Skyhammer is OP". "Yeah, it's pretty buff."

Sorry, but there was a huge disparity in the power level of many units in 7th, which was then further compounded by imbalanced Formations and the like.

Right, but no one forces you to field an underpowered unit. In every other strategy/wargame in the world, doing so is considered a failing of the person who did it. I agree that all units should be good at something. There shouldn't be any units that are complete and utter crap. But there should be meaningful differences between units to facilitate creative thinking and choice. This automatically creates the possibility of one list being able to be significantly better than another. And in my opinion, that's how it should be. I don't think a brainless list thrown together by flipping a coin for unit selection should be able to fare even remotely well against a well-constructed, "pro-built" list.


The Shredder wrote:
4thDimensionWizard wrote:

It's a shame that people take constructive criticism so poorly so often. If the same guy instead responded in a manner attempting to inform the guy who lost how he could have constructed a list to be prepared for null deployment, and how to deploy against a skyhammer or something, said guy would probably be offended, thinking that by offering advice on how to improve his list and/or game, the other guy was claiming superiority over him.

Again, we're having to go back to list-building. That's not tactics. Nor should it give such a large advantage to one army over another.

I just don't think huge disparities between lists were a point in the game's favour.

Yeah, as stated, we disagree on this point.

The Shredder wrote:
Also, I don't consider list building to come under the banner of 'tactics' (maybe strategy).

I don't think it matters whether we call it strategy or tactics. We play a tabletop strategy wargame.

The Shredder wrote:
To me, tactics is what you do when you army is actually on the table. And, in that regard, I find 40k quite shallow. Mostly because units just don't have many options (move, run, shoot, charge, maybe use a psychic power). I'm not saying that there were no tactics in 7th, just that they weren't very deep and tended to be overshadowed by list-building.

I think you're oversimplifying what you could do in 7th edition 40k here. Each one of those things(run, shoot, move, charge, psychic powers) has absolutely tons of sub-options. How you space your units when moving, when and where to run/turbo-boost, choosing who and when to shoot or charge, weighing which psychic powers to cast when, and how many dice to use...there are probably thousands of decisions made in every 1850 point game of 7th edition 40k after lists are built. Do some people make those decisions without really thinking about it? Sure. Do other people put thought into it, but make it look effortless? Definitely.

I think if you don't see 7th ed 40k as a deep tactical experience, you're probably not looking hard enough, or you're playing against people who are outclassing you with their lists. The thing is, with access to the internet, it's not difficult to up your listbuilding game. If people just don't want to improve their list-building because it would take too much time, or require buying more models, that is a different problem entirely. And I don't think the game itself should be compromised to cater to people who just don't want to invest much in list building.

I think if they would have kept 7th as is, but just tweaked some things and added the "power level" system for people who didn't want to put too much time into making their lists, it would have been better. 8th edition is oversimplified to the point where I feel like it's "Warhammer 40k: Toddler Edition".

I'd have been fine if they made the current system a separate, easier way to play for people who didn't want to be bothered with the more complex sort of system that was 7th edition. But the oversimplification bleeds into what they consider competitive play, and it doesn't improve the game in any meaningful way for people who like strategy and tactics.


The Shredder wrote:
4thDimensionWizard wrote:
There are many, many other cases in 8th where decision-making has been taken away, like with flamer templates no longer existing, thus eliminating the decision on whether to bunch up behind cover to try to make sight lines as small as possible, or string out your squad to lower the number potentially hit by templates. Now it's a no-brainer: Of course you bunch up your squad to eliminate sight lines.

I completely agree.

Well, decision-making in the game basically is tactics, so it seems like you at least agree that in that regard that 8th edition has become a less tactical game.

It's entirely possible that you and I don't want the same thing out of the game. There is nothing wrong with that, and it's not either of our faults. GW made a game in a genre I like(tabletop wargaming), but then said a lot of non-rule things to encourage people who weren't specifically interested in those types of games to become their customers. That has created a situation where a portion of their customer base wants a vastly different experience than the other portion of their customer base. And they can't seem to come up with a tiered system that each side is happy with. It's all either overly complex for one side, or overly simple for the other.

_________________
"Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice."


Last edited by 4thDimensionWizard on Sat Jun 10 2017, 20:01; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Calyptra
Wych
avatar

Posts : 698
Join date : 2013-03-25
Location : Boston

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Sat Jun 10 2017, 19:59

I haven't read any of the rules or army lists for 8th - I'll need books to be able to do that - so I have no opinion on it. But I do have a couple general thoughts/opinions.

I dislike it when a game's depth is primarily in list-building. First, I spend a lot of time assembling and painting my models, so the number of options I have to play with will necessarily be small. A game which punishes players for immersing themselves in what is arguably the point of the hobby (even if it isn't the main focus for everybody) seems problematic. (For context, I spend 1-2 hours a day painting; painting a space elf takes me about 10 hours. I am not doing this wrong. We use models instead of cardboard tokens for a reason.)

Second, I prefer games in which the depth occurs on the table, during gameplay, because I want the game to be an interactive experience. A game in which players see who can build the best windup toy ahead of time just seems a bit like competitive solitaire.

I think Warmachine is a vastly better game than 40k; I came back to 40k because of Warmachine's limited hobby opportunities (when all characters are special characters, you can't make an army and set of heroes that are really your own).

_________________
Dark Eldar plog: Drug-Crazed Space Elves
Vampire Counts plog: Bat Country
Back to top Go down
4thDimensionWizard
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 67
Join date : 2017-05-25

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Sat Jun 10 2017, 20:25

Calyptra wrote:
I haven't read any of the rules or army lists for 8th - I'll need books to be able to do that - so I have no opinion on it. But I do have a couple general thoughts/opinions.

I dislike it when a game's depth is primarily in list-building. First, I spend a lot of time assembling and painting my models, so the number of options I have to play with will necessarily be small. A game which punishes players for immersing themselves in what is arguably the point of the hobby (even if it isn't the main focus for everybody) seems problematic. (For context, I spend 1-2 hours a day painting; painting a space elf takes me about 10 hours. I am not doing this wrong. We use models instead of cardboard tokens for a reason.)

I understand your perspective but don't share it. I wouldn't mind using pre-assembled, pre-painted models. For me, the point of the game is the game. Assembling and painting models is a tax paid to play the game.

But again, I do understand and am empathetic to your perspective. That's why I'm not opposed to a tiered "2-3 ways to play" system in which people who aren't as interested in list development and complexity are able to play and use their models, while people interested in a deeper gaming experience that involves multiple levels of strategy and tactics also have an option. It seems like that is what GW was going for with the "3 ways to play" system. I just think they failed in creating the more strategic tier.

Calyptra wrote:
Second, I prefer games in which the depth occurs on the table, during gameplay, because I want the game to be an interactive experience. A game in which players see who can build the best windup toy ahead of time just seems a bit like competitive solitaire.

I think Warmachine is a vastly better game than 40k; I came back to 40k because of Warmachine's limited hobby opportunities (when all characters are special characters, you can't make an army and set of heroes that are really your own).

Again, I understand your perspective but don't share it completely. I do like depth on the table, but 7th had that. Tabletop depth and listbuilding depth aren't mutually exclusive. It does suck that GW products are so expensive and time-consuming to get into a playable state. Were that not the case, I think many people would feel differently about list-building. If you could design a brand new 1850 list, then buy it all pre-painted for less than $100, people would probably feel better about list-building being a part of the game.

But since they are expensive and time-consuming, I feel like there are a lot of people who have a personal financial and time disincentive to encourage deep list-building opportunities as a part of the game. Myself, being a strategy purist, I can't allow time or financial factors to influence my opinion of what makes a game good or not. I judge the game itself, with zero consideration for the practicality of assembling and painting the models necessary to facilitate it.

As far as I'm concerned, once you have a good game, you can concern yourself with how to make models affordable and easier to access for a wider audience. But that doesn't seem to be the approach GW is taking.

I thought 7th edition was basically getting better and better ever since it released. Then they did a reset and came out with such a bland, barebones game that I can't be bothered to want to play it at all. So my thousands of dollars in models are largely going to waste at this point.

To be honest, I expect that I'll end up selling all of my 40k models during this edition, unless the price of 40k models nose-dives on ebay. If it does, however, I'll know that GWs sales are probably similarly effected, so I'll just hang onto them till they improve the system.

I'll probably give it 6 months or so to see how it evolves.

_________________
"Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice."
Back to top Go down
Jim_the_archon
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 43
Join date : 2017-01-30
Location : England

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Sat Jun 10 2017, 21:17

Goes to show that people want different things out of the game, for me it's always been the lore of the 40k universe I find most appealing and try and build my lists as thematically to that lore as I can. My problem is that I see anything below 3000 points as a essentially a border skirmish so I'd bring my fluffy list (which if gw were doing their job right SHOULD be competitive or they're saying that "actually this faction is crap the way it's historically recorded to fight and really should have been wiped out by now lol") to a 1500 point game and end up playing against some dick head who has more disposable income than God and has squeezed as many knights as he can into his 1500 list. As I said at 3000+ where by the lore I'd expect to see this kind of force I'd be prepared to deal with it (remember I'm traditionally a grey knight player because of my love of their 4th edition lore and they're not great at dealing with armour at the best of times nevermind that many superheavies) it's because of players like that I stopped playing in stores and just stated playing with a like minded group of people who also love building thematic armies rather than building a list to win at all costs. I actually stop having fun if I'm stomping my opponents army into the ground with very little threat to my army, that's no fun for them, which makes it no fun for me. This is a two plus player game you should both be having fun or you may as well just pay a computer game
Back to top Go down
Calyptra
Wych
avatar

Posts : 698
Join date : 2013-03-25
Location : Boston

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Sat Jun 10 2017, 22:35

@4thDimensionWizard

Your fun's definitely not wrong, and especially with something as big and complicated as 40k, different people are certainly going to get different things out of it.

Using not just models, but models that are contextually open-ended for players to rebuild and personalize is a clear design choice. GW has explicitly stated again and again that the intended use for their product is to make awesome models that are uniquely yours and then play narrative games with them. While it's just fine for players to interact with 40k differently than that, I expect GW to stick to that mission statement. Their product should not interfere with its own use.

GW's elaborate model kits come attached to elaborate painting guides, and they also produce and release extensive hobby tutorials and supplies. They also spotlight higher caliber painting and modeling with White Dwarf and other publications, with the Golden Demon, and so on. If you are spending a lot of time lovingly painting and assembling your models, you're doing what GW says you should be doing with them. It is a problem if they make choices counter to that fundamental premise.

As for listbuilding versus gameplay decisions, I didn't intend to make a statement regarding 7th ed. I was just trying to say that an emphasis on listbuilding over gameplay is uninteresting to me personally in a game, and seems somewhat counter to a type of game that expects you to spend a lot of time assembling and painting things.

_________________
Dark Eldar plog: Drug-Crazed Space Elves
Vampire Counts plog: Bat Country
Back to top Go down
 
rant about GW and play testers
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 6 of 19Go to page : Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 12 ... 19  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
THE DARK CITY :: 

GENERAL DARK ELDAR DISCUSSION

 :: Dark Eldar Discussion
-
Jump to: