|
Post by seanster3000 on Oct 17, 2014 2:23:10 GMT
I play pure unmodified Maelstrom of War and I love it. Some games I win, and some games I lose. To me it's not the resolution but the journey. I lost 4-17 yesterday and still had fun playing a friend. His army was decimated while my was still pretty good. I could have won by tabling him but chose not to, I guess I'm a "care-bear."
I will say though, in an environment that focuses on nothing but wins, losses, and records pure maelstrom is likely not the best mission type to play as it can be "too random." What am I saying this is the internet maelstrom is awful!
|
|
|
Post by tag8833 on Oct 17, 2014 3:46:28 GMT
Should have been 4+ for Zooming / Swooping things, and 5+ for everything else.This change created as many problems as it solved. I haven't found that to be the case. I haven't hear anyone screaming about jink being OP. Jink was a huge bonus to Annihilation Barges and Wave Serpents. 2 of the 3 tourneys I've been to in 7th have ended with Wave Serpent spam vs Annihilation Barge spam. I'm expecting the tourney I'm TO'ing in a week to come down to Riptide Spam vs Annihilation Barge Spam, and that is only because there don't seem to be any wave serpent armies coming, and only 1 Necron player that I expect to run multiple Annihilation Barges. You can't actually do that. They can't take different tactics unless they are taking more than one detachment. That get's pricey really quickly. While I can understand your point, this is no worse than it was before. Before we couldn't even have allies, now we can ally with ourselves. Space marines cannot take the same chapter tactic in more than one detachment. Your example would require 4 detachments. If someone wants to take 4 HQs and 8 troops, have at it just to get 4 tactics, have at it. They won't know what their army is trying to do. You are correct about chapter tactics. It is in the Space Marine FAQ. However, the ability to mix and match sources so long as they are in the same faction is still a mess. You are wrong about being able ally with ourselves. The Rules for Allied Detachments: "All units chosen must be a different Faction to any of the units in your Primary Detachment" Of Course most people don't play by the rules because they suck, so most people allow self allying, but that is a house rule that is directly against RAW. Most importantly you are wrong on a much more abstract level. The 7th Edition army compensation rules encourage spam. Spam is bad for 40k.
|
|
|
Post by Jabberwocky on Oct 17, 2014 6:37:12 GMT
Tag, jink was hardly a huge boost to wave serpents. They went from a 4+ save with holo fields firing at full BS, to 3+ save with holo fields snap shooting, which greatly reduces their damage output. Tesla however does love to snapshoot so anni barges definitely gained overall.
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Oct 17, 2014 11:45:09 GMT
You are wrong about being able ally with ourselves. The Rules for Allied Detachments: "All units chosen must be a different Faction to any of the units in your Primary Detachment" Of Course most people don't play by the rules because they suck, so most people allow self allying, but that is a house rule that is directly against RAW. Correct. I misspoke. You can, however, take multiple CADs, which I why I stated 4 HQs and 8 Troops in SM example, not 4 HQs and 4 troops. So spam is a new thing? Not really following you on this one. Spam is not an abstract concept either. Do people take multiples of the best units in their lists? We all know they do and observation of lists can empirically prove this, it's not an abstract concept at all. It's easier to say someone is wrong on an abstract level because you don't have to then back up the statement. The way to discourage spam is to make all units viable options. Whether or not "encouraging spam" is bad for the game is entirely subjective. What you should have said is "It's my opinion that you are wrong on a much more subjective level". (edit: I'm just poking fun, since internet can't communicate tone I put the smiley face to show that I'm just trying to be good humored, not start a war. I may very well be wrong, but it's still the opinion I hold.) Multiple CADs did nothing to build on spam, it actually gave armies like Tyranids ways to combat spam that already existed. Spam is not a 7th edition problem, it's a game balance issue, which wasn't, as you may have observed, one of the things I quoted as getting better. Think about this. Eldar could take 9 Wave Serpents and 3 Wraithknights in a single CAD list (provided you have the points). How exactly does multiple CADs make this worse? Armies would still struggle even if we returned to the old FOC rules. Why bring this up? Because it illustrates that the issue is balance, not CADs. I stand by my claim that multiple CADs makes the game better. Now I can imagine a list with 15 Hive Guard and still have room for a malanthrope. Wave serpents are no longer a concept I can't get past.
|
|
|
Post by tag8833 on Oct 17, 2014 14:38:09 GMT
So spam is a new thing? Not really following you on this one. Spam is not an abstract concept either. Do people take multiples of the best units in their lists? We all know they do and observation of lists can empirically prove this, it's not an abstract concept at all. It's easier to say someone is wrong on an abstract level because you don't have to then back up the statement. The way to discourage spam is to make all units viable options. Whether or not "encouraging spam" is bad for the game is entirely subjective. What you should have said is "It's my opinion that you are wrong on a much more subjective level". (edit: I'm just poking fun, since internet can't communicate tone I put the smiley face to show that I'm just trying to be good humored, not start a war. I may very well be wrong, but it's still the opinion I hold.) Multiple CADs did nothing to build on spam, it actually gave armies like Tyranids ways to combat spam that already existed. Spam is not a 7th edition problem, it's a game balance issue, which wasn't, as you may have observed, one of the things I quoted as getting better. Think about this. Eldar could take 9 Wave Serpents and 3 Wraithknights in a single CAD list (provided you have the points). How exactly does multiple CADs make this worse? Armies would still struggle even if we returned to the old FOC rules. Why bring this up? Because it illustrates that the issue is balance, not CADs. I stand by my claim that multiple CADs makes the game better. Now I can imagine a list with 15 Hive Guard and still have room for a malanthrope. Wave serpents are no longer a concept I can't get past. Spam isn't abstract. The abstract part of it is that Spam is bad for 40k which. Spam existed before. You could take 3 Annihilation barges before. Now you can take 9. Spam existed before. You could take 3 Flyrants before. Now you can take 6. Spam existed before. You could take 3 Heldrakes. Now you can take 6. Spam existed before. You could take 3 Space Marine HQs. Now you can take 6. Eldar, Demons, and Tau had ways to spam their top units before (Wave Serpents, Demon Princes, Riptides). And behold they were the kings of the meta before. Now everyone has ways to spam their top units, that isn't an improvement, and it isn't good for 40k. Spam was a problem in 6th edition. It is a much worse problem in 7th, thankfully very few people actually play using the rule book army composition rules, and while ignoring the book army composition rules is definitely good for 40K, I don't know how you could claim that the book army comp rules are an improvement.
|
|
|
Post by Mauler on Oct 17, 2014 15:12:43 GMT
I like 7th edition; it's great for casual games and harks back to the early days of Rogue Trader in a way. If you want to play a siege game then you can. Armoured company vs entrenched defenders? Yup. It's a great framework for coming up with varied games and campaigns. Tourney play needs some guidelines to make things a bit more controlled but then I see 40k as a framework designed to allow that kind of extra control (ie - you can restrict stuff like allies and warp charge dice without it breaking anything fundamental) while not being designed to lean towards tournament play.
A more restrictive allies chart & pre-approval of Unbound lists are good changes. Some of the gameplay changes I'm perfectly OK with; the flat -2" to charging through cover is far less faffing about estimating charge results, single grounding test on a wound, extra result on the vehicle chart & immob changes, weapon wound pools, the psychic phase, psychic focus, jink changes, walkers getting HOW, challenge wounds carrying over onto a unit, all stuff that's logical and makes sense. Not so cool are the skewed wound allocation to Swarms from blasts & templates, still the flat I1 to charging through terrain, non-existant ruin/building blast/levels rules, no focus fire, assault wounds carrying over into a challenge (so what was the point in challening?), night-fighting having far less impact...but on the whole the game itself is for the better.
I'm very much OK with 7th for the most part, it's more the lack of options in our codex that annoys me more than anything.
|
|
|
Post by biomassbob on Oct 17, 2014 15:39:56 GMT
So spam is a new thing? Not really following you on this one. Spam is not an abstract concept either. Do people take multiples of the best units in their lists? We all know they do and observation of lists can empirically prove this, it's not an abstract concept at all. It's easier to say someone is wrong on an abstract level because you don't have to then back up the statement. The way to discourage spam is to make all units viable options. Whether or not "encouraging spam" is bad for the game is entirely subjective. What you should have said is "It's my opinion that you are wrong on a much more subjective level". (edit: I'm just poking fun, since internet can't communicate tone I put the smiley face to show that I'm just trying to be good humored, not start a war. I may very well be wrong, but it's still the opinion I hold.) Multiple CADs did nothing to build on spam, it actually gave armies like Tyranids ways to combat spam that already existed. Spam is not a 7th edition problem, it's a game balance issue, which wasn't, as you may have observed, one of the things I quoted as getting better. Think about this. Eldar could take 9 Wave Serpents and 3 Wraithknights in a single CAD list (provided you have the points). How exactly does multiple CADs make this worse? Armies would still struggle even if we returned to the old FOC rules. Why bring this up? Because it illustrates that the issue is balance, not CADs. I stand by my claim that multiple CADs makes the game better. Now I can imagine a list with 15 Hive Guard and still have room for a malanthrope. Wave serpents are no longer a concept I can't get past. Spam isn't abstract. The abstract part of it is that Spam is bad for 40k which. Spam existed before. You could take 3 Annihilation barges before. Now you can take 9. Spam existed before. You could take 3 Flyrants before. Now you can take 6. Spam existed before. You could take 3 Heldrakes. Now you can take 6. Spam existed before. You could take 3 Space Marine HQs. Now you can take 6. Eldar, Demons, and Tau had ways to spam their top units before (Wave Serpents, Demon Princes, Riptides). And behold they were the kings of the meta before. Now everyone has ways to spam their top units, that isn't an improvement, and it isn't good for 40k. Spam was a problem in 6th edition. It is a much worse problem in 7th, thankfully very few people actually play using the rule book army composition rules, and while ignoring the book army composition rules is definitely good for 40K, I don't know how you could claim that the book army comp rules are an improvement. mattblowers, I agree that game balance is a huge issue with 40k, but tags point about spam is bang on IMO. Yes we had spam and that wasn't ideal - but now it is worse. Certainly I appreciate that a player may need to spam units to fight other nasty builds out there (due to a poorly balanced dex) and having that ability in the current mess may be an advantage. A hive tyrant used to control a vast amount of forces - the "essence of the hive mind". For the size of game there really should only be one in an army but nids needed 2 (and GW wanted to sell more kits), and now 3-4 can be seen. I don't see that as moving forward in a good direction for the game/fluff. The problem is game balance and a set of rules that are a mess. GW needs to do a complete re-write of the basic game rules and then put serious effort into trying to balance the dexes internally and externally. For me 7th just takes things in the wrong direction and that makes the 2 biggest problems with 40k worse. Can you have fun and interesting games? Of course. But 40k desperately needs an overhaul so the rules aren't so clunky and counter-intuitive. It is a systme that just gets tweaked a bit and new things thrown in. Is it a skirmish game or company level or higher? If GW weren't ready (or didn't care) to do a rules overhaul I at least hoped they would try to put effort into reigning/tweaking the broken/absurd/messed up rules to slowly go in a good direction for the game - not make the mess worse. 8th edition cannot come soon enough!
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Oct 17, 2014 16:02:00 GMT
It's my thinking that spamming isn't a 7th edition issue, it's a balance issue. People take multiple annihilation barges because they are so cost efficient. Same for flyrants. You could take 5 Lictors for the same price, but they wouldn't be as good or as reliable. That's a balance issue not a FOC problem. I think the current system is better than it was in the 6th. If you can point to more spamming in tournaments, then you have evidence that it got worse in the 7th. I don't think you can. Eldar is still top, Tau seems to have dropped a bit, SM seem a bit stronger, and the rest kinda muddled around where they were. Other than feeling like it's worse, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that 7th made spamming worse which was your contention. 8th edition cannot come soon enough! (please do not swear)!! I hope not. You want quarterly $100 rulebooks?! There is no indication that GW has figured how to fix it and I can't believe things would get any better.
|
|
|
Post by tag8833 on Oct 17, 2014 16:15:08 GMT
It's my thinking that spamming isn't a 7th edition issue, it's a balance issue. People take multiple annihilation barges because they are so cost efficient. Same for flyrants. You could take 5 Lictors for the same price, but they wouldn't be as good or as reliable. That's a balance issue not a FOC problem. I think the current system is better than it was in the 6th. If you can point to more spamming in tournaments, then you have evidence that it got worse in the 7th. I don't think you can. Eldar is still top, Tau seems to have dropped a bit, SM seem a bit stronger, and the rest kinda muddled around where they were. Other than feeling like it's worse, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that 7th made spamming worse which was your contention. FOC is an important part of balancing things. We accept that 40k is built by having different classes of things, and different counters to those classes. A few classes I might list: Light Infantry Elite Infantry Monstrous Creatures Light Mech Heavy Mech Fliers If a FOC allows you to take an army that is nothing but fliers it encourages unfun games because they will be decided before the game is started. Unless you opponent happens to take a list that is all anti-flyer, or your fliers don't have counters to his all Elite Infantry army, then you've got a problem. FOC is what is supposed to prevent people from running unbalanced lists by spamming a few niche units in hopes of overloading the counters to that class of unit available to other armies. Now you could balance the game by making everything a roughly equal counter to every class of unit, but that wouldn't be as fun or dynamic either. Therefore if you want balance you've got to limit the ratio of certain classes of units in peoples lists to keep the games fun and meaningful. Spam in tournaments is certainly a problem, but somewhat irrelevant, because I have never heard of a tournament that uses the 7th edition army composition rules out of the book without some modification, and we are discussing the rules out of the book, not the modified army comp rules of Tournament A or Tournament B.
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Oct 17, 2014 16:24:57 GMT
FOC is an important part of balancing things. We accept that 40k is built by having different classes of things, and different counters to those classes. A few classes I might list: Light Infantry Elite Infantry Monstrous Creatures Light Mech Heavy Mech Fliers If a FOC allows you to take an army that is nothing but fliers it encourages unfun games because they will be decided before the game is started. Unless you opponent happens to take a list that is all anti-flyer, or your fliers don't have counters to his all Elite Infantry army, then you've got a problem. FOC is what is supposed to prevent people from running unbalanced lists by spamming a few niche units in hopes of overloading the counters to that class of unit available to other armies. Now you could balance the game by making everything a roughly equal counter to every class of unit, but that wouldn't be as fun or dynamic either. Therefore if you want balance you've got to limit the ratio of certain classes of units in peoples lists to keep the games fun and meaningful. I completely agree with you. (Imagine that.) I just don't see that 7th made said issue worse. At least for fun games (you're correct, we should drop tournaments as they don't use the rulebook for FOC, which means TOs can fix 40K issues if they really want to.) I've found the new FOC to be better, but that's probably more to do with my primary army being Tyranids. Hive guard are a great answer to wave serpent spam but don't work with only 1 unit and in a single CAD I can't afford 2 elite slots to them. Another CAD lets me run 3 units (I'm gonna try 5 for (please do not swear) and giggles). I don't have more than 2 flyrants and so multiple CADs doesn't really do anything. Genestealers work ok, but don't become viable without multiple detachments. I like gargoyles, but almost always run 2 Crone, multiple CAD alllows me to do that. None of those is spamming OP units, but trying to counter them. Let me be more precise: 7th edition FOC is better for Tyranids than was the 6th. The other problems are still there, but I don't see it as a 7th edition FOC problem.
|
|
|
Post by biomassbob on Oct 17, 2014 17:12:48 GMT
8th edition cannot come soon enough! (please do not swear)!! I hope not. You want quarterly $100 rulebooks?! There is no indication that GW has figured how to fix it and I can't believe things would get any better. My wish for 8th edition is not because I want to pay more money faster for a bad product. Option 1: At this point I have to hope that GW realizes the mess they have created, that their rules and balance are poor and therefore 40K is a poor game but could be a really good game. Hopefully GW sees that by producing a good game (good balance and a good, solid rule system) they can increase sales as many older players come back along with new players building new armies, expanding on old armies and adding additional armies to their shelves. Happy customers means less complaints in forums/clubs and helps grow the hobby (I would warn anyone away from this game right now). This is a faint hope at this point. Option 2: GW puts out 8th edition and it is still a huge mess - another money grab with high prices and poor balance and rules. A lot more players get annoyed and are no longer willing to tolerate the poor quality and prop up the company by continuing to buy product while grumbling. Continued loss of customers and less new ones sends GW into a tail spin - hopefully not taking too long. Then another company buys the IP and makes 40K into a good game (yes this is another faint hope but seems more likely than the first option) - I will probably be dead before either of these things happen but you need to have hope.
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Oct 17, 2014 17:34:36 GMT
Happy customers means less complaints in forums Less hope for that than that GW brings balance to the game. Joking aside, I still have the most fun with 40K over any other system. It's a great hobby I would encourage anyone any gamertype, to try.
|
|
|
Post by Mauler on Oct 17, 2014 19:47:50 GMT
See chaps, the above exchange kinda illustrates my point. While I preferred the days of 0-x limits on units, now the game is mostly about trusting fellow players to balance the game instead of it devolving into cheesemonger warfare. A gentlemen's agreement, if you will. Unfortunately because WAAC/TFGs flock to tourneys this is where things unravel a bit.
It's not too hard for TOs or groups to give spam the boot, sometimes it's as simple as "No more than two transports with a base cost of at least 100pts" & "Every HS/FA/Elite slot requires a different unit". Spam is thwarted. If people really want to have some leeway then just make the restrictions per detachment, that way an HQ & 2xTroop cost is imposed, or something similar.
|
|
|
Post by seanster3000 on Oct 17, 2014 19:58:23 GMT
I can't agree with Mauler enough! I would so love to go back to the 0-x days but I feel that that train left the station for good. Spam, in my opinion, is just as bad as it's always been. Look at the top tourney lists all they are all spam lists. Hence my aversion to tournaments lol! Just my 2 cents. Mauler I wish you lived in the States you sound like my kind of player!
|
|
|
Post by Mauler on Oct 17, 2014 20:07:39 GMT
Ha!! Thanks man, I just don't see the talent in spamming a certain unit to gain leaverage over an opponent's weakness. Just seems creppily cheap to me.
|
|