Played against New SM book..... Im done with DE for now.

Like spending warp charges.

CptMetal wrote:

Like spending warp charges.

Except without the 5 buckets of random.

And without any reason for the psyker to actually conserve his warp tokens an/or use them elsewhere.

Barking Agatha wrote:

mrbenis wrote:

...little kids who aren't good at all can still come out breaking even or even winning against better players and better lists...

mrbenis wrote:

...GW doesn't want you to always beat the kids...

mrbenis wrote:

...enduring association with little kids...

Children playing games? Horrors! Pushing little men around a tabletop is obviously an activity for mature adults that has no place in it for grubby little urchins. Seriously though, whence comes this contempt for kids? I don't know about you, but I used to be one, back when dinosaurs walked the earth. Most of us began gaming as children, our hands and faces always sticky with jam somehow, even when we hadn't eaten any jam. It helped us to develop into the clever, charming, and sexually attractive adults we are today.

We need to get kids playing these games if the hobby is to survive to another generation. Otherwise they'll all grow up grumpy and dull of mind, and become estate agents, corporate lawyers, and mid-level managers. Is that what you want?

I'm personally not disappointed with the current state of 40K at all. I think it's the best that it's ever been, it's just that my favourite faction has been excluded from this Rennaisance. GW has completely lost interest in all things Dark Eldar. Even their line of miniatures is gone from stores. This isn't the first time that has happened, but it's still disappointing.

Even so, I'm pretty sure I could still beat a child, if that were any consolation!

I don't have contempt for the kids, I have contempt for this game being dumbed down to appeal to a broader audience which is something it didn't need since tons of kids and teenagers bought the products already. GW has officially moved away from being a games company because of this; they know their game can't withstand scrutiny so they handwave it away.

It's no secret; without the GAME portion of 40k they'd have far fewer customers. It's also noteworthy that as little as 18 months ago their annual financial report smugly boasted they (paraphrasing) 'do not collect customer feedback', that they 'know what their customer base wants' even though they now earn as little money as they did in 2007. Funnily enough they've now started collecting customer feedback. Probably because it has at last been made unavoidable due to forecasts of closure within 10 years.

So this game makes everyone with an impressionable mind feel like a complete badass, just look at the gross verbosity used inside EVERY codex, EVERY fluff piece. It's nauseating for me and completely strips itself of any credibility because there is so much thesaurus abuse in each paragraph. I don't think there is enough room in a codex for so much crap but somehow they squeeze it in - all these loosely tied together events with a hair-string narrative and a desensitising glut of rich language. FW does it better - their books are tied to events and follow a cohesive plot with in most cases a beginning, middle and end, compared to GW's inhouse efforts which rub off to me as bullshit vertical slices that do a disservice to each army by drowning their character and culture under an ocean of anecdotal historical events. We don't learn anything about these factions aside from the already universally known stuff and then get told they are badasses and these are the events that prove how/why for 30 pages.

You know what this game needs more than -just simply more kids- buying and playing? It needs more adults, like Fritz and Jake the Mountain, guys who are actually socially adjusted and fun to be around, people who actually have their own disposable income to use on luxury products like tabletop miniatures. People who can rationally debate certain points without getting lost in a maze of relativism. I really hope you *enjoy* playing against all those kids because that's what you'll be getting more of until the games internal consistency is taken seriously and actually balanced towards people.

Did you actually watch the video? He even says too many random elements in game disproportionately favours weaker players (in video games and board games [and by extension tabletop games]) because it lowers the skill ceiling and undermines the power of skill by literally scamming you out of situations where you should have won.

mrbenis wrote:

I don't have contempt for the kids, I have contempt for this game being dumbed down to appeal to a broader audience...

A broader audience is a good thing for everyone but the snobbish.

mrbenis wrote:

... just look at the gross verbosity used inside EVERY codex, EVERY fluff piece. It's nauseating for me and completely strips itself of any credibility because there is so much thesaurus abuse in each paragraph.

'twas ever thus. I still have my copy of the old Rogue Trader, and it pretty much set the style.

mrbenis wrote:

You know what this game needs more than -just simply more kids- buying and playing? It needs more adults, like Fritz and Jake the Mountain...

No. I hate to break it to Fritz and Jake the Mountain, whoever they may be when they're at home, but they're going to grow old and eventually die (though hopefully not any time soon). If you limit the game to just Fritzes and Jakes and Mountains then one day 40K will just be a room full of wrinkled ancients holding up their miniatures in their shaking hands, blinking at them in confusion, and wondering what the hell they are. Kids are the next generation, as they have always been. We had our turn, now it's theirs!

I agree that GW needs to attract new customers and that those customers will, at least in theory, be kids. So they write rules that appeal to kids and make models that appeal to kids. Only problem is that they price the rules and models for anything other than kids! I'm an adult in a reasonably well paid job but with a wife, 2 kids, house and car I sure don't have the disposable income to afford to start something like 40K. I have to think hard about whether I want to buy any new models these days and, in general, the answer is no. There are much better ways for me to spend my money, even within the wargaming market.

If one of my kids (well, when they're older) wanted to start 40K and asked me for say, 1000 points of models, the rules, a codex, some paints, brushes, tools etc I'd be looking at well over £250 (retail) and that's taking advantage of the savings from Dark Vengeance but without any scenery and with a limited choice of models/units and a low point force. Or I could pick up an entire army for X-Wing, Warmahordes or Infinity for <£100 with free rules available from the manufacturers website. No contest!

Another point is that you don't want to make rules for kids which will drive away your veteran players - since it'll usually be those veteran players who actually attract new players, teach them the game etc.

And, Count Adhemar is entirely correct - the starting costs for 40k are beyond ludicrous. £50 for a rulebook, £30 for a codex. That's already £80 and we haven't bought a single model. That sort of price would be hard to justify even if the models were really cheap. But, since this is GW, the models too are stupidly expensive.

It seems like GW is making a concious effort to force customers away.

The starting costs are a problem. The kids are not. What was your age when you started? I sure as hell was a kid. Kids start with used miniatures and stuff like that. My self made necromunda terrain was crappy but awesome!

I didn't have to get a full army but a necromunda gang.

Maybe that's why they resurrect specialist games

CptMetal wrote:

The starting costs are a problem. The kids are not.

I don't know if that's in reference to my post or not, but I agree that kids aren't a problem.

The problem comes when the game tries to cater to kids at the expense of veteran players, if you see what I mean. You don't want to start forcing out the players who'll attract new players to the game, get them interested, show them the ropes and such. Especially when your own advertising lies somewhere between 'bugger' and 'all'.

CptMetal wrote:

What was your age when you started?

Weirdly, I can't actually remember when I started 40k. I know it was near the end of 3rd, but I don't remember the exact year or how old I was. I'm pretty sure I was still a kid at the time though, if that's any help.

CptMetal wrote:

Kids start with used miniatures and stuff like that.

Perhaps, perhaps not. In any event, I'm not sure the possibility of kids buying second-hand miniatures is a point in GW's favour. It's a bit like saying the rules are well-priced if you get them via torrent.

Barking Agatha wrote:

A broader audience is a good thing for everyone but the snobbish.

Even call of duty sells less every iteration due to this fascinating trend. It DID work, but they didn't know when to stop and now they can't capitalise on their old customers while they exploit the new ones.

Quote :

'twas ever thus. I still have my copy of the old Rogue Trader, and it pretty much set the style.

Good for you! I'd prefer them to stick with things like "Rebirth" as written by Gavin Thorpe.

Quote :

mrbenis wrote:

You know what this game needs more than -just simply more kids- buying and playing? It needs more adults, like Fritz and Jake the Mountain...

No. I hate to break it to Fritz and Jake the Mountain, whoever they may be when they're at home, but they're going to grow old and eventually die (though hopefully not any time soon). If you limit the game to just Fritzes and Jakes and Mountains then one day 40K will just be a room full of wrinkled ancients holding up their miniatures in their shaking hands, blinking at them in confusion, and wondering what the hell they are. Kids are the next generation, as they have always been. We had our turn, now it's theirs!

Woah slow down there - you're tredding on logical fallacy land here.

I never said to make the game just about adults.
You're envoking the slippery slope trope with your comment about wrinkled ancients. Stop that.
Kids will be the people who take over the hobby when they supply their own currency to fund their models and extras. Until then the person coughing up the cash is the adults - and if the adult is compelled to reject the game then you lose.

What problem do you have with acknowledging that 40k has been simplified in terms of player to player interaction? Needing to remember 500 rules with some of them having random outcomes (and with those random outcomes becoming even more random just between 6th -> 7th edition, see vehicle damage for just one example) is tedious and separates players from each other.

I'm not even going to elucidate on the age gap thing, you're being facetious and it's tiresome.

How many of you have set up your army for a game and realized that your actual models, dated from the time you purchased them, are older than your opponent?

...

I was going to make a joke about some of my miniatures being old enough to vote, but then I did some math and realized I that I got my marine Terminators 25 years ago. I'm, um, gonna go. Drink. And yell at someone for being on my lawn. (I'm kidding, of course. I live in a city. We don't have lawns.)

Calyptra wrote:

How many of you have set up your army for a game and realized that your actual models, dated from the time you purchased them, are older than your opponent?

*raises hand*

In fairness, that's mostly against my nephew, who I managed to drag in to my 40k obsession.  I mean, I had to do something with all those dark angels models that came in the last 2 edition box sets didn't I?

The sad thing is I have to pull every trick in the book to beat him anymore just because his list is so much stronger than the dark kin's.

mrbenis wrote:

I'd prefer... written by Gavin Thorpe.

Oh.

Oh, dear.

mrbenis wrote:

You're being facetious and it's tiresome.

Really? I've always been told that it was part of my charm! It's a different way to make one's point, as opposed to--for example--angry, self-important, po-faced ranting.

Why do you think that the rules are crap? They didn't change that much since third edition.

The codex rules didn't get easier either.

CptMetal wrote:

Why do you think that the rules are crap? They didn't change that much since third edition.

The codex rules didn't get easier either.

I think the rules have had randomisation injected to lower the skill ceiling and create an artificially level playing field. If you can only ever reach so high because of mechanical limitations in the game then once you hit that level you merely wait for others to reach it also. In 40k's situation specifically you had dice for critically 5 things - shoot to hit, strength to wound, wound saves (armour/invulnerable etc) and then vehicle damage. Charging in 5th was 6" charge for infantry and walkers, 12" for beasts or characters with special rules. Morale checks.

Now we enter 6th edition - vehicles and buildings get damage charts reworked, exploding a vehicle made a technical roll of 7, exploding a building also harder. Charges get made random (I leave it up to you to decide if predictable charge distance was a negative factor pro tip; it wasn't, it's part of what made melee armies work since you could semi-reliably position yourself for charging. In today's game you can literally fail a 3" charge, you have roughly a 25% failure rate to charge distances under 5". You have a 75% failure rate to charge over 10".). Psychic powers had their failure rates increased by virtue of deny the witch shenanigans. Lots more examples. I dont need to patronise you with a comprehensive list.

Codexes weren't simplified - let's say I agree with you, but bring it back around. Introducing more random variables stamps out the peaks and troughs of player performance, eliminates the bell curve through the law of large numbers and allows GW to post official figures about win/loss ratios being within 40/55%. It was used 4 years ago and I bought it then but now I've seen where they're going with it and I no longer like it.

If anything DE are bucking the trend with their codex progression from 5th->7th.

PFP made predictable and static. Poison weapons being the great equalizer that MC and special characters fear.

And yet still it is bloated with random elements. Let's make something clear - I don't believe 40k is a game about rolling dice, dice poker and craps exist for that. I believe 40k is about two army builds being tested against one another with an enormous amount of variation made possible by dice. But that is a contradictory statement; once dice take up too much of the gameplay it breaks down the viability of special weapons, special units, tactics and strategic plays. People start hedging their bets one of two ways - predictable performance with either 3+/4+ hit rolls etc, or they start banking on being favoured by the extreme performance swings of super powered highly random abilities (like elements of the daemon codex, CSM codex, psyker power generation etc etc). I'll look at a couple of specific examples right here:

Combat drugs - technically all of these are useful but some of them aren't worth it compared to other results against given enemies. It would be better if you just paid a flat unit tax (1 or 2pts per model, with all models in a unit either having drugs or not having drugs, ICs get to choose for themselves) and then choose what drug you took before the game started with all units using drugs that game being required to use the same drugs. In other words everyone uses Grave Lotus, or Hypex but not a mix of the two. "oh but that would be OP then" no it wouldn't because randomising whether you get an appropriate benefit or not vs just outright buying the benefit for an additional cost is the just the same thing but in a less sequitous method of approach. Also giving your whole army combat drugs would quickly become too expensive and you would start sacrificing it on some units to free up points for more warm bodies.

Crucible of malediction - I guarantee you've never seen a player use this more than once. And here's why - http://statistics.about.com/od/ProbHelpandTutorials/a/Probabilities-For-Rolling-Three-Dice.htm
Instead of just giving the weapon 9" of range and calling it a day, they make it totally random which for a once-per-game weapon that only affects an extremely specific kind of enemy that you had to pre-buy before the game even began and at not insignificant cost I find to be credulous. Maybe you bank on hitting at 10" and crash your IC in to a group of jetbike warlocks or whatever, you fire the weapon off and only get 5" at a probability of 3%, you hit like what, 4 of them? And then another time you're getting way too close for comfort to some grey knights, fire off at full 18" on a probability of 0.5% and curse your luck because the law of averages is frak you right in the ass right now, with 2W models soaking up damage and maintaining full combat effectiveness with the same damage output at 50% Wounds as at 100% Wounds compared to a big squad of 1W models that you could easily have killed half of them if you had the statistically average roll just simply there for your use instead of having to roll for it. Never mind it's a shooting attack, nevermind you only get to use it once.

By reducing predictability they reduce variety - some units and weapons especially those which are too random just get dropped completely. GW says wildly swinging games where winning or losing isn't a surety until the end of the last turn is fun - yeah I bet if you're the credulous type who doesn't believe that having the better team and the better strategies should give you the higher chance of winning. But the thing is people already do compensate for the winds of fate by buttoning down and making cookie-cutter lists that lack unit variety and hinge on 1, maybe 2, maybe 3 inherent properties of constituent units to flatten the randomisation and introduce the predictability they need to formulate a winning army list.

mrbenis wrote:

I believe 40k is about two army builds being tested against one another with an enormous amount of variation made possible by dice.

Is that what you think it is, or is that what you think it is supposed to be?

Either way, that is not a game that I want to play. I want to win or lose games based on the decisions that my opponent and I make, not on what we brought to the table. If a game is decided by army lists, then there's no point in playing it. We can just compare lists, and then go do something else with our afternoon. A game that is decided by army lists and dice is nearly as pointless.

I can't speak to what your games are like, or to every permutation or combination of game mechanics. Maybe the game really is like that in some metas or at some point levels. Maybe I'm deluding myself. Maybe if I was playing in tournaments I'd have a different experience. But I play 1k point games with a Coven/Harlequins list, win more than I lose, and believe that most (not all) of the time the game result is determined more by player choices than by list-building. If I start feeling differently, I will play a different game.

I should add that, while I think it's fun, I do not consider Warhammer 40,000, as a game, to be good. Or balanced. But that doesn't mean that, as a player, I am without volition or options.

mrbenis wrote:

... you have roughly a 25% failure rate to charge distances under 5". You have a 75% failure rate to charge over 10".[/i])

No, you have a 16.7% chance to fail a charge under 5", and a 91.6% chance to fail a charge over 10". You can't speak as a 'pro' and then fail to do the basic maths.

mrbenis wrote:

I believe 40k is about two army builds being tested against one another.

Then you believe wrongly. You've confused 40K with Magic: The Gathering.

Barking Agatha wrote:

mrbenis wrote:

... you have roughly a 25% failure rate to charge distances under 5". You have a 75% failure rate to charge over 10".[/i])

No, you have a 16.7% chance to fail a charge under 5", and a 91.6% chance to fail a charge over 10". You can't speak as a 'pro' and then fail to do the basic maths.

Hook, line and sinker.

Calyptra wrote:

Is that what you think it is, or is that what you think it is supposed to be?

I think that is what it is -within the competitive scene- which is where most of my 9/10 years of playing the game has been centralised.

Quote :

I want to win or lose games based on the decisions that my opponent and I make, not on what we brought to the table.

But that's the same thing - unless someone else writes your list for you? I'm confused at why you've separated these two things as though they were different concepts. Playing lists like the one you mentioned at the points level you mentioned in addition to your later comment about choices and permutations of the game and that the game isn't even very good *as a game* is interesting for me. I don't have a problem with the beer&pretzels players who turn up on whatever day with a particular frame of mind and intended form of play, to me it is the same difference between rugby/AFL/american football. The ball is virtually identical even if the game constructed around its use varies by degrees.

Quote :

We can just compare lists, and then go do something else with our afternoon. A game that is decided by army lists and dice is nearly as pointless.

This is what the end of 5th edition became, as widely advertised as mono-build leafblowers or some other incarnation of MSU. The main rulebook was changed in ways I generally liked but have some fundamental disagreements with - but this wasn't addressing how those 3 dominant codexes came in to existance - bad game designer being told to just make awesome books people wanted to buy. The results are now cultural history and that guy no longer works for GW (iirc).

But here we are in a thread debating how our army book is bad, an entirely objective subject, mixing it now with subjective points of view about preferred play style, design choices and with my entrance to the thread, a heavy focus also on intended audiences and the cognitive bankruptcy that predicates the belief that equality of outcomes over a wide sample is better for the game, at the sacrifice of actual internal balance.

The game you want to play is one where decisions matter. Good; so do I. Like I've already said in my last post here; options diminish as outcomes become more uncertain because the winning tactic becomes betting on the predictable odds. I think this is the main reason why melee armies have been forgotten - why groups like BOLS say 7th ed is an edition of shooty armies - because your ballistic skill doesn't change nearly as much as your charge range.

Fun fact: first you praise another game for using two dice to create a bell curve and after that you complain about charge distance.

CptMetal wrote:

Fun fact: first you praise another game for using two dice to create a bell curve and after that you complain about charge distance.

Do you have the ability to think about more than 1 sentence at a time?
Like no seriously it took you almost 4 pages this thread to demonstrate the cognitive capacity to address more than one single point at a time.

Here's a basic one for you to marinate on: Charge distance conforming to a bell curve is irrelevant due to compounding factors before and after it.

mrbenis wrote:

Barking Agatha wrote:

mrbenis wrote:

... you have roughly a 25% failure rate to charge distances under 5". You have a 75% failure rate to charge over 10".[/i])

No, you have a 16.7% chance to fail a charge under 5", and a 91.6% chance to fail a charge over 10". You can't speak as a 'pro' and then fail to do the basic maths.

Hook, line and sinker.

Ha! I see what you did there... I, uh, think? You deliberately wrote the wrong answer in order to goad me into correcting you, thus proving your other point because, um...

Actually, I don't think that's a thing. You can't get caught in a mistake and get out of it by saying, 'hook, line, and sinker, gotcha, haha!'.

Yeah, that 'hook, line and sinker' line just baffled me.

Why not just stick with the classic 'I was just testing you'?

Barking Agatha wrote:

Quote :

Hook, line and sinker.

Ha! I see what you did there... I, uh, think? You deliberately wrote the wrong answer in order to goad me into correcting you, thus proving your other point because, um...

Actually, I don't think that's a thing. You can't get caught in a mistake and get out of it by saying, 'hook, line, and sinker, gotcha, haha!'.

mrbenis wrote:

Crucible of malediction - I guarantee you've never seen a player use this more than once. And here's why - http://statistics.about.com/od/ProbHelpandTutorials/a/Probabilities-For-Rolling-Three-Dice.htm

I was trying to see if you can read. You failed. As you can plainly see, in that same post, without using the edit feature I demonstrated I can at the very minimum google probability outcomes on dice. I rate your attempt at humourously blowing me off a C+.

I don't think you or CptMetal have actually taken the time to read my posts twice and get the bigger picture. You're both latching on to one or two obscure points and then responding to them, out of context, especially in your case an appeal to the moral high ground. I hate repeating myself but here it is:

I don't hate the kids. They aren't the problem. The problem is the game being made easier for them at the expense of more skilled players via dumbing down gameplay with randomising ever more elements of the game. Having your Chaos Lord who just won a hard fought challenge turn in to a spawn isn't funny or cool. It's gimmicky crap that serves to reduce the winning players power, thus dragging up the losing player when they don't deserve it. Having plasma weapons you pay a heavy premium on tanks now overheat after 5 editions isn't funny or cool. Having to roll for psyker powers and getting the wrong ones isn't funny or cool. Bad warlord traits. Random charge range. FNP on high toughness/3+ save mooks. Deep striking for non-SM armies. Eldar-racial specific powers being roll-offs against enemy leaderships. Randomised special movements (looking at you, solitaire, once per game special charge).

I could just keep. on. going. but I'm tired and you've demonstrated either the inability to read long format posts on a forum or the unwillingness or inability to respond to them appropriately. Taking crap someone says out of context as a means to strengthen your position is poor argumenting and only fosters a lower level of dialogue. CptMetal spouting simplistic opinions at me as well isn't going to help.

mrbenis wrote:

mrbenis wrote:

Crucible of malediction - I guarantee you've never seen a player use this more than once. And here's why - http://statistics.about.com/od/ProbHelpandTutorials/a/Probabilities-For-Rolling-Three-Dice.htm

I was trying to see if you can read. You failed. As you can plainly see, in that same post, without using the edit feature I demonstrated I can at the very minimum google probability outcomes on dice.

Having just read that article that you linked (the section on rolling two dice). The probability of failing a 5" charge is 6/36 or 16.67%. As there are 6 possible outcomes that are less than 5: (1,1), (1,2), (2,1), (2,2), (1,3) and (3,1). The probability of failing a 10" charge is 1-3/36 or 91.67%. As there are 3 possible outcomes that are greater than 10: (5,6), (6,5) and (6,6).

I'm not sure where you got the numbers 25% and 75% from. I would appreciate if you tell me where I'm going wrong, or what I'm missing. Thanks in advance.  

Also I would appreciate if we could keep this discussion polite and convivial. There's no need for personal attacks. Thanks - Mush

The point is this: I posted deliberately wrong figures to see if he was reading my posts from beginning to end. I then wrote easily verifiable figures in relation to a similar point in the same post. That's the bait. I know how to calculate probabilities.

I don't feel like giving tl;dr's out every post. I have something to say that's worth saying and worth reading.

mrbenis wrote:

The point is this: I posted deliberately wrong figures to see if he was reading my posts from beginning to end. I then wrote easily verifiable figures in relation to a similar point in the same post. That's the bait. I know how to calculate probabilities.

I don't feel like giving tl;dr's out every post. I have something to say that's worth saying and worth reading.

I doubt people will continue reading your posts if you deliberately post false information and waste their time. I say this despite agreeing with a lot of what you are saying regarding the state of the game.

Back on topic, there isn't much we can do to change how GW makes their games. If you want to be remotely successful in 40k despite the randomness, I would recommend minimising the critical dice rolls your army needs to win. The only things that we have complete control over are objective placement, deployment and movement. Everything else is a liability, the best you can do is minimise the risk and uncertainty in your maneuver. For example the randomness of charge distances become irrelevant when you use a WWP to deepstrike 1" away from an enemy unit that can only move 6" a turn, as unless your opponent does some clever blocking or annihilates you that charge is guaranteed.