I started this idea on another thread but I think it needs to be on its own. After seeing what GW has done in the last 5 books and hearing the Skaven rumors I do not like the direction the game is going. Does any one else feel this way? I used to feel a little guilty playing a Thorek Ironbrow list, or a Slayer army with 9 + doom seekers. I also used to think hmmmm�?� maybe its in bad taste to take 2 earthshakers or play empire with Karl Franz on a dragon and take a steam tank. I used to think that Lucresia Belladonna was a little two powerful to lead a DOW list. These days I find that I don�?Tt have any second thoughts about playing any of these lists. Some of them are quite tame compared to what other lists can do. I think my thoughts changed when I saw Teeentch daemon list out of the new book flatten a slayer army on turn 2 by casting the same spell 7 times a turn. Or maybe it was the time I saw a dark elf character hack a steam tank to pieces in 2 rounds of combat. I think it is ridiculous how much cheaper things cost in the newer books. I also do not like this trend of armies having characters that do not take up slots. This line of thinking is over the DE and rumored Skaven assassins. The more I look around my local GW the only people having fun are those who�?Ts army book came out over the past 1.5 years. I have been playing for a long time and I don�?Tt like this direction that the game has turned. Thinking back I believe it has been on a down ward slide since the Storm of Chaos started. That was when I think people had the most fun with the game, 6th edition was a much more balanced playing field than the modern power list hammer that we are in with 7th. Maybe I am just getting too old and this game is for immature kids after all. I would like to know if anyone else feels this way.
I don’t see how Army Books becoming more powerful (which I don’t think they are, but I can see the argument) equates to power gamer paradise. Don’t books which are comparatively weaker, and therefore more balanced, lead to a more competetive gaming environment? I think 6th Edition WHFB and 3rd Edition 40K were an attempt to create a stripped down, easy-to-balance game, following on from the mentality of late-5th/2nd respectively which encouraged gamers to not use extreme builds and take loads of Core/Troops. If you look back at the tournament limits of that time period, you’ll see the nucleus of the army selection rules that eventually became part of the main game.
Back then, you really had a dichotomy: casual gaming, where people would take ridiculous rock/paper/scissor armies and the results would be meaningless and tournament gaming, where people had strict limits that meant they had to take lots of basic troops and not too many powerful characters. The results of tournament games were supposed to come down to strategy and luck, not army selection.
But GW made a misstep. See, they followed the logic that all games should reflect this tournament mentality - that armies should be more balanced, and basic troops should be compulsory. This begat 3rd Edition 40K and 6th Edition WHFB. Problem was, people took it the wrong way. If every army was supposed to be balanced by the army selection rules then any combination of troops allowed by the books were automatically kosher. Whereas before that, people could mentally reign themselves in - it was obvious that an all-jetbike army, or a hideous gunline was broken, even if the army book allowed it - now they were unfettered, breaking and twisting the armies into horrid shapes. The current style of competetive gaming I hear about so often on the internet now (particularly from America, interestingly) is down to people assuming that an Army Book or Codex is going to be totally balanced - which GW tricked people into believing. It’s ironic, and counter-intuitive. GW were trying to stop people making broken armies, but the very act of saying “this books are now balanced” led to more broken armies than ever.
Now, I think they’re trying to undo the damage. The new books are more like the old ones - lots of options, lots of ways to make themed armies, lots of cool little emergent touches. Problem is, people are still playing like it’s the last edition, and they’re taking these more free, open new army lists and making horrible builds with them. Like they used to back in 2nd/5th Edition - there just used to be a lot less of them. All we can hope is that players catch up with the way GW is thinking and pay attention to what it actually says in the rulebooks about having fun.
I don’t think that GW is killing the fun, the problem seems to be the people you play against don’t seem to play in the same way that you want to. Some people play to win at all costs and love the hardcore tournament scene, whereas some people play to have fun and love all the fluff ‘n’ stuff.
All you have to do is find a group of people who like to play the game in the same manner that you do. This might not be all that easy, but I think it is worth putting a bit of effort into. If you really can’t find anyone, then you certainly get my sympathy.
If you can find people who you can trust to take an army that is similar in ability to the one you take then you are onto a winner, and there is hours of fun to be had. I am very fortunate to belong to a club, where we all play at a fairly soft level. The armies aren’t maxed out, we take things because we like the models, we do lots of camaigns with scenarios and silly rules, and are happy to do daft things like magically moving our wizard into the centre of the enemy army, just to try to cast Crown of Taidron. We don’t do power gaming because its something that none of us enjoy. There are still a few mismatches due to the differing power levels of the books, but I know that I could take my Goblins against somone at the club playing Daemons, and still have a chance to win.
If you think this is beacuse you are getting old, and are having to play against kids, maybe you need to find a group of older players. The people I play regularly are all 30-40ish, and for us winning now comes second to both players having fun.
As for the rules themselves, I think the basic 7th edition rules are, the best there have been, the problems mainly come from the army books. If we could have the 7th edition rules and the 6th edition books, I think the game would be just about spot on.
As for the rules themselves, I think the basic 7th edition rules are, the best there have been, the problems mainly come from the army books. If we could have the 7th edition rules and the 6th edition books, I think the game would be just about spot on.
Neil
I would enjoy that.
Part of the problem for me is that my area is the center of power gaming in the US. It is nothing to see Vampire or Skaven armies being played that have 15-20 power dice in a 2250 list. It is not odd to see Teentch daemon armied with 3 units of 30+ horrors and a Keeper of Secrets. Now DE and Lizands are the thing with 2 hydras or 3-4 stegadons. The power gamer/heavy Tournament crowds have kinda taken over my local store, it doesn't help that many of the employees are in that group. They influence the younger kids and it just goes on from their. I have a few trusted friends that I will play against but it gets boring playing the same people over again, pickup games are hard becuase it is usually 2 hours of grinding your teeth whie you opponent runs amuck across the board. The only other alternative level is to stup to thier level and power game yourself, but that gets old too.
Vampire or Skaven armies being played that have 15-20 power dice in a 2250 list
Then they are cheating, neither can get 20 power dice. With VCs, 17 would be the most, 18 with the Periapt, and it would not even be optimal, as it involves taking Thralls with Master of the Black Arts (thus meaning they can't take any Raising powers and can't add to their units). The armies with about 11-12 dice are the ones to watch out for.
It is not odd to see Teentch daemon armied with 3 units of 30+ horrors and a Keeper of Secrets.
I don't see how this is anything like as bad as Kairos and Scribes etc.
The power gamer/heavy Tournament crowds have kinda taken over my local store, it doesn't help that many of the employees are in that group.
I am a tournament player but my armies are never silly cheese lists. I think a lot of tournament players can't seem to play for fun (they are usually the poor players too, hence the reliance on gimmicky lists).
I don't see how Army Books becoming more powerful (which I don't think they are, but I can see the argument)
I think the general perception is a bit skewed because of the order that VCs, DEs and DoCs emerged in. It made it look like everything was going crazy, whereas Lizards and WoC are much more sensible.
I feel that it is the books themselves that are encouraging power builds, not the attitudes of the players. If it’s not possible to build uber characters, or get rediculously cheap units with loads of special rules it is much harder to power build.
Imo 6th was about balancing troops, 7th is about unbalancing heroes (herohammer). However, with any luck it’s only because GW have to build in faults into each edition to provide some impetus for changing books the next time around, not because they believe the books are actually balanced against each other now.
But, if books are percieved as underpowered, players will feel perfectly fine about building a broken army… See what I mean? It’s weaker books that encourage power gaming, not stronger ones. I think, as the sheen of Vampire Counts and Daemons and all the rest of them starts to wear off, people will start building more themed and balanced armies with them. Pressure from opponents will discourage the uber-builds over time - even now, you see topics on Warseer about people refusing to play against Daemons, and Daemon players responding by assuring them they may play that army but “not a broken list!” (see above for Baggronor saying much the same thing about his armies). It’s becoming self selecting, and that’s a good thing, isn’t it? People should choose to play with more balanced armies that are fun for everyone, instead of having to be constrained by incredibly restrictive rules that prevent any kind of variation.
GW shouldn’t have to tell players not to be annoying.
It's weaker books that encourage power gaming, not stronger ones.
Thommy H
I agree with that, but the fact that both books allow the option of power building that should be the thing addressed. Some encourage, both allow.
I would be happy for there to be powerful options in books, but they should be appropriately priced. The points of everything is a wonderful balancing factor that seems to have been skipped in 7th.
MY feeling on daemons is that they overcompensated for the instability tests in the points costs of almost all units. The core units should only have dropped a point or two from Hordes.
I agree with that, but the fact that both books allow the option of power building that should be the thing addressed. Some encourage, both allow.
I think people have to accept that being super-powerful kinda goes with the territory of Chaos and Vampires. Its not like you can't fight them, you just shouldn't necessarily expect your characters to be able to do it. Plenty of troops, stacked combat resolution and strong magic defence is always a viable response. I handle armies like that fine with my Dwarfs, and the best HtH fighter I have is my BSB.
I would be happy for there to be powerful options in books, but they should be appropriately priced. The points of everything is a wonderful balancing factor that seems to have been skipped in 7th.
Examples? The only ones I can think of are the Hydra, which is about 30pts too cheap, and 1 or 2 of the DoC characters. All the fancy VCs stuff is pretty freaking expensive.
MY feeling on daemons is that they overcompensated for the instability tests in the points costs of almost all units. The core units should only have dropped a point or two from Hordes.
The saves should be like Forest Spirits tbh. Then they'd be balanced.
I have a few trusted friends that I will play against but it gets boring playing the same people over again
Have you tried playing a camapaign or some scenarios with these friends as a change of pace? Just playing a scenario as a one off can make for a nice tactical challenge. A campaign is a bit more effort, but well worth it. You don't have to go over the top - just a series of linked games, maybe with benefits for the winner of the first game in the next one and so on plus a few named characters you can get attached to and a couple of paragraphs of background fluff and you are good to go. (like the one they did in White Dwarf for Marius maybe?)
This can also allow you to place limits on the things that you don't like, without feeling that you have had to do it to make the games fair.
Eg we are currently doing a campaign where Empire and Dwarfs have gone to th e Jungle to look for gold. Steam Tanks, War Alters and Anvils were banned because you couldn't loose them in the Jungle. Its based on the scenarios in the Lustria book, which have been linked to form a nice stroyline (land in Lustria, fight way through jungle, loot city, make a run for it with the gold) and we are having a blast.
If you think you could arrange something like this with your friends, I would strongly reccommend that you give it a try. It adds a whole new dimension to the game.
The meta of the game in the American Mid-West is encouraging balanced play. We have one tournament requiring 900+ core and a solid theme (including 2-4 paragraphs of fluff). We take army composition seriously.
I’m not saying we’re ideal mind you, it just seems like we’re fairly good about it. Almost all tournaments in my area ban special characters. We also tend to emphasize sports, comp, and painting enough to matter for best overall. I got Best Overall with Chaos Dwarfs at a tournament where I didn’t win all three games… beating out a rather tough VC list
I think what matters right now is that we have a mix of 6th edition and 7th edition books. Plus a couple early 7th edition books were written from a 6th edition method (Orcs especially, less so with Empire). Orcs have a tough time competing, Empire has a better chance. When 7th edition armies fight, it isn’t as bad. WoC can do well against Daemons, and even more so vs undead (due to combat elites vs soft and crumble). Lizards can do fairly well too I’d think.
I like more choices. They’re bringing some concepts back from 5th, when I read the 5th edition VC book I was amused at what they brought back.
Currently, as more and more armies are updated to 7th, it seems to be evening out. Daemons will still lead the pack, but the gap will be much closer.
Right I’m probably most impressed with the Dark Elf army book. You can create a very soft list, or a very hard list… and you can even have a happy medium! Enough flexibility that people can run the theme or style they like. There really is no “must haves” in the list, as there are enough alternate routes to go. Can this be abused and have a lot of very good stuff, certainly.
I think the creation of ‘ard boyz’ was a good idea. It sets a series of tournaments where people know and expect to face hard core lists. Since it isn’t the main tournament circuit… people feel free to take a harder list and get it out of their system.
Again, as more and more 7th edition lists are introduced, I think variety will increase greatly. With enough strategies in each army, having one dominant strategy for yours could become a weakness. Especially if an army has 2-4 “optimal builds” you could be really hurting your chances in some cases. So people will, hopefully, scale back to “Tough, but not a jerk” level with a more rounded list. Perhaps not perfectly balanced, but much more balanded.
Having one nice combo, to me isn’t bad. If I see a DE player with an otherwise balanced and reasonable army, I won’t complain if he has ASF black guard. If a VC player has a very sylvanian themed VC without blood knights, a tame amount of power dice for vc, little to no carts, low numbers of wraiths… but lots of skeletons and the Drakenhoff banner, I’d see it as ok…
Another important factor is players need to be on the same page. Communication is key! If two people agree to take soft lists against each other, it will be a blast! However if they both agree to take nasty lists, and go into it know it… they should still have a lot of fun. If they know what type of game it will be, and can be ready for it, it’s much less frustrating and it goes back to being about the game and not the list. While no comp system is perfect, Skittles and I have on occasion used the WPS comp system and said “I’m bringing an army that comps this” so we can create an army about the same level (with in 200 points) without knowing exactly is in their list. It tends to work out very well.
I think with Skaven, and the book after them, we will begin to see the 7th edition experience for what it really is. We’re at/near the 50/50 threshold (if we set Orcs aside). Empire, High Elves, VC, Daemons, Dark Elves, WoC, and Lizards is 7 armies. 8 other 6th edition armies remain, plus Chaos Dwarfs and DoW make 10. So in terms of currently full supported armies, with figures available… we’re at the 50/50 threshold… and in terms of all armies we will be after Skaven. So as we move past that, it’ll begin to really take shape.
Having one nice combo, to me isn't bad. If I see a DE player with an otherwise balanced and reasonable army, I won't complain if he has ASF black guard. If a VC player has a very sylvanian themed VC without blood knights, a tame amount of power dice for vc, little to no carts, low numbers of wraiths... but lots of skeletons and the Drakenhoff banner, I'd see it as ok...
lol the discrepancy. You'd consider it acceptable that he takes the drakenhoff if he agrees to forgo many of the key elements in his army list? And then it would be 'ok' to include one expensive magic battle standard that affects one unit (of skeletons)? Last time I checked the fluff, the only surviving VC of Sylvania was not a 'low power dice' kinda guy either...
I find DEs are far worse in the hands of noobs, due to the free re-rolls that turn a foolish charge into a lucky win. :~
We have one tournament requiring 900+ core and a solid theme (including 2-4 paragraphs of fluff). We take army composition seriously.
I shudder to think what 900pts of compulsory Ghouls will do... with Ghoulkin... Do you really wanna fight that...? I sure don't!! :o
I play both VC and DE… I was talking about lists I play. So it’s not being hard on others, just my mentality behind what I play. My lists for VC tend to run about 8, which is a little a less than normal for them as it seems 9/10 is the norm.
I’m good with my DE, but I guess while I’m new to DE, I’m not a n00b in general. VC, I played for years. The only way I enjoy them anymore is to have a very specific theme. Trust me, I used to run hard core fighty VC.
As for the tournament, he also asks for lists to be submitted ahead of time, and people exploiting it will be asked to change it.
My lists for VC tend to run about 8, which is a little a less than normal for them as it seems 9/10 is the norm. VC, I played for years. The only way I enjoy them anymore is to have a very specific theme. Trust me, I used to run hard core fighty VC.
Hehe, pretty much same for me. People are shocked at the GT when I have 'only' 9 PD.
As for the tournament, he also asks for lists to be submitted ahead of time, and people exploiting it will be asked to change it.
Checking each one is the only comp that really works imo. Anything else can still get exploited.
I'm good with my DE, but I guess while I'm new to DE, I'm not a n00b in general.
I agree with Tommy. I don’t think GW is ruining the fun, and a challenge is always welcome. Have you seen those Bloodletters drop like flies and those Plaguebearers. Most people I know won’t powergame so it’s fine over here. And when the other army books get updated everything will be fair.
Well, I don’t think we have to wait that long - it’s not GW’s job to tell you how to have a pleasant time playing their games. If someone is a power-gamer, and that’s not what you’re into, then don’t play them. I know I wouldn’t get very far against the kind of opponent who was only interested in winning at the expense of everything else.
I believe there was a Podhammer episode where they discussed cheese lists, down under their tournament strategy included swapping army lists which meant at some point you could end up playing against your own army list.
Why is it GW’s job to create the fun? Can’t players find others who enjoy the same gaming style and play against them? Can’t players make house rules or missions to make games more fun? Can’t players use the internet to organise a campaign of like-minded gamers?
Granted, it would be nice if GW just manned up and admitted that their books aren’t balanced, but even so it should be blindingly obvious to even a a relatively inexperienced gamer that they are not and that therefore if they prefer a certain style or level of power then the onus is on them to be somewhat proactive in making that happen.
I think they’re balanced in the sense that a game between an army from one book of x,000 points against an army from another book of x,000 points will generally be decided by a mixture of luck and player skill. People seem to think that a) it ought to be 50/50 every time, regardless of relative experience or troop selection and b) differences of a few points can “break” this mythical balance.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: any game in which the value of upgrades are rounded to the nearest significant figure (magic items’ points values always end in 5 or 0…) and where a certain upgrade for a unit always costs half of a different upgrade for the same unit, regardless of actual relative value (musicians vs. standards) simply cannot be so finely honed.
It’s the myth amongst players that Warhammer is supposed to be some kind of complicated sport that causes all of the problems.
My lists for VC tend to run about 8, which is a little a less than normal for them as it seems 9/10 is the norm.
and those Plaguebearers. Most people I know won’t powergame so it’s fine over here. And when the other army books get updated everything will be fair.