*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 12:47:01 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Donate

We Appreciate Your Support

Recent

Author Topic: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread  (Read 1682862 times)

Offline grant

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 4167
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #1125 on: July 11, 2014, 04:26:58 AM »
I was always an Ork player. Well, I did an a Eldar army 2nd, too. But I had tons of Orks.
It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words - Orwell, 1984

Offline beefcake

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 7413
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #1126 on: July 11, 2014, 04:51:15 AM »
My bro had eldar. I coudn't stand his warp spiders. They were too overpowered. Jump in, kill my big guys, jump out.  >:(


Offline Major_Gilbear

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 3153
  • God-Emperor of Dune
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #1127 on: July 11, 2014, 10:29:12 AM »
Well, 40k2E and 3E had to have the pointed lists in the basic book/set because they were each different enough from their predecessors to require "get-you-by" lists until that edition's Codices came out.

The main drawback to 2E is that it's really a skirmish ruleset, not an army ruleset, and when each side has more than about 50 models, it breaks down and gets slow. It also means that you need a *lot* of terrain for a "better" game (even tells you so in the rulebook IIRC), and that also precludes having lots of vehicles or big armies as they just get bogged down in the terrain otherwise.

The reason for all the terrain? Because otherwise it's a line-up-and-shoot deathmatch where more/better shooting will win with minimal tactics. Also, because anything with light armour or that has a CC focus will just be erased from the table without even a whimper when faced with high-volume fire.

That's why the missions/scenarios were so important, and why I felt (even at the time) that they were unbalanced enough to feel rather unfair after spending an entire day playing out a 1750pt game.

I think this is one area where 40k has in fact consistently improved; scenarios that are better balanced and encourage more participation from both players. In fact, thinking about it, I'd be tempted to use some of the the later editions' scenarios with the 2E rules.

Armies-wise, three stood out as being distinctly broken; Eldar , Space Wolves, Chaos. Each had waaay too many options, often undercosted or "free", and the flexibility that they could include usually ameliorated much of their inbuilt weaknesses. If playing with these armies especially, you need to try and either build a specific scenario, or otherwise have a gentleman's agreement to build fluffy rather than beardy armies and to not tailor too much against your opponent.

It is fun though, and if you're looking at playing a series of narratively-linked games, it is really good. It's also quite easy to get into in terms of model-count compared to later editions, especially if you go for a one-of-everything studio army approach.

@ eilif:

I think your experience may have been skewed a bit by having fairly specialised forces, very small armies, and limiting what wargear etc is available. 1500pts is generally reckoned by many to be the sweet-spot, but slightly bigger games up to 2000pts are fairer for some armies that are inflexibly organised and need the extra points to round out a balanced army. Even a 1500pt game will likely take all afternoon to play though. Also, I recommend including "area" terrain as well as buildings and elevations.

Online Malebolgia

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 3762
  • Lost in Cyberspace
    • Paintoholic
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #1128 on: July 11, 2014, 10:36:05 AM »
We tried playing 2nd edition several years back and although we had fun, it was mainly because of nostalgic reasons. The rules themselves aren't great and are full of holes. We often had to discuss how to resolve certain situations. And the cheese factor of many weapons and models is absurd in 2nd edition.
So although 3rd and later editions often feel a bit bland, they sure are better as a rules package.
“What use was time to those who'd soon achieve Digital Immortality?”

Offline Major_Gilbear

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 3153
  • God-Emperor of Dune
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #1129 on: July 11, 2014, 10:51:21 AM »
The rules themselves aren't great and are full of holes. We often had to discuss how to resolve certain situations. And the cheese factor of many weapons and models is absurd [...].

Every edition has this. It's the number one single reason I get so fed up past a certain point, because instead of improving each edition we just get a churn which changes what's cheesy this time around. And after 7 editions, there is no excuse for rules which are vague, or which are worded very specifically but only for certain situations.

I think that one reason Necromunda was so enduringly popular is that it was 2E with many of the rule shortcomings removed. Of course, the Necromunda campaign system breaks the balance totally again...  o_o

Also, for the record, I really liked 40k3E; even though a fair few areas were a somewhat derpy. But then, I also like Epic 40k hugely, so I guess that puts me in a minority group!  :?

Online Malebolgia

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 3762
  • Lost in Cyberspace
    • Paintoholic
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #1130 on: July 11, 2014, 11:16:14 AM »
True. GW is terrible at writing GOOD rules sets. Sure, they have a lot of fun rules sets but a lot of them aren't well written. Like you, it baffles me that the latest editions of WHFB and 40K still have so many loopholes and weird rules interactions.
It's one of the reasons I love Warmachine so much. It's a really good system in terms of rules and rules interactions. And yes, sometimes the interactions can get complicated, but in the end they make sense (from a rules perspective! Rules is not fluff...) and give a strong rules set. IMO the best rules package for competitive gaming.

And I also like Epic a lot. Don't think the RULES are very good (every incarnation, even the latest fan built ones), but the look and feel works like a charm.

Offline Major_Gilbear

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 3153
  • God-Emperor of Dune
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #1131 on: July 11, 2014, 11:46:37 AM »
@ Malebolgia:

Totally agree.

I would also say that I have no real objection to playing any edition of 40k or whatever, but I will no longer be buying new editions. Instead, I'll wait until an edition is a few years old (2-3 years after a "new edition" release) and buy up whatever I want for cheap - for example, I got a lot of 40k2E Codex books and WHFB5E Army books for less than I could have possibly bought them originally, and that's without factoring in inflation!  :D

Offline Col. Aubrey Bagshot

  • Mad Scientist
  • Posts: 674
  • Remember... something
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #1132 on: July 11, 2014, 11:50:54 AM »
GW is terrible at writing GOOD rules sets.

Really? I would argue that thier Necromunda - LotR, - 'Legends of' rule sets still are the BEST skirmish games ever written.
They get copied by just about everyone, but the original rules still endure and they still get homebrew 'skins' written for them every year...

I agree that 40K is currently broken and for the last few years have gone back to playing earlier versions...
Same with Fantasy, some of the earlier versions were SO much fun to play, especially if you played Goblins....
Money can't buy you happiness but it does bring you a more pleasant form of misery.
Spike Milligan

Offline Vermis

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 2433
    • Mini Sculpture
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #1133 on: July 11, 2014, 12:18:40 PM »
I think they can write good rule sets (and I like most of the Specialist Games, particularly Epic:A, thangyewverrimush  :P ), but I think it's plain by now - what with everything else like trade embargos, cease-and-desist orders popping off everywhere, the 'GW hobby is buying GW' bit out of the Chapterhouse court case, the rumours of management viewing GW customers as 'sheep', and so on - that they don't want to. At this point the main aim of new editions and new army books is to shake things up, make things different again so that existing customers have to buy more minis to keep up with the new 'meta'. They apparently see a spike in sales with each new edition, so after the tumble their stocks prices took earlier in the year, is it much of a surprise to see 7th ed 40K after only two years of 6th, and with 'unbound' and rampant daemon-summoning added to each army?

But then there's the train of thought that even 40K and WHFB are well-written games - for children. The 12-14yo target market. All the big, flashy models with lethal special rules; the relentlessly tooth-gritted grimdark 'adult' setting*; aaall the stats and rules and special rules to memorise**; most of the gameplay boiling down to how you build your army list and strategy off-table, so you can wind 'em up and let 'em go on-table, with a minimum of analytical reaction or tactical thinking needed***; actual comments from Jervis and others that SGs were for older gamers, and would need to be changed to appeal to kids. All about the core two catering to younger minds.

*I've seen some old gamers who started with Rogue Trader or 2nd ed, claiming that the setting then was kewl and appealing to them as kids because it was grimdark and 'adult', but the setting now is ruined in an effort to seem kewl and appealing to kids by being, er, grimdark and 'adult'. o_o (the difference is 'jokes,' apparently)

**I'd hazard it's something like memorising long dinosaur names and how they're supposed to be pronounced.

***And I'd hazard that's like that warm glow from knowing that the stats on your top trumps card 'trumped' your opponent, even though the most you contributed to the outcome was merely possessing the card in a randomly shuffled deck.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2014, 12:21:15 PM by Vermis »

Offline Major_Gilbear

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 3153
  • God-Emperor of Dune
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #1134 on: July 11, 2014, 12:58:25 PM »
Really? I would argue that thier Necromunda - LotR, - 'Legends of' rule sets still are the BEST skirmish games ever written.
They get copied by just about everyone, but the original rules still endure and they still get homebrew 'skins' written for them every year...

That game mechanics are good is not the same as rule explanations that are good, or even rule explanations that don't have loopholes. I think that's what Malebolgia was getting at.

To illustrate, from the 6E Dark Angels codex, we have this little gem:

"Only one of each Relic may be taken per army.
A model can replace one weapon with one of the following."


This is from a page of special "relic wargear" that some characters are allowed to choose from. The first part is clear enough. The second part... Not so much. The contention is whether a model can replace one weapon in total, or different weapons on a one-to-one basis (eg, I could swap a bolt pistol and chainsword for a relic gun and a relic sword).

Every GW rule set I've read is filled with these sorts of little rubs, and it is really tedious to have to discuss them for every army with every opponent for every edition. Also, different people read each rule differently and may or may not feel strongly about it; do you play with a different agreement every time?

I agree that 40K is currently broken and for the last few years have gone back to playing earlier versions...
Same with Fantasy, some of the earlier versions were SO much fun to play, especially if you played Goblins....

40k is no more broken now (albeit I'm on 6E) than it was in any edition  previously. It's just that each edition changes things around to break the game in a new and different way.

Every edition has a few rules that were abused, and which therefore favoured certain armies (above and beyond individual army book power). Most of the time, it's not a *huge* deal if you can agree a compromise on the rule with your regular opponents, but it can make pick-up games quite hard.

Which edition you prefer is just that: preference. I liked 3E, but melee and Rhino-rushing was pretty broken. 4E was better in many ways, but the Rending ability (and therefore the Assault cannon) was game-breaking. In 5E, vehicles were king, as were flyers (introduced really for the first time). There's lots more, but you get the idea.  ;D

Offline pixelgeek

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 2026
    • Zac's Gaming Blog
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #1135 on: July 11, 2014, 03:19:33 PM »
I think they can write good rule sets (and I like most of the Specialist Games, particularly Epic:A, thangyewverrimush  :P ),

The Warhammer Historical rules were all written by outside sources. The EpicA rules had more than two years of external playtesting and that goes a long way to explain their success. Even so, Jervis threw in stuff at the last minute that initially unbalanced armies like the Eldar.

Necromunda really is an outlier in that it appears to have been quite fun even being developed internally with no external testing. The Specialist Games edition was, IMO, a lot better ruleset and a lot of that was due to the external playtesting they did.

Offline weismonsters

  • Scientist
  • Posts: 374
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #1136 on: July 11, 2014, 03:25:18 PM »
The logical exposition of the rules was always confused. I dont know about recent editions, but the stuff they brought out in the late eighties was obviously rushed to publication, without much proofreading. They did playtesting, but not so much in re-drafting and polishing the text it seems.

Btw I am all for bashing the corporate strategy of GW, but I am not so keen on the language of contempt that sometimes emerges in this context. Whether it be people feeling superior because they have been playing historical toy soldiers since the 1970s, or making statements like "i despise competitive players" or expressing contempt for spotty teenagers or people who memorise the rules or whatever, I think it is unnecessary. People will be people and there are much worse things to be. If contempt or despising someone is ever valid, and I personally think it isnt, then maybe save it for more severe cases.
Indeed the problem I have with the GW approach is precisely that. It is the contempt it shows for people.

Offline Major_Gilbear

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 3153
  • God-Emperor of Dune
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #1137 on: July 11, 2014, 04:14:14 PM »
Necromunda really is an outlier in that it appears to have been quite fun even being developed internally with no external testing. The Specialist Games edition was, IMO, a lot better ruleset and a lot of that was due to the external playtesting they did.
I agree that the SG version was better as a ruleset, despite the changes being unbelievably minor. However, the complete and unnecessary steamy pile of poo that are House weapon lists, combined with the lack of address to areas that could really have benefited (skills, skill tables, gang rating calculation, underdog bonus, heavy weapon costings/drawbacks, unbalanced weapons, income generation... the list goes on), shows that SG wasn't really listening to players at all. And don't get me started on the total cock-up of the Outlanders.  :'(

[...]the stuff they brought out in the late eighties was obviously rushed to publication, without much proofreading.
Still is!

They did playtesting, but not so much in re-drafting and polishing the text it seems.
The game editions are playtested reasonably, but the army books are tested very little. I understand that most testing is usually done in-house at HQ by GW staff volunteers (at staff game-nights and such).

Btw I am all for bashing the corporate strategy of GW, but I am not so keen on the language of contempt that sometimes emerges in this context. Whether it be people feeling superior because they have been playing historical toy soldiers since the 1970s, or making statements like "i despise competitive players" or expressing contempt for spotty teenagers or people who memorise the rules or whatever, I think it is unnecessary. People will be people and there are much worse things to be. If contempt or despising someone is ever valid, and I personally think it isnt, then maybe save it for more severe cases.
Indeed the problem I have with the GW approach is precisely that. It is the contempt it shows for people.
Couldn't agree more.

Regardless of people's preferences for any particular style of gameplay, in the end everyone surely wants to play the game with somebody decent who behaves in a sportsmanlike manner and with minimal rules fuss?

Offline grant

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 4167
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #1138 on: July 11, 2014, 04:31:28 PM »

Offline Dr Mathias

  • LPL Champion (S6,S7) Bronze Medalist (S5)
  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 4490
  • Purveyor of the one-and-only Miracle Elixir!
    • Dr. Mathias's Miniature Extravaganza
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #1139 on: July 11, 2014, 04:49:03 PM »
Regarding GW and rules writing, I think Space Hulk is one of the best board games ever made. The scenarios are balanced really well, simple mechanics, lots of choices during your activation. Fun after years and years.

My beef with 40K now (and maybe even since the early days, in hindsight) is that most of the 'gaming' and 'choice' is done ahead of time before the game even starts.

Hell, I still enjoy Block Mania so something may be wrong with me...




a mixture of quick parts, sarcastic humour, reserve, and caprice.
Dr. Mathias's Miniature Extravaganza

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
73 Replies
19811 Views
Last post June 20, 2008, 05:41:42 PM
by TJSKI
26 Replies
15973 Views
Last post January 18, 2015, 10:23:57 AM
by Arlequín
250 Replies
89971 Views
Last post June 19, 2015, 02:11:30 AM
by syrinx0
146 Replies
21878 Views
Last post February 08, 2018, 04:50:06 PM
by Bahir
36 Replies
5947 Views
Last post February 16, 2022, 03:51:55 PM
by Easy E