|
Post by harryf on Jan 18, 2015 14:31:28 GMT -5
I think it has to do with the game play itself and the fun level of playing against and with one of these lists. I think this is the point here, its not about whether the list is overpowered or not, rather if its fun to play against.(given that overpowered lists are generally unfun to play against) For instance, someone can run a list like this that fits the "unfun but not broken" category: AM CAD CCS Vet Vet 3 Wyverns 3 Wyverns 3 Wyverns AM CAD CCS Vet Vet 3 Wyverns 3 Wyverns 3 Wyverns AM CAD CCS Vet Vet 2 Wyverns 2 Wyverns This list might not be winning games(Hi I'm a land raider), but rolling for 88 twin linked barrages a turn will grind games to a halt I would say that If the list is not abusive or anti-fun, it would be reasonable to loosen the charge limit.
|
|
|
Post by Khalai on Jan 18, 2015 17:17:39 GMT -5
I think we may be unfounded in our initial restrictions.... which is why I think this discussion is so important. the problem may be the type of lists, rather than the charges themselves. The week 7th dropped, I made a list that I could make out of models on hand (which is that I play Slaanesh daemons and CSM) and I decided right then and there that I would be ending up doing really unfun things to my opponent. And in fact, after that first game, I said I'm never playing this again. It's not even that the list was particularly strong, and I think most of the people that were/are for our tournament limits were there that day. Collectively we said this can't happen. This was before the internet was all up in arms with summon factory lists. The game I played there highlighted all of our fears with the psychic phase and lead to the changes that we have played with ever since. I've avoided this thread so far because I really don't like to wade into these things, but I feel like this would shed some light how we got here. We all got our rulebooks that day and I said. "This is great, the psychic phase how has some interactivity with your opponent instead of you just watching your opponent play the game around you." But then I realised how fast your could summon an entire daemon army so I said "watch me make a list that doubles the army's size by turn 3." (Obviously I didn't play that list.) Right then and there I felt like lists that could spam dice just removed the interactivity just installed in the phase, and would defeat the purpose of allowing deny rolls on things that don't target the enemy like blessings. I really didn't like that. So I made a simple list that had 12 warp charges and played that. I thought it was still very OP in the psychic phase where my opponent stood no chance. This is where we started talking about a warp charge limit. It did 2 things that I saw. It stopped summon factories which I liked. It gave your opponent a chance in the psychic phase to deny something and forced you to make decisions about what to cast. At the time I really liked this compromise. It was painfully obvious how fast it would get out of hand. That game also forced us to implement our second change, being to invisibility. Let's face it, invisibility is strong. In our version it is not as strong, but be real, it is still very strong. But on that fateful day we didn't change invis because it is strong (though that was a big factor) it was in large part due to the fact that making it so that templates and blasts could not hit an invis monster makes zero sense. Now I know this is the WH40K universe and isn't intended to be realistic, but I feel like this is one of those situations that really stops my immersion. Those would be the weapons most effective at hitting something invisible. Now how often would this rule difference come up? Not very. How many blast weapons are going to shoot an invisible target (something that comes up less often than you would think) and the increased scatter is not insignificant, and templates (which still get to OW an invisible target) likely aren't templating an invisible target because of the short range. Of the two changes, I feel like personally the invis change is the one I would not want to back down on. Its a very minor change to a very strong power, and remains a very strong power. The limit on psychic dice is something I'd be willing to debate, though I think forums are a poor place to do it when you could be playing games with different incarnations. (I find most forum debates just end up with people not moving from their postition and the debate degrades very fast and I don't want that here.) Almost everything we have ever house ruled in our club play has come from both statistical, and anecdotal evidence. I'm sharing this story so that everyone remembers how we got here. Did we overreact? Maybe. Have we ever regretted the decision to make these changes? I can say with confidence, no. Am I willing to admit I was wrong if we come back on those decisions? Absolutely. Math, unfortunately, is not the way to convince me of that (I did a pretty thorough statistical analysis of the phase when 7th came out). How rules and games feel is most important to me (and that's coming from someone who doesn't use "feel" ever in his professional life). I want to have fun, and feel great after a game win or lose. Now of course it is way to late to talk about changing anything for the club championship, but, I for one, would look forward to getting out and testing any number of reversions or lists or whatever so that we can make the club championship even better next year. I know that some people want to view the club championship as our top tier competitive tournament, but even though we are all competitive we aren't going to want to foster an environment that leads to abuse. This is our biggest tournament of the year and we want everyone to be able to have fun whether they go 6-0 or 0-6. This is the tournament that gets our entire community out (especially those people from the city that don't use our forums or play at the store very often), and we want them to come back. I'm sure I had a point in there somewhere but I feel like I just rambled for a few paragraphs. (Maybe something like protect the innocent)
|
|
jesse
Scarab swarm
Posts: 41
|
Post by jesse on Jan 18, 2015 20:37:21 GMT -5
Glythan: Knowing that things like daemon mass summoning armies don't place at all, why would someone even bring it? They aren't going to have fun getting stomped, or paying the vast sums of cash required to stock all hundred pink horrors and the associated heralds AND painting them three colours. It doesn't add up.
Shannon: Fair enough. Unless anyone else has anything else to discuss I'd be up to play a game with either a time cap or a higher dice cap on saturday and see how it goes.
EDIT: sorry didn't see the last couple posts before posting.
Khalai: I do agree with what you're saying, and I'm on here discussing it instead of grumbling about "THOSE DARN FASCISTS" or something because I'm interested in seeing what led to those changes and if it made sense. I appreciate anyone putting in their two cents. As I mentioned, I'm fine with things like invis being toned down to a reasonable level and 2+ rerollables being less strong, but in combination with the dice charge I feel its too restrictive on my ability to not get vaporized by limiting A. reinforcements B. protection and C. offense to thin out the guns facing me
Harry: That is also very true, that sort of list would make me personally cry, and yet have no utility against AV 14 like you mentioned. As I said above, why would someone bring that to a tourney knowing that it isn't going to win, or be fun to play? Anyways, I feel like my army doesn't fit into that unfun category, but that's not really up to me to decide. As I said, I'll be in saturday for a game.
|
|
|
Post by Silent one on Jan 18, 2015 20:56:40 GMT -5
I do think u missed my point there. Winning is not everything. And therefore is not the only concern here. It comes down to the fun if playing the game.
Of course my objective is to win when i play but to be honest i go to play and winning or placing well in a tournament doesn't matter to me. I go to enjoy the gane win or lose. I think alot of the people who go to the tournaments (expecially the champ) go for the same reason.
You should probably take this into considerationrfor your arguments is what i was saying is all.
|
|
jesse
Scarab swarm
Posts: 41
|
Post by jesse on Jan 18, 2015 20:59:37 GMT -5
Fair enough, I wouldn't go to a tournament if it wasn't going to be fun. What I'm getting at is that (in my opinion) no one is going to have fun playing or bring a summoning list since they A. lose B. take forever to get through a turn and C. are expensive and repetitive to assemble. Maybe someone would do it, but then that can be weeded out when you submit your list to shannon anyways? I do understand your point and I'm not interested in changing rules if it makes the game not worth playing.
|
|
|
Post by harryf on Jan 18, 2015 21:47:03 GMT -5
jesse: I was using that to compare to a summoning-factory, not your list.
|
|
jesse
Scarab swarm
Posts: 41
|
Post by jesse on Jan 18, 2015 21:52:36 GMT -5
Yeah I know, I meant that it seems unlikely that anyone would bring either a summoning factory or barrage spam due to their lack of fun and inability to win, and that I'm thinking that my list isn't in the same category as they are, but still "banned" by its warp charge. Anyways I'm gonna sign off for now, I'll be in saturday again like I said.
|
|
|
Post by empirearmy on Jan 18, 2015 22:32:29 GMT -5
Ok so I have read through this whole thing. Here is what I have discovered.
1. It is not the list that is "overpowered", its the player. The player went out of his to find a list that works a certain way and is "overpowered". The player wrote the list. Therefore the player is the person who is actively seeking to have an overpowered game. If a movie is morbid is not the actors its the writer.
2. The issue with 40k tournaments is not what caps you have or what is too "overpowered", it is simply this. GW no longer supports tournaments. Therefore players are left to their own devices. So it is all pinioned based. So if someone thinks that some is "overpowered" and someone else does not well that does not matter. Why, because there is no one putting their foot down. So this type of thing is forever going to happen.
3. 40k was never meant to be a tournament game. It just wasn't. Why? The first thing GW dropped was tournament support as it was a waste of time and money.
I know that you guys are going to run tournaments no matter what but why not try not having a cap on anything. I mean the all the codices were play tested right? And the rules completely compliment the game right? And no one can find an overpowered list in every codex right? Maybe its the way players abuse the game and nothing to do with lists. If the game is broken, which it is, then just play it completely broken and see how it goes.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Jan 19, 2015 6:56:56 GMT -5
I agree with much of what you've said Mike for sure (and with pretty much everyone's point)... and we certainly have an "anything goes" style tourney coming up in March where we can try all this out.
I'm finding it's hard to defend a warp charge cap when really it's about the summoning spam list, which could easily be stopped by imposing a rule such as "you may only cast one successful conjuration power per turn" or something like that. (ie: you can keep attempting it if it fails or is blocked but you can really only dump one new unit on the board per turn - still very strong but isn't likely to just grind the whole game to a halt and ruin your opponent's chances at getting beyond turn 2).
In a game where you're just as likely to see multiple superheavy imperial knights across the table, I'm finding it extremely hypocritical to say 15 warp charges breaks the game.
|
|
|
Post by calitom on Jan 22, 2015 0:22:07 GMT -5
The question we have to ask ourselves is are we catering to those of us that want a competitive scene or aren't we? I'm constantly running into the issue of wondering if a list is "too hard" or if I think everyone involved is going to have fun while others are only thinking about winning or using the best models they have to attain the highest chance of victory.
Are we promoting a competitive gaming environment or aren't we? I specifically suggested these house rules because the rules were broken regardless of GW's stance on them and our tournaments have been running relatively smooth thus far. I think someone designing a list to have 20+ psychic dice a turn on top of shooting, assault etc are asking for too much time allotment in their share of the games they play and it's unfair to ask that of someone. When I play my dark eldar and roll dice for my venom's I ensure I get my shooting phase over as quickly as possible to help save time because I am rolling a lot of dice with the occasional list. The issue therein lies when someone isn't playing at a respectable pace with large quantities of dice in every phase- and it isn't fair to ask their opponent to remind them to please hurry up every turn because they want to actually play the game they paid money for, painted models for and came out to play.
And honestly on the subject I also think Knight's should be restricted in the first place, we should be limited to singular FOC and allied FOC rather than being allowed to have multiple CAD lists, etc. But most people haven't gone into that territory yet so we haven't really had to discuss it.
But I really do want my question answered; are we promoting a competitive environment above all else? Because if we are we should play the game exactly how GW has it in the book and I'll start building lists accordingly.
|
|
jesse
Scarab swarm
Posts: 41
|
Post by jesse on Jan 22, 2015 9:38:26 GMT -5
Those aren't the only two options (noncompetitive or original rules), for reference I'd point you again to the various tourneys that have their own limitations on detachments, for example, and run their own balanced missions separate from GWs rules. I'm not pretending that GW has perfectly balanced rules, hence why all of my comparisons have been to tourneys rather than "GW original" rules games.
And if you feel that bringing psychic dice is a problem due to its time consumption, you have to agree that a time limit in a tourney setting would solve any issues encountered there or with your venoms. Nobody has to remind anyone to be quick, the clock would do it for you
|
|
|
Post by Khalai on Jan 22, 2015 10:30:24 GMT -5
Nobody has to remind anyone to be quick, the clock would do it for you From experience, unfortunately, I can say this isn't true. I've been slow played more than once at tournaments even to the point where winning in the allotted time extremely difficult bordering on impossible. I know it's happened to a great many people here, and could even const you a chance at top spots. Maybe this offers some insight into why a lot of us feel the way we do about things that take a long time.
|
|
|
Post by timzeentch on Jan 22, 2015 11:20:35 GMT -5
Forgive me, as I haven't played 40k in a long time, but the Warmachine community uses Deathclocks for tournament play. This insures that each player gets an equal amount of time to play. If someone goes over their allotted time, they automatically lose.
Nexus even has a set of these clocks in the store if you want to try it out.
|
|
jesse
Scarab swarm
Posts: 41
|
Post by jesse on Jan 22, 2015 11:54:31 GMT -5
Khalai: I mentioned in that post that a time limit would stop slow play, as in, a time limit per player. That, to me, seems more fair than limiting dice if the concern is time. The other concerns have been addressed separately.
Tim: good call, those would facilitate the kind of limit that I think would keep the game playable
|
|
|
Post by Khalai on Jan 22, 2015 11:55:42 GMT -5
Deathclocks are something I've actually looked into, unfortunately I don't think they're the answer. Trust me, I'd love to have something like that, which keeps things moving along. The issue I keep coming to is what happens when a shooty army hits an assault army. If I'm the assault army my turn one is about 2 minutes, then my turns after that involve being in the assault phase (if all goes well of course). Assault happens on both player's turns, but one player still wants to do a lot in the shooting phase and the other player's army is eating their time. I really like your suggestion, and while I haven't play warmachine since the game launched, if I recall correctly it lends itself very well to the timed match system. Our current solution to slow play is sportsmanship, because let's face it, if you're not trying to play the entire game you're being a poor sport. I do wish there was a better solution. As to Tom's post. This year more than any other year, I think we didn't do our due diligence as a community to decide what we want in our tournament. That's really on all of us for not being as informed or passionate as we could be. I definitely think Shannon did the best he could but didn't have the input from us on all subjects that were important (that we obviously now see as important in hindsight). I really don't think the solution is go free for all and do whatever the base rules allow. (In all honesty, we are almost there with only a LOW restriction and cap on psy dice). If that's the way the community wants to go then I'm all there. I have lists for that eventuality, won't be as fun as a Slaanesh themed heresy era Emperor's Children, but hey I'm not going to just roll over . I find very often here we are isolated from external players for whatever reason, and we use that as a sort of innocence to what is actually out there because "no one here would play that". Well, that's not always true, and we do somewhat need to wake up to it. I agree with Tom that the unlimited CAD are an issue and I would personally be happy with a single FOC, with an ally. I don't want to set 12 centurions with draigo, tigirius random GK librarians on the table just because I can.
|
|