Time to Embrace the Horror II

[Kazzigum]

So a couple weeks back I laid out my prophetic vision regarding the future of Warhammer 40,000. In particular, I explained that I believed that it would soon be AoSed. I still do. More than ever, in fact, and perhaps even sooner than I had originally prophesied. I won't go over the same ground entirely again, but if you're interested, you can find it here [url]http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?57790-Time-to-Embrace-the-Horror[/url] That thread seemed to spark a lively conversation and I'd like to use this thread to follow-up on what I originally proposed -- namely fixing 7th edition 40k so that we can have something worth playing after GW blows it all up. So, in this thread, I'll offer one proposal to fix 7th. But before I do, I'd like to reiterate and expand upon my basic philosophy regarding this overall fixing of the game. Close your eyes, wiggle your fingers before your face and let me take you all the way back to two weeks ago...

When 7th edition 40k hit the scene, I'll be honest, I thought it was clearly the best edition of the game that has ever been -- and I've played them all. In fact, it felt like 3.5 edition D&D. Pretty much perfect. Oh, don't get me wrong. There were (and are) things I didn't like about it, but hey, nobody is gonna like everything in a game this complex and just because I didn't like something, doesn't mean someone else wouldn't like it. Anyway, it pretty much took 6th edition (which I liked) and fixed/cleaned up the things that weren't working. Fixed chariots, added tactical objectives and created cooler battles that I could still win even if the other guy's army was just "better" than mine, altered the psychic power rules to better reflect the background and not be so predictable (they should not be in my opinion) and plenty more. There were a few mechanic issues I wasn't totally happy with, yet could live with, but the really ominous stuff was the obvious melding of the game with Apocalypse by adding Super Heavies and Gigantic Creatures to the game. In retrospect, the inclusion of new formations/detachments should have been ominous too, but they snuck up on me.

Anyway, I thought it was good. And I still do. But of course, GW had decided to ruin this great framework by not just power-creep thru codexes as we'd all come to expect (in fact, this did not happen at all initially, and many of us began to believe they intended to roughly 'balance' them all at a more restrained power level for 8-10 months there), but by amping up the power levels wildly by way of detachments and formations that just give you crazy powerful bonuses or let you bring either 'free' units or multiple units that should not be allowed in multiples. But I digress, this was discussed thoroughly in the last thread. The point I'm trying to get at is that 7th edition itself was not bad or broken initially. In fact, it was better than ever. But the things they've dumped on it willy-nilly since its initial release have made it much worse. So, having said that, I'm not advocating that we build a new game from scratch. We should just return it to its original state, more or less, and then tweak a few things here and there. Then, maybe, tweak a few of the codexes we all know are broken (though this depends a bit on the 'current' codexes we have when GW blows it all up). However, I believe that most of the problems we have with current codexes go away, or at least become far more manageable, once we go back to the beginning, and perhaps implement a few tweaks to the core rules, in particular, the one I intend to offer in this thread.

So, what change do I think we should implement that would help fix 7th edition 40k? Well, there's several actually, but the one that I believe has the most impact and fixes the most is ... we remove all formations and specialized detachments except CAD and the Allied detachment. Ban them all. Everyone returns to CAD and just builds their army using this and the simple Allied detachment. Let it sink in. Almost all the stupid shenanigans and obvious 'we just really want you to buy a whole bunch more models and we don't give a damn what it does to game balance' ploys go away. No more Ad Mech get 500-600 free points of upgrades, no more space marines get 500-600 points of free transports, no more multiple super heavies/gigantic creatures, and blah blah blah. Let's face it, my initial instincts about this was right, all these formations/altered detachments have gotten us to play Apocalypse at 28mm scale without many of us really knowing we're doing it. Really, it's no wonder the game is not even close to balanced with all this, Apocalypse was never meant to be.

I'll be honest, this still allows a limited number of super heavies in a game, as the CAD allows one Lord of War, and I'm not a fan of that. I don't believe they belong in 40k at all, but as I said before, I don't have to like everything. I can deal with one Super Heavy, even with my lowly CSMs, as I managed before. I know that there are some out there that have a bunch of wraith knights or knights or whatever, and this might not sit well with them. But you know what? If you want to run them, call it an Apocalypse game, and run the full formations/detachments whatever. But don't pretend it's not Apocalypse, because it is. Personally, I think these games should be over 2,000 points and be labeled as such. Honestly, the way it is now, there is so much shoved into the game, layered on top of the game, and it's such a mess, it amazes me I didn't see it sooner. It's because we ARE playing Apocalypse and not 40k. GW totally pulled that one over on us, or at least me. I've been reflecting on all this since I originally posted a couple weeks ago, and it really makes sense. No wonder I couldn't see it as sustainable. And this is why many are having difficulties with the time limits at some of the big tournaments. When the point limit is 1,850, but you're really playing 2,400 points, it just takes straight up too long to play the game in that 2.5 hours any more.

Oh, and I know, I hear some of you thinking, "What about Harlequins or the couple other armies that don't have access to CAD?" Well, I think we address these exceptions separately on a case by case basis. I think these can be adjusted, fixed with little effort, but I think the principal is sound. Stick with CADs for all and most of the problems, particularly the recent ones, just go away.

So, what do you think? Am I crazy? Would it feel too 'old school' for you? Did YOU realize you were playing Apocalypse?

[daboarder]

I like the idea, but that does leave Ad mech, Harlies and others completely out of the loop.

You can no longer run many common forces WITHOUT running a formation of some sort. It sucks and its done purely to force acceptance of design changes on the community and combat its rejection of gross imbalance, but that is the nature of the company.

For example While I love hte idea of toning the stupid down I would really prefer not to institute a house rule like that which would make my mates Deathwing non existant

[Charon]

Sticking to CAD solves nothing.
I really like the formations and decurions as you can apply a balancing (and cash grabbing) element. You want that cool bonus? Then take that crappy unit!
This unit is crappy? How about it gets these special rules?

CAD is not very different from formations. If you happen to have excellent Troop choices and HQs you will love CAD. If you have crappy Troops and all your good units sit in Fast attack, CAD becomes a pain in the ***.
Not much difference to formations.

[Erik Setzer]

I knew I was playing Apoc 28mm a while back. Been calling it that for a while.

You can't put all the genies back in the bottle. And you're punishing some armies like Orks and even Space Wolves for the most part, for what's in the newer books. Orks have a detachment that they basically need to function in the way they're meant to by the fluff (lots of mobs of Boyz) with an extra HQ slot because you need the HQs to buff all those Boyz. Space Wolves don't have a crazy detachment. Heck, the basic detachment for Skitarii isn't that bad until you realize there's no rule against using Scout on a fortification.

If it's in the game, people will use it. It's a lot of effort to tell people that the many pages of their books dedicated to formations and detachments and all are moot.

The only way to really fix the balance issue is to have a complete do-over. We might be headed to that point sooner than expected, not because GW wants to AoS-ify 40K, but because 40K's last year of releases prior to AoS's arrival took the game and exploded the balance and turned it into a free for all mess. You can't even rely on people being kind players. There's a local guy who bought the Eldar Wraith army box when he was getting into the game, had no idea they'd make all of those guys so much better with the next codex. What is he supposed to do, just not play with the majority of his army? He's not thrilled they ROLFstomp people, but his only other option is to not play until he spends hundreds on a new army.

CAD might be a quick fix, but it'd still open up issues of its own, and leave some armies as clear winners and some as clear losers.

Unfortunately, the only real fix would be to burn down the current crop of codices and completely redo them with a mind to balance them against each other. I don't see that happening any time soon.

[40kGamer]

I knew I was playing Apoc 28mm a while back. Been calling it that for a while.

I think of it more as a *******ized 28mm Epic 40k but that's quibbling over details.

The game is so out of sorts at the moment that I think the best way to play is with all the rules layered in. For example, Eldar are just so nasty in this incarnation that I feel bad playing them at all, even though that has been my army of choice since they were released way back in the day. Some armies can only compete with Eldar through their own formations.

So to second, third or fourth the others, CAD is also awful. I'm excited to go play at a local event this fall that let's you bring a 1750 army with a sidebar force that you can swap out for different games. This will let me build a soft list for when I come up against a fluff bunny and a slap to the face list for the more competitive players. This is an option I've wanted to have for years.

[Defenestratus]

No NO NO NONOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

Formations are some of the best things to happen to the game.

There's no reason why an Eldar army should have the same structure as an Imperial Guard army.

As for 7th being the best. Nay, 2nd was the best.

(I also find it hilarious that you're just fine with Allies. Considering they're the source of most of the breaking of the game)

[Kazzigum]

No NO NO NONOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

Formations are some of the best things to happen to the game.

There's no reason why an Eldar army should have the same structure as an Imperial Guard army.

As for 7th being the best. Nay, 2nd was the best.

(I also find it hilarious that you're just fine with Allies. Considering they're the source of most of the breaking of the game)

I am not okay with Allies as they are, or really at all, but as I said, it's not all about me. I just thought I'd leave it to another thread. One thing at a time.

[Kazzigum]

I like the idea, but that does leave Ad mech, Harlies and others completely out of the loop.

You can no longer run many common forces WITHOUT running a formation of some sort. It sucks and its done purely to force acceptance of design changes on the community and combat its rejection of gross imbalance, but that is the nature of the company.

For example While I love hte idea of toning the stupid down I would really prefer not to institute a house rule like that which would make my mates Deathwing non existant

I gotcha. And I understand, to a degree. But the greater good must be served. And, honestly, I don't think there really are as many specific forces that could not be done without CAD as you might think. The last year and GW's hypnotism have just made you believe there is. At the end of the day, you those few that really cannot conform to CAD, we make exceptions and tweak them so that they no longer get the 'bonus' that makes them stupid.

[Kazzigum]

Sticking to CAD solves nothing.
I really like the formations and decurions as you can apply a balancing (and cash grabbing) element. You want that cool bonus? Then take that crappy unit!
This unit is crappy? How about it gets these special rules?

CAD is not very different from formations. If you happen to have excellent Troop choices and HQs you will love CAD. If you have crappy Troops and all your good units sit in Fast attack, CAD becomes a pain in the ***.
Not much difference to formations.

I disagree. CAD solves a lot. I really liked formations and specialized detachments (this not so much, as it became just blatant at this point) at first too. They were sold to us as being more thematic, and as you say, giving a little power bump to those units that could really use it. But this is a lie, they really don't. Instead, they provide the bump to the units that really DON'T need it, because in most cases, that's what the player will choose. And that was the beginning, the slippery slope is a near free fall at this point. At this point, why not just open it up to Unbound across the board? Seriously, why do tournaments not just allow Unbound? Functionally, there is no difference. With a little thought, and a formation here and there, you can literally do anything people feared when they saw Unbound for the first time. Want 5 flying hive tyrants? No problem. Wanna run an army of all daemonic monstrous creatures? Again, not a problem. All super heavies? Five wraith knights? All psykers? On and on it goes. If you believe otherwise, you are fooling yourself. Formations and these detachments make this Apocalypse, period. Perhaps that's okay with you, and if so, that's fine. To me, it explains the shrinking player base. Apocalypse, while cool and fun for some, was always a hot mess for those who just wanted to throw all their toys on the table a slug it out. Hmmm...does that sound familiar to anyone else? The problem is, only those with big collections or deep pockets could really get involved. And that's where we are now.

And once again, though I play a lot of things, CSMs are my army of choice. A return to CAD will leave me at the lower end of the power curve. I am aware of it and am good to go. Again, the basic rules of the game, especially stuff like tactical objectives, means that it is still far better for me than it currently is. When 7th first launched, almost anyone could win if they played the mission, as though the power curve (as it has always been) was skewed towards some armies (and not mine), the gap was not enough to trump the missions completely. I firmly believe this is just not so anymore.

[Defenestratus]

I disagree. CAD solves a lot. I really liked formations and specialized detachments (this not so much, as it became just blatant at this point) at first too. They were sold to us as being more thematic, and as you say, giving a little power bump to those units that could really use it. But this is a lie, they really don't. Instead, they provide the bump to the units that really DON'T need it, because in most cases, that's what the player will choose. And that was the beginning, the slippery slope is a near free fall at this point. At this point, why not just open it up to Unbound across the board? Seriously, why do tournaments not just allow Unbound? Functionally, there is no difference. With a little thought, and a formation here and there, you can literally do anything people feared when they saw Unbound for the first time. Want 5 flying hive tyrants? No problem. Wanna run an army of all daemonic monstrous creatures? Again, not a problem. All super heavies? Five wraith knights? All psykers? On and on it goes. If you believe otherwise, you are fooling yourself. Formations and these detachments make this Apocalypse, period. Perhaps that's okay with you, and if so, that's fine. To me, it explains the shrinking player base. Apocalypse, while cool and fun for some, was always a hot mess for those who just wanted to throw all their toys on the table a slug it out. Hmmm...does that sound familiar to anyone else? The problem is, only those with big collections or deep pockets could really get involved. And that's where we are now.

And once again, though I play a lot of things, CSMs are my army of choice. A return to CAD will leave me at the lower end of the power curve. I am aware of it and am good to go. Again, the basic rules of the game, especially stuff like tactical objectives, means that it is still far better for me than it currently is. When 7th first launched, almost anyone could win if they played the mission, as though the power curve (as it has always been) was skewed towards some armies (and not mine), the gap was not enough to trump the missions completely. I firmly believe this is just not so anymore.

I'm genuinely pleased that this nonsense, just like every other nonsense effort to "fix" 40k will go no further than a bunch of digital bloviating online.