Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

EDIT: Cleaned up the formatting for readability

I bought the White Dwarf Weekly because I wanted to see info on the Helbrute and Crimson Slaughter. I found the following quotes in an article talking about the Knights that illustrates the how the designers seem to approach things and the idea of balance.

A quote from Jervis:

The addition of a model on the battlefield that is so powerful and potentially dominant has the inevitable effect of causing all Warhammer 40,000 players to take stock. It's a massive war machine, capable of having a profound effect on any game. Over the coming weeks, as more players add them to their collections, and their impact on the battlefield is played out across gaming tables around the world, there is going to be a race to unravel its secrets and work out the best ways to use it or destroy it.

Next, from Simon Grant immediately following the above:

Jervis has hit the nail on the head there. Because Imperial Knights have a fully-fledged Codex of their own, you will see them both as allies and as primary detachments. They'll also be appearing in any style of Warhammer 40,000 game, whether that's allied to armies in Eternal War missions, marching into the fray in Stronghold Assault games, and so on. The possibilities are endless. Even during playtesting we realised this was going to be a game changer. Do you adapt your army to deal with an Imperial Knight, or do you adapt your tactics?

Two more quotes from Jervis which IMO sum up some real insanity:

"In the end, we are very satisfied with the place the Imperial Knights have taken in Warhammer 40,000," says Jervis. "This is because no one army can ever deal with all-comers. The holy grail of many hobbyists is to fashion a single, all-conquering army that can win in any eventuality, but in truth there is probably no such thing. It doesn't make the search any less fun, but there are just too many variables, and the Imperial Knight adds another wrinkle to it. What's good at killing a Baneblade is not necessarily much good at dealing with an Imperial Knight, and it almost certainly won't help against a Tyranid Hive Crone. All this encourages people to experiment with their tactics and their collections, and I think this is one of the things adding the Imperial Knight has done. As a games developer, the most important thing I have learned to be most wary of is cutting down options," Jervis concludes. "It's our duty to provide more choices and opportunities for people to have fun with their friends. I think the tactical challenge the Imperial Knight offers are going to do that."

and a bit about their design process:

So, though it may surprise some people, my first concern with rules is always that they are a fair reflection of the background behind the model. Once we get that nailed down, and we're happy with the character of the rules, we then turn our minds to other practicalities: how long will it take people to figure out the best ways to use them? Will people be able to develop counter-tactics once they have played a few games?

So there you have it. They don't like the idea that there exists a "take all comers" army, and thinks there shouldn't be one and I guess expect you to show up to a game, get the snot kicked out of you by 3 Titans, and then next week show up with a list to crush the 3 Titans. They WANT an escalating arms race, presumably because it involves buying more models.

Another quote from Robin (Cruddace? Not familiar with the current generation of designers):

If people find the idea of facing an Imperial Knight (or six) in their games shocking, then combining them with Escalation is going to blow their minds. Realistically you could squeeze an Imperial Knight into your army with your Lords of War unit. A Shadowsword or Baneblade with an Imperial Knight to protect? That sounds like the start of a great narrative, and a massive battle right there.

Another quote from Robin that I didn't post calls the Imperial Knight "a complex tactical puzzle"

Also of note is how with very few exceptions they refer to their customers as "hobbyists". Not gamers, not players, but hobbyists.

Probably makes sense , although not for me . Very few people here has to cash to keep up with escalation . Knights don't add much , because they aren't harder to kill then an eldar titans for same points and only those who had the cash to buy recast titans will buy recast knights .

Eldar had an all comers list in every edition other then 5th . from what I have been told .

I think the last time I read something in a White Dwarf about the actual mechanics of the game it was Jervis angrily telling me that the 'just 4+ it' rules makes the game perfect, that the developers just use it themselves when they don't know how 2 special rules should interact and anyone who disagrees is wrong and needs to shut up.

I'm 98% sure that these days there is no "Hey I have a good idea, lets do X", instead the studio has been reduced to "Corporate say we are making a Knight, how can we make a superheavy walker fit into the game?"

What's good at killing a Baneblade is not necessarily much good at dealing with an Imperial Knight

Erm...

Am I being dense here, but, shield aside, isn't everything that's good at killing a Baneblade going to be relatively decent against a Knight?

yes , it will . But I don't think they play the game they make at all or they play it in a such a drasticly different way then the rest of the world , that they don't see basic stuff.

 azreal13 wrote:

What's good at killing a Baneblade is not necessarily much good at dealing with an Imperial Knight

Erm...

Am I being dense here, but, shield aside, isn't everything that's good at killing a Baneblade going to be relatively decent against a Knight?

It's not as sturdy as a Baneblade, so if you can shoot it where the shield can't protect it, it shouldn't be an issue to bring down.

So I have to buy 5 drop pod melta squads? I don't understand what the reasoning is behind this.

It's an entire list of vehicles that totally negate close combat. It's a spitwad in the face of Ork and Deathwing players.

Makumba wrote:
yes , it will . But I don't think they play the game they make at all or they play it in a such a drasticly different way then the rest of the world , that they don't see basic stuff.

That's honestly what I think - they play, but they play the game in a very strange way that's not indicative of how basically anybody else plays the game, so they don't see any issues because they never come up against it.

I recall once long ago I think it was an old White Dwarf article, and the details and author escapes me, that talked about how it was fun to see what new tricks your opponent came up with and then try to counter it and/or one-up them the next battle. That definitely seems to be how they seem to think the game should be played (all in good fun of course), but I think culturally they might also think that most people playing have a regular opponent or more that they are friendly with versus pick-up games and the like.

I have to admit though for all the flack I give them, that mentality explains a lot. People would IMO be less cutthroat or complaining about netlists/balance and the like if you were just playing with some friends in somebody's basement or garage or house and drinking a few beers, having a good time with whatever you decided to field in a balanced list versus the typical "Let me go to the local game store and see who's up for a game" or "Let me compete in this tournament for a prize" which tends to bring out the "It's a game, I want to win" mentality even indirectly.

"As a games developer, the most important thing I have learned to be most wary of is cutting down options" - Jervis Johnson

Dear god, is he just trolling all of us now? He just wrote a fething codex that has no options. This is insane.


To the overal concept that there is no top or take all army, are they fething high?

 TedNugent wrote:
So I have to buy 5 drop pod melta squads? I don't understand what the reasoning is behind this.

It's an entire list of vehicles that totally negate close combat. It's a spitwad in the face of Ork and Deathwing players.

Basically. You need to adapt your tactics to deal with this; at least that's GW's stance.

(Removed quote from Robin Cruddace and added it to the OP)

I agree with them. i think its cool what they are doing. Merely giving us lots of options to make lots of cool games to fit our liking.

Pretty much what i want in a game.

Awesome.

So, in order to combat the creation of a 'beat-all-comers' list, GW decides to add yet another detachment to the already somewhat ludicrous amount, and rather nonsensical allies matrix, thus making it much easier to tailor your list against all-comers?

So, if you're imperium it's cool to customise your list to the tiniest detail to ensure that near nothing can take you by surprise, while (most of) the rest have to constantly change tactics to fight it.

Cool.

Swastakowey wrote:I agree with them. i think its cool what they are doing. Merely giving us lots of options to make lots of cool games to fit our liking.

Pretty much what i want in a game.

Awesome.

Crablezworth wrote:"As a games developer, the most important thing I have learned to be most wary of is cutting down options" - Jervis Johnson

Dear god, is he just trolling all of us now? He just wrote a fething codex that has no options. This is insane.

WayneTheGame wrote:
I recall once long ago I think it was an old White Dwarf article, and the details and author escapes me, that talked about how it was fun to see what new tricks your opponent came up with and then try to counter it and/or one-up them the next battle. That definitely seems to be how they seem to think the game should be played (all in good fun of course), but I think culturally they might also think that most people playing have a regular opponent or more that they are friendly with versus pick-up games and the like.

I have to admit though for all the flack I give them, that mentality explains a lot. People would IMO be less cutthroat or complaining about netlists/balance and the like if you were just playing with some friends in somebody's basement or garage or house and drinking a few beers, having a good time with whatever you decided to field in a balanced list versus the typical "Let me go to the local game store and see who's up for a game" or "Let me compete in this tournament for a prize" which tends to bring out the "It's a game, I want to win" mentality even indirectly.

As discussed in a recent thread that you may have seen, balance hurts friendly games a lot, too. A game should never make you actually feel bad because your list is just so fantastically powerful vs your friend's. The first time I brought a Heldrake, my regular opponent brought a mostly-PA SM army with zero anti-air beyond a lasPred. It wasn't fun for either of us until I straight up gave him an Icarus lascannon on his Bastion in the middle of the game and made sure to ignore the lasPred (which I could have easily taken out with my Land Raider's lascannons or my Forgefiend's autocannons/plasmahead or the Heldrake itself). While the 'drake died quickly to such firepower, the damage potential it had was just silly. I've said before that I don't think Heldrakes are broken on their own (three of them, yes, but the Heldrake is hardly equal to a Riptide, being in a much weaker army), but this demonstrates perfectly how lack of balance is bad. While his list was poorly-made, some matchups (which are getting increasingly common) are like this, regardless of how well-made your list is, by virtue of the strength of your Codex vs theirs. It's getting to the point where it's like "I brought army Y, but I see you brought army X or unit Z so I may as well just surrender before deployment". I don't believe Knights are part of this problem, due to their expense and comparatively low-power weapons (big enough for what they are, but no 72" Str D Large Blasts or Ion Accelerators), but this developer attitude shows.

In essence, the defence of "we're designing it for friendly games" rings hollow. I want my friend to have fun. I don't really care so much if a random stranger has fun, although I would prefer it if they did. Going into a tournament scene or even just a random gaming store game, I don't expect to be treated lightly or like a friend. Yet in friendly games, I'm forced to actually limit myself so that the game can be fair and enjoyable.

I have a small army of Tau, which include a Riptide. I am going to field it (because I love the model, which is why I bought it), but I'm going to fluff-rule it that the pilot is an absolute idiot so that my opponent can actually have an army to play with. I might make it use the Chaos Dreadnought table.

EDIT: Or maybe the Riptide is fitted with an experimental mental-interface designed to reduce reaction times and link the pilot's brain with the computer, giving them the ability to predict the most likely outcome in any situation. Unfortunately, this extra sensory information can overload the brain and cause the pilot to go insane.

If you play with friends (as I do) you should make lists with them in mind, just like any game. And you avoid most problems. I know one of my friends has NO ANTI AIR. SO I dot field flyers around him.

I know that pick up games show unbalance but they should be avoided at all costs anyways. But its easy to make the game balanced buy just playing 500 points with lots of terrain. That will fix everyone's problems.

But I want to bring Heldrakes. I like to build lists. I want to be able to go "my opponent is probably bringing lots of Space Marines. Heldrakes are good against Space Marines. I will bring a Heldrake" without this immediately almost-guaranteeing a win; even if he did bring dedicated anti-air, it is all too easy for me to shut down before the 'drake even arrives on the board. All I need to do is to snipe out his AA, then allow my flier to come in and wipe out his Troops in like two turns, thus disabling him from scoring and basically winning me the game right there.

It only gets worse with other armies. If I played Eldar or Tau properly, I wouldn't be able to optimise my list, plan strategies, etc. List-building stops being about making your list good and about how you can deliberately handicap yourself so that it becomes somewhat fair for your opponent. That is not fun. It's like playing a game of chess where all of your pieces are Queens (Queens are OP).

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
But I want to bring Heldrakes. I like to build lists. I want to be able to go "my opponent is probably bringing lots of Space Marines. Heldrakes are good against Space Marines. I will bring a Heldrake" without this immediately almost-guaranteeing a win; even if he did bring dedicated anti-air, it is all too easy for me to shut down before the 'drake even arrives on the board. All I need to do is to snipe out his AA, then allow my flier to come in and wipe out his Troops in like two turns, thus disabling him from scoring and basically winning me the game right there.

It only gets worse with other armies. If I played Eldar or Tau properly, I wouldn't be able to optimise my list, plan strategies, etc. List-building stops being about making your list good and about how you can deliberately handicap yourself so that it becomes somewhat fair for your opponent. That is not fun. It's like playing a game of chess where all of your pieces are Queens (Queens are OP).

Dude, its not "I want. I want. I want!" Its lets have fun.

Do you have more fun taking fliers against someone with no Anti Air? Of course not.

Do you have more fun not taking anti air anf fighting your friend on his terms? Of course you do!

So remember to just lay back a bit and play the game for what it is. A friendly game where you dont please yourself, you please the player on the other side. (cough). If your player on the other side is doing the same thing then the game is amazingly much more fun.

http://theimperialpatrol.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/3-ways-to-enhancing-your-gaming.html

A lot of people have been reading this. I advise id you dont like the game you should give it a try. If worst comes to worst try another game and see how it goes. But just change your attitude towards the game and you will have more fun. ALl I see is a lot of I want in your complaints. Thats not what the game is about. Like the designers say, its about creating a story and shaking up the game. Not a battle of super lists.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I agree with them. i think its cool what they are doing. Merely giving us lots of options to make lots of cool games to fit our liking. .

Yeah, that's totally what they're doing.

Tell you what, if you're ever over this side of the pond, drop in for a game. We'll play 2000 points, but you are only allowed to actually use 500.

That's what they've done by allowing an entire army of Knights. It's totally awesome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I know that pick up games show unbalance but they should be avoided at all costs anyways.

I started playing this game in 1994. In that time, the vast majority of my games have been pick up games. I'm a long, long way from being the only gamer that would apply to.

 insaniak wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I agree with them. i think its cool what they are doing. Merely giving us lots of options to make lots of cool games to fit our liking. .

Yeah, that's totally what they're doing.

Tell you what, if you're ever over this side of the pond, drop in for a game. We'll play 2000 points, but you are only allowed to actually use 500.

That's what they've done by allowing an entire army of Knights. It's totally awesome.

?

Well I was just over on your side of the world and people I saw playing in melbourne where having a great time. And they arent allowing anyone to. You are allowing the player in front of you to. The rule book is blatantly clear that its a set of guideline. Not law.

Use your brain and free will to make the game more suited for you.

Maybe you'll smile when you play your 40k games. There is only so much blame that can be thrown at GW when you can do what the book was made for and make the game your own.

@OP

Yeah their view is a real worry, but hopefully they'll sort it out somehow. I'd even be happy with two lists, one of 'for fun, background flavoured' or whatever armies, and one of 'tightly written and balanced' armies, if they truly believe that it isn't possible to have both (something I disagree with whole heartedly, but hey)

@Swas

In how many different threads are you going to pimp your blog, seriously. And the people reading it must have a tolerance for poor grammar that is quite impressive.

I don't see how treating my friends as if they are small children is good for the game. Because that's what that is. It's when you purposely play games badly when you're playing them with small children, so you don't effortlessly crush them by virtue of being better in every single capacity.

My aforementioned friend does not know that I do this. He honestly believes that his wins or losses are on his own merit. What do I say to him? "I'm sorry, you suck. Here, let's Forge A Narrative by pre-planning our lists!"?

And, um, yes. It is about what I "want". I play the game to have fun, not as a service to someone else. I "want" to have fun, and I don't see why that's so much to ask. What does that even mean? Do I roll a Land Raider up to the only guy in his entire army with a powerfist and sit it there for a turn, so that he can have "fun"? Or do I play like I'm actually vaguely trying to win (which is the condition that both players are aiming for, because it's a wargame)?

I'm sorry if you think that even the slightest attempt at list-building is "super-lists". I'm not talking about Triptides or Fear Squadrons or Taudar or 2++ rerollable or Jetbike Councils or whatever. I'm talking about how it is absolutely stupid that I can beat a friend in a friendly game without even trying, just by virtue of my army being better than his and me actually enjoying putting some thought into my lists. How is this a good thing, at all?

"I brought my Eldar today, I feel like playing Eldar."
"Well I brought my Orks today, I just felt like playing Orks even though I normally play Grey Knights."
"Oh. Well, excuse me for a moment while I dumb down my list so that Orks actually have half a chance at surviving past turn two."
"Sure. That's fun! Let's Forge A Narrative!"

EDIT: Go play a sport with a very small child. Have fun by pretending to try your hardest so they don't feel bad.

 motyak wrote:
@OP

Yeah their view is a real worry, but hopefully they'll sort it out somehow. I'd even be happy with two lists, one of 'for fun, background flavoured' or whatever armies, and one of 'tightly written and balanced' armies, if they truly believe that it isn't possible to have both (something I disagree with whole heartedly, but hey)

@Swas

In how many different threads are you going to pimp your blog, seriously. And the people reading it must have a tolerance for poor grammar that is quite impressive.

Haha, yea im working on it. Funnily enough I do a lot of typing for my job...

and I want that post to be read becuase I used to just whine about GW a lot too. But after a while my group have started to work out ways of making the game a lot more enjoyable and everyone is moving back to 40k. Its been great. All that was needed was effort.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 motyak wrote:
@OP

Yeah their view is a real worry, but hopefully they'll sort it out somehow. I'd even be happy with two lists, one of 'for fun, background flavoured' or whatever armies, and one of 'tightly written and balanced' armies, if they truly believe that it isn't possible to have both (something I disagree with whole heartedly, but hey)

@Swas

In how many different threads are you going to pimp your blog, seriously. And the people reading it must have a tolerance for poor grammar that is quite impressive.

Haha, yea im working on it. Funnily enough I do a lot of typing for my job...

and I want that post to be read becuase I used to just whine about GW a lot too. But after a while my group have started to work out ways of making the game a lot more enjoyable and everyone is moving back to 40k. Its been great. All that was needed was effort.

Emphasis mine. Don't you think that this should, you know, be the designers' job since that's what they are presumably paid good money to do?

I'm glad that you are enjoying the game but your counter argument seems to be to either change the rules you don't like, or have some weird kind of "Well, you aren't fielding any anti-tank, so I'm going to not bring any vehicles" mentality. That's not even forging the narrative, that's basically deliberately playing stupid so the game is balanced, which should indicate there's a fundamental flaw in the game itself.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Use your brain and free will to make the game more suited for you.

You've missed the point, here.

Aside from a game once every couple of months with my brother, all of my games these days are either pick up games or tournaments. So the game that is best suited to me is the one in the rulebook.

Maybe you'll smile when you play your 40k games. There is only so much blame that can be thrown at GW when you can do what the book was made for and make the game your own.

I smile plenty when I play 40K games. That doesn't change the fact that there is some broken nonsense in the rules, and that the addition of Knights into the mix was done badly. I can have a fun game against Chaos Marines, or Eldar, or Tau. I don't expect a game against a Knight army would be fun for either player.

And the blame for that is solely on the shoulders of the guys who wrote those rules.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 motyak wrote:
@OP

Yeah their view is a real worry, but hopefully they'll sort it out somehow. I'd even be happy with two lists, one of 'for fun, background flavoured' or whatever armies, and one of 'tightly written and balanced' armies, if they truly believe that it isn't possible to have both (something I disagree with whole heartedly, but hey)

@Swas

In how many different threads are you going to pimp your blog, seriously. And the people reading it must have a tolerance for poor grammar that is quite impressive.

Haha, yea im working on it. Funnily enough I do a lot of typing for my job...

and I want that post to be read becuase I used to just whine about GW a lot too. But after a while my group have started to work out ways of making the game a lot more enjoyable and everyone is moving back to 40k. Its been great. All that was needed was effort.

Emphasis mine. Don't you think that this should, you know, be the designers' job since that's what they are presumably paid good money to do?

They are paid good money because people buy the rules as they are.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Haha, yea im working on it. Funnily enough I do a lot of typing for my job...

and I want that post to be read becuase I used to just whine about GW a lot too. But after a while my group have started to work out ways of making the game a lot more enjoyable and everyone is moving back to 40k. Its been great. All that was needed was effort.

Yeah, the premium priced car i bought is much better now I've spent vast quantities of cash on parts to fix all the bits that didn't work and dozens of man hours replacing and fitting them.

Oh no, normal companies don't sell products that require massive amounts of effort to make them work as it should.

If your friends are happy to invest effort into expanding your 40K experience, great, but it should be a choice, not a near necessity.

 Swastakowey wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 motyak wrote:
@OP

Yeah their view is a real worry, but hopefully they'll sort it out somehow. I'd even be happy with two lists, one of 'for fun, background flavoured' or whatever armies, and one of 'tightly written and balanced' armies, if they truly believe that it isn't possible to have both (something I disagree with whole heartedly, but hey)

@Swas

In how many different threads are you going to pimp your blog, seriously. And the people reading it must have a tolerance for poor grammar that is quite impressive.

Haha, yea im working on it. Funnily enough I do a lot of typing for my job...

and I want that post to be read becuase I used to just whine about GW a lot too. But after a while my group have started to work out ways of making the game a lot more enjoyable and everyone is moving back to 40k. Its been great. All that was needed was effort.

Emphasis mine. Don't you think that this should, you know, be the designers' job since that's what they are presumably paid good money to do?

They are paid good money because people buy the rules as they are.

So writing garbage is acceptable as long as people buy it as it is? I see. I'll remember that the next time I write some buggy software at work and people wonder why it's not working correctly. "But people bought it, so it's good enough!"

Um no. That's not how it works.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Spoiler:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:I agree with them. i think its cool what they are doing. Merely giving us lots of options to make lots of cool games to fit our liking.

Pretty much what i want in a game.

Awesome.

Crablezworth wrote:"As a games developer, the most important thing I have learned to be most wary of is cutting down options" - Jervis Johnson

Dear god, is he just trolling all of us now? He just wrote a fething codex that has no options. This is insane.

WayneTheGame wrote:
I recall once long ago I think it was an old White Dwarf article, and the details and author escapes me, that talked about how it was fun to see what new tricks your opponent came up with and then try to counter it and/or one-up them the next battle. That definitely seems to be how they seem to think the game should be played (all in good fun of course), but I think culturally they might also think that most people playing have a regular opponent or more that they are friendly with versus pick-up games and the like.

I have to admit though for all the flack I give them, that mentality explains a lot. People would IMO be less cutthroat or complaining about netlists/balance and the like if you were just playing with some friends in somebody's basement or garage or house and drinking a few beers, having a good time with whatever you decided to field in a balanced list versus the typical "Let me go to the local game store and see who's up for a game" or "Let me compete in this tournament for a prize" which tends to bring out the "It's a game, I want to win" mentality even indirectly.

As discussed in a recent thread that you may have seen, balance hurts friendly games a lot, too. A game should never make you actually feel bad because your list is just so fantastically powerful vs your friend's. The first time I brought a Heldrake, my regular opponent brought a mostly-PA SM army with zero anti-air beyond a lasPred. It wasn't fun for either of us until I straight up gave him an Icarus lascannon on his Bastion in the middle of the game and made sure to ignore the lasPred (which I could have easily taken out with my Land Raider's lascannons or my Forgefiend's autocannons/plasmahead or the Heldrake itself). While the 'drake died quickly to such firepower, the damage potential it had was just silly. I've said before that I don't think Heldrakes are broken on their own (three of them, yes, but the Heldrake is hardly equal to a Riptide, being in a much weaker army), but this demonstrates perfectly how lack of balance is bad. While his list was poorly-made, some matchups (which are getting increasingly common) are like this, regardless of how well-made your list is, by virtue of the strength of your Codex vs theirs. It's getting to the point where it's like "I brought army Y, but I see you brought army X or unit Z so I may as well just surrender before deployment". I don't believe Knights are part of this problem, due to their expense and comparatively low-power weapons (big enough for what they are, but no 72" Str D Large Blasts or Ion Accelerators), but this developer attitude shows.

In essence, the defence of "we're designing it for friendly games" rings hollow. I want my friend to have fun. I don't really care so much if a random stranger has fun, although I would prefer it if they did. Going into a tournament scene or even just a random gaming store game, I don't expect to be treated lightly or like a friend. Yet in friendly games, I'm forced to actually limit myself so that the game can be fair and enjoyable.

I have a small army of Tau, which include a Riptide. I am going to field it (because I love the model, which is why I bought it), but I'm going to fluff-rule it that the pilot is an absolute idiot so that my opponent can actually have an army to play with. I might make it use the Chaos Dreadnought table.

If you play with friends (as I do) you should make lists with them in mind, just like any game. And you avoid most problems. I know one of my friends has NO ANTI AIR. SO I dot field flyers around him.

This is actually an instance where I'd just say "ok, my friend doesn't have AA, so I won't bring a flyer". Or, at worst, I'd bring 1 or 2 flyers if I knew they didn't have a problem with that. Back before the Nids book got updated, I wouldn't bring the Doom when fighting my friends' Blood Angels or Orks because he was unfairly brutal to them. The way I see it, if you're going for a friendly match, there should be an expectation not to abuse your opponent's capabilities... that gets closer to tailoring imho.

For those who are likening the rulebook to something that doesnt function AS IT SHOULD.

If I sold a 7 meter boat for $200,000 to a customer and it didnt function properly, by law Id have to replace the boat with another one of equal value and purpose or get it fixed at a cost.

If I purchased a car from a dealer and it did not work, by law I can take it back and get a replacement or refund etc.

So if 40k rules arent functioning like in your car "example" or program "example then im fairly sure you have every right to complain.

But the way I see it the 40k rules are advertised correctly, they do what the designers say they are meant to and they are sold in a proper process.

They are doing nothing wrong at all, you as a customer are responsible for making choices when buying a product and its only the sellers problem if they misinformed you or did shady business. Both of which they have not done.

So who is to blame then, if GW has done nothing wrong? The people who buy it. Someone cant buy a boat then say it wasnt what they wanted and expect a refund. Thats not my problem thats their problem for not thinking their purchase through. Just like with 40k. I know its harsh but you as a consumer are protected enough as it is and GW did not do anything to breach your rights as a customer. So they are in no way at fault. If you are unhappy with their product for any illegitimate reason (such as its not what I wanted) then the blame lies with you.

So if you made me a buggy program but advertised it as a barely working not very efficient program, but I still purchased it, then im at fault. Not you. But if you said its a program that works EXACTLY LIKE YOU WANT IT To and it doesnt work properly then the fault lies with you. Same with the car example.

So you as a customer have a few choices. Move on as the product clearly isnt for you, put in the effort to make your mistake purchase worthwhile, sell it off to try make some of your money back or put up with it.

Thats how I see it and thats how it works in real world examples. Well here in NZ it does anyways.

OK, let's revise things slightly, let's say 40K functions exactly how GW want it to.

That means that it isn't faulty per se, they just have a number of customers whose expectations of the product are different to what GW intend, and GW have spectacularly failed at managing those expectations, and a product that is distinctly sub par and shouldn't be positioned as a "premium" product.

GW is lazy, they have spent years coasting on the momentum of being the only game in town (literally and figuratively) and I really hope their current down turn in financials is sustained enough and deep enough to illicit a real culture change and bring the game to the heights we all want it to achieve. Jervis probably shouldn't be around for that.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
I don't see how treating my friends as if they are small children is good for the game. Because that's what that is. It's when you purposely play games badly when you're playing them with small children, so you don't effortlessly crush them by virtue of being better in every single capacity.

My aforementioned friend does not know that I do this. He honestly believes that his wins or losses are on his own merit. What do I say to him? "I'm sorry, you suck. Here, let's Forge A Narrative by pre-planning our lists!"?

And, um, yes. It is about what I "want". I play the game to have fun, not as a service to someone else. I "want" to have fun, and I don't see why that's so much to ask. What does that even mean? Do I roll a Land Raider up to the only guy in his entire army with a powerfist and sit it there for a turn, so that he can have "fun"? Or do I play like I'm actually vaguely trying to win (which is the condition that both players are aiming for, because it's a wargame)?

I'm sorry if you think that even the slightest attempt at list-building is "super-lists". I'm not talking about Triptides or Fear Squadrons or Taudar or 2++ rerollable or Jetbike Councils or whatever. I'm talking about how it is absolutely stupid that I can beat a friend in a friendly game without even trying, just by virtue of my army being better than his and me actually enjoying putting some thought into my lists. How is this a good thing, at all?

"I brought my Eldar today, I feel like playing Eldar."
"Well I brought my Orks today, I just felt like playing Orks even though I normally play Grey Knights."
"Oh. Well, excuse me for a moment while I dumb down my list so that Orks actually have half a chance at surviving past turn two."
"Sure. That's fun! Let's Forge A Narrative!"

EDIT: Go play a sport with a very small child. Have fun by pretending to try your hardest so they don't feel bad.

You seem to be missing his point entirely - maybe absolutely face-smashing someone who has no chance to win is fun for you, but I doubt very much it's fun for the other person. Do you have fun playing against an army that you know can't hurt you? How is that fun or challenging? To me it's a waste of time. If I walked into my FLGS and saw some guy with a bunch of fliers that I knew my army had no chance against, I wouldn't play him. Like it or not, wargaming IRL is a social activity, one that is designed for both players to have fun with. If you're playing simply to have fun regardless of the whether or not your opponent is enjoying it, then maybe you should buy another army and play by yourself - apparently that seems to be the entire point of the game for you.