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.

 Captain Avatar wrote:
Enough already with the GW = Ferrari delusion.

Sigh, no delusion, just reading comprehension failures. It is an analogy, that is all. It serves a point, and without the ignorant posts does well when discussing philosophies.

I enjoy that I get to talk to my opponent about the game. Makes it more personable. Guess I'm lucky though.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Captain Avatar wrote:
Enough already with the GW = Ferrari delusion.

Sigh, no delusion, just reading comprehension failures. It is an analogy, that is all. It serves a point, and without the ignorant posts does well when discussing philosophies.

I enjoy that I get to talk to my opponent about the game. Makes it more personable. Guess I'm lucky though.

You get to talk to your opponent about the game in every game that you play, talking about games isn't a GW exclusive.

Requiring a negotiation process before the game even begins, on the other hand, is a GW exclusive.

 Murdius Maximus wrote:
I have fun playing 40k. All griping and complaining about the rules takes a distant second. Still one of the most fun hobbies I have. Glad the game is around personally.

I love all you guys but I swear these forums are poison sometimes. How can you all play a game you clearly hate so much?

I wonder this constantly when reading these forums. Just remember that very few people run to the internet to yell "we love XXX" its always we hate....

Just dont play. Warmachine is a fun game if you hate GW so much.


In our local meta we have some pretty standard rules. We have about 50 players in my area and other than a few individuals we all pretty much play standard bound armies with a limit to the amount of detachments and LoW only when agreed upon. 7th seems really fun to me. Yes invisibility is stupid and demons (or non-demons for that point) making bloodthristers etc is dumb fluff wise but its not that big a deal to me.

 Icelord wrote:
I wonder this constantly when reading these forums. Just remember that very few people run to the internet to yell "we love XXX" its always we hate....

This is blatantly false, just check any new release thread in news and rumours.

So just because some players let GW off writing clear instructions to play a game of 40k.
And they can agree with their player group to edit the codex books to arrive at what they believe to be fun games.

This means that ANYONE who wants the rule book to clearly explain how to play the game, is not getting the basic functional requirement from 7th edition 40k rule book.

And ANYONE who has not got the luxury of a regular gaming group, and relies on the codex books to deliver enough balance for random pick up games.
Is not getting the basic functional requirement from their codex book.

Asking for GW plc to supply publications that provide the basic functional requirement of the game system.(They charge premium prices for.)Is not 'hate'.
It is just common sense to expect basic functionality out of goods sold.And to complain when it is not present.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Captain Avatar wrote:
Enough already with the GW = Ferrari delusion.

Sigh, no delusion, just reading comprehension failures. It is an analogy, that is all. It serves a point, and without the ignorant posts does well when discussing philosophies.

I enjoy that I get to talk to my opponent about the game. Makes it more personable. Guess I'm lucky though.

*Sigh......(A very condescending way to start a reply).

Reading comp failures? ....Is this statement a direct shot at myself or just you being as vague as 40k rules.

I love where you think I that need to have the concept of an analogy explained to me. Seriously dude, get over yourself.

My use of the word delusion was both intentional and spot on. This is because the only thing that GW and Ferrari have in common is that they are for profit corporations. Thinking that there is some analogy to be made beyond that is delusional.

Why? Because for it to be an analogy then the two companies would need to be analogues of one another.
I refrained from feeding into this "GW is a high end luxury" myth that the company has been trying to establish. Bad enough that someone has bought into that sales pitch enough to even try and make the comparison.

As to communication....communication is fine. But verbal communication should not be a must if both players know the rules.

One of the things that I like about most "real" beer&pretzels games is that not only do they promote friendly competition they also can be played by people who don't even speak the same language.
Pool(billiards) and chess are games I can find all over the world and play even if I don't speak the language.

Also, one of the areas I play in I have a deaf friend. I don't use sign language day to day enough to be fluent. So dealing with current 40k has killed a lot of the fun in playing.
How to solve this? He got me into Warmachine. We can have a good game, enjoy each others company without struggling with the language barrier.

 Yonan wrote:

 Icelord wrote:
I wonder this constantly when reading these forums. Just remember that very few people run to the internet to yell "we love XXX" its always we hate....

This is blatantly false, just check any new release thread in news and rumours.

Or the painting section.

No, it is a failure to read because it is making an equivalence when I have never stated one.

Things can be analogous without being comparable in every way, as you posit. So no, not delusional, if you understand plain English.

I even said it wasn't about being high end, it's about explaining two philosophical differences which are apt and pertinent. Th fact you don't see it, but continually miss the point entirely , as in the post above, is just very telling.

Situations can be analogous. Philosophies can be analogous. Trying to explain a simple idea, that just because YOU want a company to design things the way YOU want, doesn't mean you have any entitlement to it, so acting like you ARE entitled just comes along as either pompous, or deluded.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it is a failure to read because it is making an equivalence when I have never stated one.

Things can be analogous without being comparable in every way, as you posit. So no, not delusional, if you understand plain English.

I even said it wasn't about being high end, it's about explaining two philosophical differences which are apt and pertinent. Th fact you don't see it, but continually miss the point entirely , as in the post above, is just very telling.

Situations can be analogous. Philosophies can be analogous. Trying to explain a simple idea, that just because YOU want a company to design things the way YOU want, doesn't mean you have any entitlement to it, so acting like you ARE entitled just comes along as either pompous, or deluded.

http://i.word.com/idictionary/analogy
http://i.word.com/idictionary/analog


Analogy & analogue

To paraphrase the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, "Those words, you keep using it. I don't think it means what you think it means.".

I would take time to try and educate you further on the proper meaning and use of these words but your arrogance and insulting remarks tell me that your ignorance is a willful choice rather than a failure of your countries education system.

Oh, also consider yourself reported.

Have a nice day,
Captain Avatar

Balance is not an issue. War is never equal...lol

 Corporal_Chaos wrote:
Balance is not an issue. War is never equal...lol

40k is not a war, it is a game.

 Corporal_Chaos wrote:
Balance is not an issue. War is never equal...lol

Real wars are not required to entertain the enemy commanders and make both of them feel like it was worth showing up. Playing in a wargame is optional, and done for fun. These things are not fun:

--Coming to the table and doing nothing but removing pieces.
--Getting chastised because your army crosses a hazy line that makes you "TFG"
--Looking at the lists and realising your army has been hard countered to the point where playing the actual game is a formality.
--Losing based on a random roll early on (you lose initiative and your superheavy gets blown away before it can act, for example)
--Having your army that you chose based on a cool part of the lore turn out to be useless (or too powerful).

And scenarios that are unequal in-setting can easily be done in a wargame while being fair to the players; there's the classic "last stand" scenario where the attackers outnumber the defenders, but must wipe out the defenders in a time limit to win. But even if one side is doomed from an in-universe perspective, the actual game on the table must use player skill as the deciding factor in a win.

 Corporal_Chaos wrote:
Balance is not an issue. War is never equal...lol

And neither side tries to deploy 1000 points with only a maximum of 5 points of variation in real war. 40k is a game, not a war.

And scenarios that are unequal in-setting can easily be done in a wargame while being fair to the players; there's the classic "last stand" scenario where the attackers outnumber the defenders, but must wipe out the defenders in a time limit to win. But even if one side is doomed from an in-universe perspective, the actual game on the table must use player skill as the deciding factor in a win.

This is what happened in the only narrative league at my store. The first game was a break through. All drop pod and eldar armies just droped in to extraction zones turn 1 getting 23-0 for bonus objectives. All people that were attackers quit the league after the first game. Next weeks game was a planet strike bunker assault mission . The eldar players only rolled to see who gets to be the attacker and out of the four marine players left the BA and SW drop pod players didn't show up , because they rolled to be defenders.

What does the OP mean by unplayable? By definition the game is not unplayable. Am I taking it too literally?

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Corporal_Chaos wrote:
Balance is not an issue. War is never equal...lol

And neither side tries to deploy 1000 points with only a maximum of 5 points of variation in real war. 40k is a game, not a war.

Please don't open THAT can of worms please.

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Corporal_Chaos wrote:
Balance is not an issue. War is never equal...lol

And neither side tries to deploy 1000 points with only a maximum of 5 points of variation in real war. 40k is a game, not a war.

In the grimdark future, there is only war.

 Random Dude wrote:
What does the OP mean by unplayable? By definition the game is not unplayable. Am I taking it too literally?

Well it is if you're trying to play Legion of the Dammed without allies but yes, too literally.

I find the imbalance so great I can't enjoy the game and no longer play. Therefore I voted unplayable.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Well it is if you're trying to play Legion of the Dammed without allies ...

That's not unplayable. Just really, really quick.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Corporal_Chaos wrote:
Balance is not an issue. War is never equal...lol

40k is not a war, it is a game.

This is true. However, the reason I haven't played much 40k is because I feel that 40k is a warGAME, as in, more emphasis is placed on rules lawyering, gimmicks, and metagaming than there is emphasis on actual tactics and the like.

Ogiwan wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Corporal_Chaos wrote:
Balance is not an issue. War is never equal...lol

40k is not a war, it is a game.

This is true. However, the reason I haven't played much 40k is because I feel that 40k is a warGAME, as in, more emphasis is placed on rules lawyering, gimmicks, and metagaming than there is emphasis on actual tactics and the like.

I think OP armies like Eldar encourage more tactical thinking. If your playing an under-powered army you are forced to have better tactics if you want to win.

 Random Dude wrote:

Ogiwan wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Corporal_Chaos wrote:
Balance is not an issue. War is never equal...lol

40k is not a war, it is a game.

This is true. However, the reason I haven't played much 40k is because I feel that 40k is a warGAME, as in, more emphasis is placed on rules lawyering, gimmicks, and metagaming than there is emphasis on actual tactics and the like.

I think OP armies like Eldar encourage more tactical thinking. If your playing an under-powered army you are forced to have better tactics if you want to win.

Player skill would be better.

 Icelord wrote:

 Murdius Maximus wrote:
I have fun playing 40k. All griping and complaining about the rules takes a distant second. Still one of the most fun hobbies I have. Glad the game is around personally.

I love all you guys but I swear these forums are poison sometimes. How can you all play a game you clearly hate so much?

I wonder this constantly when reading these forums. Just remember that very few people run to the internet to yell "we love XXX" its always we hate....

That's 100% false.

I love bourbon, chick with huge "tracks of land", and anyone that hates eggplant.

40K is still fun, *if* you have people you play with that you can agree on rules. I have sworn off tournaments.

When I want a reasonably balanced tournament I have my other games, GW is clear that they don't care about competitive play and that is why the game can be made in a lazy way... no need to balance if you are a "narrative beer and pretzels" game.

That isn't even a slight. I have FUN playing 40K. I just don't play it in a competitive environment anymore.

 Moktor wrote:
40K is still fun, *if* you have people you play with that you can agree on rules. I have sworn off tournaments.

When I want a reasonably balanced tournament I have my other games, GW is clear that they don't care about competitive play and that is why the game can be made in a lazy way... no need to balance if you are a "narrative beer and pretzels" game.

That isn't even a slight. I have FUN playing 40K. I just don't play it in a competitive environment anymore.

Numerous TOs have made good decisions. The BAO and ATC still have very competitive games.

The game's undoubtedly unbalanced if you take it as-is, with no alterations whatsoever. However, my gaming group, as a set of house rules, rules out many things such as Unbound and I've had some very good, close, balanced games with that ruleset.

These "balance" threads are always so lame. If you want to play a game that is perfectly balanced, try chess. Warhammer is a fluff-driven recreational activity that is explicitly intended to have a beer and pretzels level of competition. The idea that any game with 10+ independent forces played with a several hundred page rule book on a multi-year release cycle could EVER be "balanced" is ridiculous. Look at Starcraft: it's 3 forces, subject to immediate digital updates and played at a professional level. It's community is still filled with these same balance gripes.

CinciWarBoss wrote:
Warhammer is a fluff-driven recreational activity that is explicitly intended to have a beer and pretzels level of competition.

And your point is? Bad balance is bad for "beer and pretzels" games. The myth that "casual" players don't benefit from balance is just an excuse for GW's incompetence in creating a good casual game.

The idea that any game with 10+ independent forces played with a several hundred page rule book on a multi-year release cycle could EVER be "balanced" is ridiculous.

MTG has much better balance than 40k and has way more potential interactions between cards than 40k could ever have. And, according to people who have actually played more than just 40k, similar wargames also have much better balance. The problem isn't any inherent difficulty in balancing a game, it's that GW doesn't care enough to do it.

Look at Starcraft: it's 3 forces, subject to immediate digital updates and played at a professional level. It's community is still filled with these same balance gripes.

Of course it is, because people will always complain about how their favorite thing is too weak and that thing they hate is overpowered. The real question is how justified are those complaints? And we find that in other games they're typically about fine-tuning balance to be absolutely perfect, while in 40k balance complaints are usually about fixing obvious major problems that should never have slipped through playtesting.

CinciWarBoss wrote:
These "balance" threads are always so lame.

Then why bother posting in one? Unless of course you have something useful to contribute.

If you want to play a game that is perfectly balanced, try chess.

Oh this tired mantra. First, no one wants/expects perfect balance. Second, chess is radically different from wargames and not a valid comparison. Try again.

Warhammer is a fluff-driven recreational activity that is explicitly intended to have a beer and pretzels level of competition. The idea that any game with 10+ independent forces played with a several hundred page rule book on a multi-year release cycle could EVER be "balanced" is ridiculous.

First, 40k is not intended as a beer and pretzels game. Unless of course by beer and pretzels, you mean a several hundred dollar investment, hours of time to learn the massive rulebook, and even more time wading through the errors, confusions, and balance issues, then yes, its beer and pretzels. Munchkin is a beer and pretzels game.

Second, the number of forces isn't an impossible barrier to balance. It requires more work, but nothing that other games have already accomplished. The argument gets even weaker when you have no less than 4 books that are virtually identical, with another two being very similar.

Third, a multi-year release cycle is part of the problem why its hard to balance. Nothing stopping GW from developing the core rules and the codices simultaneously. That way, everything gets updated together and play tested at the same time so all armies on the same footing. Not a difficult thing to do either.

Look at Starcraft: it's 3 forces, subject to immediate digital updates and played at a professional level. It's community is still filled with these same balance gripes.

Oh look, another comparison that gets made all the time that has little to no relevance to how a wargame can be balanced. Try looking at other miniature wargames before you compare apples to oranges.

CinciWarBoss wrote:
These "balance" threads are always so lame. If you want to play a game that is perfectly balanced, try chess. Warhammer is a fluff-driven recreational activity that is explicitly intended to have a beer and pretzels level of competition. The idea that any game with 10+ independent forces played with a several hundred page rule book on a multi-year release cycle could EVER be "balanced" is ridiculous. Look at Starcraft: it's 3 forces, subject to immediate digital updates and played at a professional level. It's community is still filled with these same balance gripes.

Warmahordes has 10 forces with far more complexity, synergy and tactical applications than 40k could ever hope to achieve. It is extremely well balanced. I'd go as far as to say that it's as close to perfect balance as is possible. When people are talking about any potential imbalance in Warmahordes they're not talking Eldar vs Tyranids, they're talking Ork slugga boyz vs shoota boyz. Different situationally, maybe slightly weighted in shootas favour, but not by any margin which would skew the outcome of a game and give a poor player an advantage over a good player.