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.

 Sir Arun wrote:
40k is balanced.

Because it's not one army that is ridiculously broken, but most armies.

And if you happen to have an army that is underpowered, there is nothing limiting you from allying in stronger stuff now.

So nobody feels disadvantaged, except the guys who want to stick with one codex and feel angry that GW is no longer publishing codexes with good internal balance that also scale up well to other codexes.


The tourney scene hasnt changed much... while emphasis in the early days was put on creating the most beardy list a codex could provide, emphasis now lies on creating the most beardy combination of allies and units instead.

Yeah I will just ally in some other factions for my Tyranids...wait...

This is a horrible excuse for balance. It is basically like saying, "Stop playing the army you want to play and play the army that will win."

Right on. out of curiosity, do you feel hosting the tournaments pushed you further away than the game itself? That being said, there are tons of games out there for you to get into, so you're not really at a loss for hobbies.

Personally, I still love 40k in all its unbalance, and my LGS is fun and I've made a lot of friends. Maybe I'm just too naive to be jaded yet people come and go, life is short, so the main thing is to play a hobby you actually enjoy.

I'm with the OP. I've been playing 40k with half my life, started with 3rd, and I'm pretty much done. I still go to GTs and hang out at game nights with my friends, but we're playing X-Wing, Malifaux and Firestorm Armada now.

The most fun I've had playing 40k this year was the Narrative at Nova. I'm locked in for that next year too, but that end up some of the only 40k I play this and next year.

Sir Arun wrote:40k is balanced.

No. No it is not.

The ability to bring allies or ignore the FoC entirely does not make the game balanced by a long shot.

As for the OP, life gets better after GW. I have a small 3rd party IG force I'm working on so I can get a game in if that's all I can find, but my main interest is back into spaceships through Spartan's Firestorm Armada. Cheaper, better, balanced.

jamesk1973 wrote:
Welcome! We salute you!

Resignaturus te salutant!

 Sir Arun wrote:
40k is balanced.

Because it's not one army that is ridiculously broken, but most armies.

And if you happen to have an army that is underpowered, there is nothing limiting you from allying in stronger stuff now.

So nobody feels disadvantaged, except the guys who want to stick with one codex and feel angry that GW is no longer publishing codexes with good internal balance that also scale up well to other codexes.


The tourney scene hasnt changed much... while emphasis in the early days was put on creating the most beardy list a codex could provide, emphasis now lies on creating the most beardy combination of allies and units instead.

This sounds like a statement made by someone who has no concept of what balance actually means, nor who is familiar with other game systems that ARE actually balanced

GW is a train wreck. 40k is more expensive than a heroin problem. But you play what they give you.

Some people make it work. Some people don't.

I keep getting told how awesome Warmachine and Infinity are, it practically gets rammed down your throat on this forum. Got a Trolls army as part of a trade I made for a guys old ork stuff, played it maybe 6 times, now the models are in my display case, turned to face the back wall in shame.


<shug> Who knows. Hope you find something you like. Me and my group are really digging on some 40K RPGs right now, and we plan on trying the 40k killteam based heralds of war thing. I want to try that Alls quiet on the Martian Front, but the scale isn't something I enjoy painting. Love the tanks though.

When I dropped 40K, I felt like a huge weight was lifted. I was no longer tied to increasing prices for constantly changing, enferior rules, increasingly lamer models (taurox, wilford brimely ogryns, santa sleigh, murder mc murderson etc), and fluff becoming more and more infantile. Now I am spending less on games I enjoy more. Now is a great time to get into other games besides GW.

 Musashi363 wrote:
When I dropped 40K, I felt like a huge weight was lifted. I was no longer tied to increasing prices for constantly changing, enferior rules, increasingly lamer models (taurox, wilford brimely ogryns, santa sleigh, murder mc murderson etc), and fluff becoming more and more infantile. Now I am spending less on games I enjoy more. Now is a great time to get into other games besides GW.

And you get to support companies that don't actively disdain you.

I completely agree with you OP. I came back in 6th edition after a 9 year vacation from the hobby & I am already done with 7th. Between the cost, lack of FLGS supporting the hobby, & absolutely atrocious ruleset I plan to either wait for:

A: GW to Admit fault, completely revamp ruleset & lower costs.

B: Wait for GW to collapse & 40K franchise to be purchased by a company that gives a damn.

Angry Joe (Video game critic) did a video recently highlighting the new 40K mmo that is coming out - Eternal Crusade. During the video he briefly states that he no longer plays 40K because of how expensive it has become. If a youtube celebrity making 100K+ a year cannot afford the hobby, how the hell is you average consumer?

There's a difference between "can't afford" and "don't see the value". I'm pretty sure someone making 100k can afford a $100 a month hobby. He probably just doesn't see the value in it any more. How fast are you people building and painting stuff that you're spending that much on the hobby?

 Sir Arun wrote:
40k is balanced.

Because it's not one army that is ridiculously broken, but most armies.

And if you happen to have an army that is underpowered, there is nothing limiting you from allying in stronger stuff now.

So nobody feels disadvantaged, except the guys who want to stick with one codex and feel angry that GW is no longer publishing codexes with good internal balance that also scale up well to other codexes.


The tourney scene hasnt changed much... while emphasis in the early days was put on creating the most beardy list a codex could provide, emphasis now lies on creating the most beardy combination of allies and units instead.

The topic of "perfect imbalance" is often thrown up, it seems GW have misunderstood the concept and gone for "complete unbalance means everything is perfectly balanced!".

 Sir Arun wrote:
40k is balanced.

Because it's not one army that is ridiculously broken, but most armies.

And if you happen to have an army that is underpowered, there is nothing limiting you from allying in stronger stuff now.

So nobody feels disadvantaged, except the guys who want to stick with one codex and feel angry that GW is no longer publishing codexes with good internal balance that also scale up well to other codexes.


The tourney scene hasnt changed much... while emphasis in the early days was put on creating the most beardy list a codex could provide, emphasis now lies on creating the most beardy combination of allies and units instead.

The current Marine and Ork codex are the most internally balanced codex they have produced.

There is balance in the game when players approach it from that perspective.

But players who are exploitative are perfectly capable of exploiting the game.

Warhammer 40k is a game where it is assumed the player base will be reasonable and either fluffy or be capable of explaining their choices. That is a pretty tall order and an assumption that isn't likely to hold true.

 PhillyT wrote:
Warhammer 40k is a game where it is assumed the player base will be reasonable and either fluffy or be capable of explaining their choices. That is a pretty tall order and an assumption that isn't likely to hold true.

Even then, a Saim Hann army is perfectly fluffy but will roflstomp a fluffy Thousand Sons army.

Every build can't be balanced against every build though. That is just a fact of life. That is true for all table top games where you have slots that can be filled with lose restrictions.

Every build can't be balanced against every build, it's true. A hard counter list will beat the thing it is built to counter. But two completely fluffy lists built and painted for the fun of it and the love of the fluff can still be utterly unbalanced.

And that is a terrible, terrible thing.

There is some internal balance. But some is not enough. If balance between all the codices was there my chances of playing against the exact same eldar army 3 times in s 200 person tournament (adepticon) would have been wildly astronomical.

If 40k is a game of "forge the narrative" there should be few choices that outright suck. Every unit should be a rockstar in its own way.

It's something we discovered playing malifaux. There are few to none bad models. Everything has a use. Unlike possessed/vespids/helbrutes/mutilators/CSM squads.... The list goes on.

If 40k really where about "Forging the Narrative" there would be rules for linked battles, narrative scenarios and campaigns where units suffer permanent losses and characters gain xp built into the core rules.

Instead of premade rules for a scenario where my rearguard needs to hold back the enemy onslaught as long as possible or break through an enemy siege line we have a pile of cards with objectives that change every turn.

Hit the nail on the head brother.

 lordwellingstone wrote:
There is some internal balance. But some is not enough. If balance between all the codices was there my chances of playing against the exact same eldar army 3 times in s 200 person tournament (adepticon) would have been wildly astronomical.

If 40k is a game of "forge the narrative" there should be few choices that outright suck. Every unit should be a rockstar in its own way.

It's something we discovered playing malifaux. There are few to none bad models. Everything has a use. Unlike possessed/vespids/helbrutes/mutilators/CSM squads.... The list goes on.

Yeah but how is that any different Magic the Gathering? If you are looking at ultra competitive tournaments, you are going to see the very best stuff spammed to the max. In Magic, you will see the same basic set of combos in the various color combinations, with about 4 different decks at a time being the top tier.

In ultra competitive settings, is there ever really parity for table top/card games?

 PhillyT wrote:

 lordwellingstone wrote:
There is some internal balance. But some is not enough. If balance between all the codices was there my chances of playing against the exact same eldar army 3 times in s 200 person tournament (adepticon) would have been wildly astronomical.

If 40k is a game of "forge the narrative" there should be few choices that outright suck. Every unit should be a rockstar in its own way.

It's something we discovered playing malifaux. There are few to none bad models. Everything has a use. Unlike possessed/vespids/helbrutes/mutilators/CSM squads.... The list goes on.

Yeah but how is that any different Magic the Gathering? If you are looking at ultra competitive tournaments, you are going to see the very best stuff spammed to the max. In Magic, you will see the same basic set of combos in the various color combinations, with about 4 different decks at a time being the top tier.

In ultra competitive settings, is there ever really parity for table top/card games?

Now let's try comparing 40k to something that's actually relevant, other table top games.
The list variation in Infinity is insane. I've never seen the same army twice. Look at Chaos Marines, how many nurgle armies have you seen? It's about all I see at my FLGS.
In Warmachine, every unit has a purpose. Some aren't as good, but they're better in different situations. Like a poster stated above, every unit has their chance to be a rock star. Certain builds can face an uphill battle against other builds, but it's never a ROFL curb stomp by turn two like you can see in 40k.

I have exactly zero experience with competitive MTG. So that's outside my purview. If what you say is true then i find that to be unattractive as well.

I guess if chasing the army of the month works for you then great! I'm in no position to tell someone else how to entertain their self. But for me i don't have the time and the desire to build and paint such a large number of models to a standard i can live with. If keeping up with 40k means having to buy multiples of the latest model then i think they lost me.

In a game like malifaux. I can buy a $16-$30 kit and completely change how i play my crew. I can spend a long afternoon and get them painted. I cant say that for 40k. This appears to fit better into my meatspace.

Not to mention that i can play the crew i like and have a reasonable chance of having a tight game. Once again there have been 40k league days in recent times where i might as well have not shown up.

Toofast wrote:
There's a difference between "can't afford" and "don't see the value". I'm pretty sure someone making 100k can afford a $100 a month hobby.

40K is definitely not something I "can't afford", it's something I'm "not willing to pay for" anymore.

 Sir Arun wrote:
40k is balanced.

Because it's not one army that is ridiculously broken, but most armies.

And if you happen to have an army that is underpowered, there is nothing limiting you from allying in stronger stuff now.

So nobody feels disadvantaged, except the guys who want to stick with one codex and feel angry that GW is no longer publishing codexes with good internal balance that also scale up well to other codexes.


The tourney scene hasnt changed much... while emphasis in the early days was put on creating the most beardy list a codex could provide, emphasis now lies on creating the most beardy combination of allies and units instead.

This is not balance. Balance (Internal) is that every unit within a given faction has a use and doesn't punish you for picking it over another unit. 40k doesn't have this, as there is gross disparity between units within the same codex (Plague Marines and Warp Talons, for example).

Balance (External) means that there is no army that is just better than another. 40k doesn't have this either (Tau and Eldar are more powerful than most) and while 40k does come closer with external balance than internal, the complete lack of internal balance has an adverse effect on external balance, because as others have already mentioned a fluffy Saim-Hann Jetbike army is going to walk all over a fluffy Thousand Sons army. A fluffy all-Terminator army is likely going to be steamrolled by everyone. Ergo 40k is not balanced, because a balanced game would have, for example, the all Terminator army be small but extremely resilient as a compromise, while the all Jetbike army would be very fast but insanely fragile, and in a matchup between the two it would be roughly 50/50 who would win based on the skill of the player and luck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lordwellingstone wrote:
Not to mention that i can play the crew i like and have a reasonable chance of having a tight game. Once again there have been 40k league days in recent times where i might as well have not shown up.

This is the biggest reason 40k has no value to me even though I want it to. I play Warmachine right now; virtually anything I add to my collection changes how I play something, and I can bring basically anything I want and have a reasonable chance of victory; at the very least I'm not outright disadvantaged by using say a unit of Shocktroopers instead of Pikemen. In 40k I wanted to do a fluffy all Terminator army, because it's cool and fluffy, and was quickly told that I'd likely lose every game played because they aren't good in the game rules.

Who wants that?

I'm playing since 20 years this year, and it has been an on-off relationship. I don't complain about the rules since it's more than likely to happen when a game gets big and old - and I see it as a side effect of those things I like with 40k. It's a great dystopic background and since it is well known you find enough players to maintain a playing group even in rural areas. It's not like that with the more niche games like Malifaux or Dystopian Wars. I had people to play those when I lived in the city, but now that I moved due to a job I could only play if I convince a friend. And then I wouldn't have any variety in opponents.

With 40k it was always that I found enough people. And now that I think about it it always got annoying when some people got too competitive. We have so much fun in our local group of about 6-8 people. Nobody argues over "no, you won't get that cover save" or "RAW don't says that so you may not do it". We do custom rules like set up asynchronous battles that yield exp/improvements to surviving units and so on. I currently have a lot of fun. People love the Ally option and this prevents those with less favoured armies to still have fun. We had someone with the old Necron Codex who wouldn't play anymore. Now you can just buy that broken unit or borrow it and have some fun with it yourself.

I can understand those arguing and being disappointed. But I feel that this is mostly if you expect a balanced tournament optimised game. And that's only possible with small games with few armies and few expansions. I worked in the video game industry for a few years. And you wouldn't expect how much hard work it is to balance game that got a lot of units over the years (if not impossible). The worst thing is that you will inevitably piss off someone and in small markets (like tabletop) you maybe can't afford to lose 20% of the market, even if you're GW.

 Murenius wrote:
I'm playing since 20 years this year, and it has been an on-off relationship. I don't complain about the rules since it's more than likely to happen when a game gets big and old - and I see it as a side effect of those things I like with 40k. It's a great dystopic background and since it is well known you find enough players to maintain a playing group even in rural areas. It's not like that with the more niche games like Malifaux or Dystopian Wars. I had people to play those when I lived in the city, but now that I moved due to a job I could only play if I convince a friend. And then I wouldn't have any variety in opponents.

With 40k it was always that I found enough people. And now that I think about it it always got annoying when some people got too competitive. We have so much fun in our local group of about 6-8 people. Nobody argues over "no, you won't get that cover save" or "RAW don't says that so you may not do it". We do custom rules like set up asynchronous battles that yield exp/improvements to surviving units and so on. I currently have a lot of fun. People love the Ally option and this prevents those with less favoured armies to still have fun. We had someone with the old Necron Codex who wouldn't play anymore. Now you can just buy that broken unit or borrow it and have some fun with it yourself.

I can understand those arguing and being disappointed. But I feel that this is mostly if you expect a balanced tournament optimised game. And that's only possible with small games with few armies and few expansions. I worked in the video game industry for a few years. And you wouldn't expect how much hard work it is to balance game that got a lot of units over the years (if not impossible). The worst thing is that you will inevitably piss off someone and in small markets (like tabletop) you maybe can't afford to lose 20% of the market, even if you're GW.

Warmachine is quite large and if you look at the unique unit (unit being a squad, single large thing, character, etc) Then Warmachine armies are just as large and varied as 40k. They manage to get a reasonable level of balance. 40k still has no excuse, especially when some of the problems are so obvious and glaring.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Warmachine is quite large and if you look at the unique unit (unit being a squad, single large thing, character, etc) Then Warmachine armies are just as large and varied as 40k. They manage to get a reasonable level of balance. 40k still has no excuse, especially when some of the problems are so obvious and glaring.

Maybe, still there are far less Warmachine players than 40k players. In a big city that's no problem, if you find 10 people out of 200k you can still play with variety and fun. In the area I am there are no Warmachine players and only a few Infinity players. The latter is no option for me cause I hate the scenario and the look. Just a personal matter of taste, not of the game itself.

I guess the basic problem is how people approach the game. For many people it is "I want to optimise the best list for my army and win as much as possible" and they expect armies to be equally matched at a given points value even though the other side has the same expectancy.

So I guess I agree that 40k is not a very good tournament game. But our group has much fun despite obvious shortcomings and that fun is why we play. Not the quality of the rules.

edit: Oh and I don't think "it got worse". I remember those discussions even from my first years in 40k. A friend back then even bought another army only because I tabled his Space Marines with my Eldar each and every game (2nd Ed). And don't get me started about 2nd Ed Orcs xD

I think it's great if your group is having fun with 40k. For our group the amount of effort we have to put into making the game fun is self-defeating. The way i see it a miniatures game should be add models and players and the result is fun.

With 40k you need to have a treaty of versailles with your opponent to make sure it wont be two hours of futility. Especially if unbound is a part of your local scene.

 lordwellingstone wrote:
I think it's great if your group is having fun with 40k. For our group the amount of effort we have to put into making the game fun is self-defeating. The way i see it a miniatures game should be add models and players and the result is fun.

With 40k you need to have a treaty of versailles with your opponent to make sure it wont be two hours of futility. Especially if unbound is a part of your local scene.

Some years ago we had a player dominating each game with an optimised list. Instead of spending the time with discussions we just started playing each game twice, the second one with switched armies. It resulted in two things: that guy toned down a few things when he had to face it himself and the other players understood the concepts better and got better in beating that list.

All this works only with your local group of likeminded people. Coming to a FLGS with your 40k army is completely different and I learned to hate it. On the other hand, my experiences with joining random RPG groups at a con, playing Magic: The Gathering competitively in tournaments and going to big LAN parties (back in the times) always was different. Maybe it's not only the game, maybe it's dogmatic nerds ruining the general atmosphere?

 Murenius wrote:

 lordwellingstone wrote:
I think it's great if your group is having fun with 40k. For our group the amount of effort we have to put into making the game fun is self-defeating. The way i see it a miniatures game should be add models and players and the result is fun.

With 40k you need to have a treaty of versailles with your opponent to make sure it wont be two hours of futility. Especially if unbound is a part of your local scene.

Some years ago we had a player dominating each game with an optimised list. Instead of spending the time with discussions we just started playing each game twice, the second one with switched armies. It resulted in two things: that guy toned down a few things when he had to face it himself and the other players understood the concepts better and got better in beating that list.

All this works only with your local group of likeminded people. Coming to a FLGS with your 40k army is completely different and I learned to hate it. On the other hand, my experiences with joining random RPG groups at a con, playing Magic: The Gathering competitively in tournaments and going to big LAN parties (back in the times) always was different. Maybe it's not only the game, maybe it's dogmatic nerds ruining the general atmosphere?

The issue though is 40k remains the only game where you can't just turn up at a FLGS with your force, find an opponent and play a game, because there's a good chance that someone's list will be over/underpowered and someone won't have fun. Any other tabletop game, barring perhaps some of the eccentric historical games with a lot of rules and charts and logistics (think oldschool Napoleonics), you can just show up and play. 40k you either need to make sure that everyone shares your view of how the game works or basically draw up terms and conditions for the game just to play a regular game.