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.

 Ailaros wrote:
But still, it's not a serious comparison. Absolutely nothing else is controlled for.

If I went to stormfront and blackpanther.net, even if they had the same number of people on their forums, I'd get very different kinds of responses because there are very different kinds of people on those websites.

In any case, I wouldn't learn anything serious about race relations, just like how I wouldn't learn anything serious about game balance by comparing two gaming forums.

True, playing the games is the best way.
After playing other games my opinion of 40k balance went down by a wide margin.

The main gripes I have with 40k and GW is the inconsistency. Some things are MCs, some things are Walkers. Completely changes the unit. Also, a lot of things don't have special rules that they obviously should have, and then of course the whole "This unit is obviously more points efficient, so why take anything else" aspect of the game...

Best fix for unbalanced games: write all the armies' rules at the same time.

I used to think 40k was a decent game. I knew there were balance issues but I didn't think they were that bad. Then I played warmachine and realized how bad the rules and balance in 40k are. I've been playing 2-3 games of 7th every week since the book dropped. In 10 games of WMH I have a better handle on the rules and special rules than I do with 40k (and I played 40k for 10 years before taking a break during 5th so I already knew the basics when I picked up 7th). Also, any rules dispute in WMH is sorted within 3 minutes by both players reading the rulebook and having a quick discussion. I've spent 10 minutes in 40k having rule arguments that basically equate to "that depends what the meaning of 'is' is". I've also beaten a good cryx player with cinerators and a crusader in my list (2 objectively bad units that see zero tournament play). This would never happen in 40k. You could have the best 40k player in the world with a CSM army facing a relative noob with an eldar list and the eldar player would win almost every game. Faction choice and list building determine 90% of games. In WMH, your tactics as a player determine 90% of the games. As long as your units have some synergy, you know how to use them and you don't try to run 5 jacks with a low focus caster you can win the game by being a better general.

Toofast wrote:In 10 games of WMH I have a better handle on the rules and special rules than I do with 40k... Also, any rules dispute in WMH is sorted within 3 minutes by both players reading the rulebook and having a quick discussion. I've spent 10 minutes in 40k having rule arguments that basically equate to "that depends what the meaning of 'is' is".

That tells us a great deal about the players, but not very much about the game.

Toofast wrote:I've also beaten a good cryx player with cinerators and a crusader in my list (2 objectively bad units that see zero tournament play). This would never happen in 40k.

Not much of a strategy game, then, if a new player playing with random units can beat an experienced player with a strong list.

 Ailaros wrote:

Toofast wrote:In 10 games of WMH I have a better handle on the rules and special rules than I do with 40k... Also, any rules dispute in WMH is sorted within 3 minutes by both players reading the rulebook and having a quick discussion. I've spent 10 minutes in 40k having rule arguments that basically equate to "that depends what the meaning of 'is' is".

That tells us a great deal about the players, but not very much about the game.

Toofast wrote:I've also beaten a good cryx player with cinerators and a crusader in my list (2 objectively bad units that see zero tournament play). This would never happen in 40k.

Not much of a strategy game, then, if a new player playing with random units can beat an experienced player with a strong list.

That last comment could be construed as quite offensive, just a heads up. Warmachine is an excellent strategy game, and relies upon study of the rules and order of operations, so if you take time you can have a good game plan off the bat. The rules are tight enough that there aren't any loopholes or alternate readings, that is grabbing the book and reading the rule in question.

Anyway, Warhammer is a poorly made game, for a number of reasons. Rules inconsistency, loopholes, bad mechanics, and its identity crisis. It's fun, and has a unique niche, but as a game it has issues aplenty.

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
Best fix for unbalanced games: write all the armies' rules at the same time.

I think that's absolutely one of their biggest problems. Playtesting and the suits interfering are big problems too but when they write a new edition of the rules they have to make it backwards compatible with the codecies that are 5 years out of date. Nothing is ever going to improve in that environment.

A complete overhaul of the rules in which EVERY unit in the game is touched up and all the rules for them are released at the same time is probably the only way to fix this at this point. Spartan Games did it with Dystopian Wars, which itself had poor balance near the end of V1, and V2 was massivly successful when it hit*.


(*Largest FLGS and one of if not the leargest online retailer in Australia reporting it outsold 7th ed 40k, which was released a week earlier, 7 to 1.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and is it still the case where the number of psychic powers one can cast has a relation to the psyker level but nowhere does it ever explain that relation?

That itself is a massive indicator of a bad set of rules. Yes common sense easily dismisses the problem but common sense should never need to be applied to a set of instructions (which is all rules are really).

"Poorly made" is very vague, because it means very different things to different people.

I think it's an excellently made game, because the universe and models are great, and within almost every playing group I've enjoyed since the 90's, house rules have adjusted for egregious imbalances. In other words, the models, universe, and core rules are made by Games Workshop, but everything else is adjustable, unless you're talking about tournaments. There are fantastic terrain pieces and a wide mix of units, vehicles and gaming surfaces. As long as your budget is big enough, you can have the most immersive and varied experience of any miniature wargame. To me, everything else can be fixed.

On the other hand, other people think it's a poorly made game, because they want something that requires a smaller investment that doesn't require continuous re-investment. This isn't an issue for me, because frankly, I spend infinitely more time modelling and painting the miniatures than I do playing, so I would like new stuff to work on anyhow. If this is the case, you should probably look elsewhere, because GW mixes things up every 4-5 years in a pretty significant way, and every 10-15 years, you can basically stick your stuff in a display case and start over.

Yet other people believe that 40k is a terrible game because out-of-the box it lends itself to rolling out with optimal lists to win. By that definition most TCGs are terrible, including the most popular ones. But this is a valid point: if you want a perfectly balanced wargame out-of-box, look elsewhere.

Then again, since when was the world ever fair, and how often were armies evenly matched in historical battles? To Spartans' defeat at Thermopylae was far sweeter than the Persians' victory.

Talys wrote:
I think it's an excellently made game, because the universe and models are great

When I say I think 40k is a poorly made game, I am talking exclusively about the GAME part, not the universe and models. 40k, the game, could be played with tokens if you really wanted. Likewise you could read the books and paint the models and never play an actual game.

When I think of 40k as a whole it's not as bad... when I think of 40k as a game, I think it's pretty pathetic.

The reason I think the game is poorly made is because...

1. It's unbalanced.

2. It's unnecessarily convoluted, you could argue that it's to add character but despite being convoluted it's still got some pretty unrealistic abstractions.

3. At it's core it's still a pretty bad game, even if you house rule the smaller stuff I think the whole system of phases is flawed, unnecessarily time consuming and convoluted.

4. The rules are poorly written just purely from an English standpoint. Rules should not have multiple interpretations, it's a flaw in writing the rules if they have multiple interpretations, yet sooo many rules (even some important fundamental ones) are worded such that they are open to interpretation.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Talys wrote:
I think it's an excellently made game, because the universe and models are great

When I say I think 40k is a poorly made game, I am talking exclusively about the GAME part, not the universe and models. 40k, the game, could be played with tokens if you really wanted. Likewise you could read the books and paint the models and never play an actual game.

This is a point I really think we as.. well non-historical wargamers need to look at in more depth.

In historicals you don't see company A produces models for game X, company B produces models for game Y, company C produces models for game Z.

Instead Companies A and B make say, Roman models. Companies C and D make rulesets for that historical time period, then there is a ton of mixing an matching.

I think the rest of us should learn from this and if we love the models for 40k stop thinking that we have to play them with the rules GW release. There is literally nothing stopping you playing a deathwatch kill team in Deadzone or a veteran guardsman squad in Infinity.

With that in mind the GAME of 40k is pretty awful, whatever models and fluff are used.

Talys wrote:

Then again, since when was the world ever fair, and how often were armies evenly matched in historical battles? To Spartans' defeat at Thermopylae was far sweeter than the Persians' victory.

But this isn't real life, it's a competitive game where both parties should have a reasonable chance of winning. If you want an unbalanced scenario, then make one, but don't force the guy that happens to like Blood Angels to fight uphill every game just because he plays Blood Angels. That's a part of why 40k is a crappy game. (separate from fluff and models.)

It's poorly balanced, the rules are poorly written, and the development team need firing.

If you want to see an incredibly well written rules system, look at Magic: the Gathering. There's a reason there are 12 million players.

The game is poor because GW does not care about it, they just care about how much they can get out of the ever diminishing playerbase before they finally go into the red and get bought out.

There are cheaper better games out there and people are waking up and discovering that, which is why X-wings growing and 40k is shrinking rapidly.

A fundamental flaw in the game is that GW is unwilling to adapt the game based on their customers, the actual players. The errata and FAQ page should be updated at least once every 3 weeks to balance the game. They probably don't even read the forums except to check whether people are sharing rules to make their rule books unnecessary. On the bright side, in a non competitive environment, it can be quite enjoyable (you also have to have an afternoon to kill)

jonolikespie wrote:

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
Best fix for unbalanced games: write all the armies' rules at the same time.

I think that's absolutely one of their biggest problems. Playtesting and the suits interfering are big problems too but when they write a new edition of the rules they have to make it backwards compatible with the codecies that are 5 years out of date. Nothing is ever going to improve in that environment.

A complete overhaul of the rules in which EVERY unit in the game is touched up and all the rules for them are released at the same time is probably the only way to fix this at this point. Spartan Games did it with Dystopian Wars, which itself had poor balance near the end of V1, and V2 was massivly successful when it hit*.

Completely agreed, but that would produce a really good 1st financial year and dead ones following it. GW can't sell everything in one batch - it needs to keep producing new stuff to return the investment made by its investors. If it was a closed company, then it would be quite okay to release the kraken everything together.

Waaagh 18 wrote:A fundamental flaw in the game is that GW is unwilling to adapt the game based on their customers, the actual players. The errata and FAQ page should be updated at least once every 3 weeks to balance the game. They probably don't even read the forums except to check whether people are sharing rules to make their rule books unnecessary. On the bright side, in a non competitive environment, it can be quite enjoyable (you also have to have an afternoon to kill)

Agreed with this too. It has an 'one vision, one purpose' M. O. and never changes that. They're too Nurgle-y when Tzeentch has a better deal

Warhammer is clearly a poorly made game because, the rule set has no clearly defined game play.
Eg no defined play style, scale or scope.

The size of the game and nature of the games elements has expanded well beyond the 'model focused skirmish game' that the WHFB based rues could just about cope with in 2nd edition.
And so now the game has totally out grown WHFB in space version 3.X rules.

Objective comparison to other rules sets , reveal that Warhammer has more over complicated rules than most other games.And still has very restricted and simplistic tactical ( in game options) game play.

Also the ONLY 'honest' reason to include point values and force organization in a game. Is to provide enough balance to allow easy to achieve fun random pick up games.

it could be said then GW only use PV and F.o.C to try to drive sales of product.

The 40k/WHFB rules fail the primary objective of a rule set.'Clear and concise instructions on how to play the game.'

 Vector Strike wrote:

jonolikespie wrote:

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
Best fix for unbalanced games: write all the armies' rules at the same time.

I think that's absolutely one of their biggest problems. Playtesting and the suits interfering are big problems too but when they write a new edition of the rules they have to make it backwards compatible with the codecies that are 5 years out of date. Nothing is ever going to improve in that environment.

A complete overhaul of the rules in which EVERY unit in the game is touched up and all the rules for them are released at the same time is probably the only way to fix this at this point. Spartan Games did it with Dystopian Wars, which itself had poor balance near the end of V1, and V2 was massivly successful when it hit*.

Completely agreed, but that would produce a really good 1st financial year and dead ones following it. GW can't sell everything in one batch - it needs to keep producing new stuff to return the investment made by its investors. If it was a closed company, then it would be quite okay to release the kraken everything together.

I'm not saying release a ton of models at once. I'm saying when 8th ed comes out instead of having to wait for a codex every faction gets an online PDF (for free) with the army lists in them. Each unit would get updated for the new edition, then when new models are brought out the PDFs would simply be updated to include them.

 Ailaros wrote:

Toofast wrote:In 10 games of WMH I have a better handle on the rules and special rules than I do with 40k... Also, any rules dispute in WMH is sorted within 3 minutes by both players reading the rulebook and having a quick discussion. I've spent 10 minutes in 40k having rule arguments that basically equate to "that depends what the meaning of 'is' is".

That tells us a great deal about the players, but not very much about the game.

Toofast wrote:I've also beaten a good cryx player with cinerators and a crusader in my list (2 objectively bad units that see zero tournament play). This would never happen in 40k.

Not much of a strategy game, then, if a new player playing with random units can beat an experienced player with a strong list.

Actually, it tells us a lot more about the rules than the players. My friend Matt and I play 40k against each other as well as WMH all the time. Same 2 players, very different rules arguments.

Actually, that means it IS a strategy game. Just because I'm new to the game doesn't mean I'm an idiot or don't know how to play strategy games. The terrain was set up to force his units through a narrow corridor in the center of the map while I picked them off as he typically overwhelms me. My strategy worked and I ended up winning the game. In 40k it doesn't matter what strategy you use, if you have fluffy CSM and the other guy has tournament eldar, you're going to lose.

Boniface wrote:
Now I really like warhammer on the whole everything about it is really good, except, in my opinion, the game itself doesn't work very well.
Now before we write this off as conjecture, I would like to pose some evidence (anecdotal or otherwise).
From what I have seen on here (admittedly usually over the top) and my personal findings I believe the game is poorly designed.
The reason is that everyone manages to come up with the same conclusions on specific units and army lists from books independently of each other.
Using my personal experience I have looked at a number of codexes over the years and have instantly been able to draw out the 'best unit(s)' that are in the book. I have also been able to build the 'net list' myself without any input from anyone else. (You'll just have to take my word for that).

What I'm trying to say really is that the game really is as unbalanced and frustrating as everyone thinks it is if everyone looks at the same things and draws the same conclusions. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that particular people won't try to 'break the mould' in some attempt at variety, and kudos to them really.

What are the community thoughts on the game?

Also am I just a WAAC gamer because I instantly found the best units in the respective army and figured out how to make the 'best' lists or am I a product of a gaming environment that just offers me significantly better options?

 MWHistorian wrote:

Talys wrote:

Then again, since when was the world ever fair, and how often were armies evenly matched in historical battles? To Spartans' defeat at Thermopylae was far sweeter than the Persians' victory.

But this isn't real life, it's a competitive game where both parties should have a reasonable chance of winning. If you want an unbalanced scenario, then make one, but don't force the guy that happens to like Blood Angels to fight uphill every game just because he plays Blood Angels. That's a part of why 40k is a crappy game. (separate from fluff and models.)

So, give your Blood Angels buddy a 1000 point handicap (extra points), and see how you do. We do it in golf all the time, so why not 40k? For that matter, your best friend and you play SM, but you win 95% of the games just because you're more skilled. Do you keep beating him up, or do you try to give him advantage? I play plenty of chess games where I start minus a knight or bishop.

And if you think Wave Serpents are too good, nerf them, increase the cost or cap them in your house rules. When I played while I was in university, our house rules was a 80 page printout. I'm not trying to defend crappy fame balance -- I'm just saying that this is a tabletop warfare, and rules are easily changed. In other games, like Diablo on the PC, balance is crippling and unfixable, making a beautiful game unenjoyable after a point.

His scenario isn't about skill, but army choice. Too many games of 40k are won at the time of codex purchase.

If you have to make 80 pages of house rules ,then why pay $85 for the book? Why not just write your own?

 Vector Strike wrote:

Completely agreed, but that would produce a really good 1st financial year and dead ones following it. GW can't sell everything in one batch - it needs to keep producing new stuff to return the investment made by its investors. If it was a closed company, then it would be quite okay to release the kraken everything together.

So follow the trend their setting with Tyranids right now.

Release the BRB either with all relevant 'codex' rules inside / release the codex' at the same time. They could do something similar to what they did with 3rd ed with relative ease. BRB contains a moderately sized list of rules, units, ect ect for every race. Codex' are pumped out shortly after for all races, 'updating' them in that era. Add-on game modes and such are continued to be released, and new units are released in the vein of these new Tyranid models we're seeing.

Then, after so many years (4?6?8?10?) they wipe the slate again. New rulebook, everything cleaned up, all armies make a showing in the rulebook. New codex stuff follows after, new suppliments, units released with rules all -in- the edition. None of this "Orks played all of 6th edition and even some of 7th with a codex from freaking 4th edition" crap.

IF a TTMG company want to grow its market share.
They produce a well defined and balanced rule set.
This gains favor with players who recommend it to their friends.
The basic range of minatures to accompany the basic rules sell very well and at increasing volume.(Making more profit if plastic manufacture due to ecconimies of scale.)

This gets the ball rolling..

Then the company releases 'campaign books' which introduce new units for multiple forces involved in the campaign.Along with new scenarios and force organization if required.

So the game can grow and expand , in a balanced way that does not totally mess up game balance and game play!

The only time a 'genuine' games company update the game rules it to improve the game play based on lots of customer feed back.
The only time a 'genuine' games company up dates the models is to make improvements to the quality and usefulness of the models .

The GW approach of maximizing returns off a dwindling customer base , is fortunately an isolated case.

I understand that the rules for 40k/WHFB are inspiring people to buy stuff.And some to collect paint and convert minatures.
But those wanting to actually play a game using these rules , have such hard work ahead of them compared to playing other games.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I just bought X-Wing and even reading the rules got me excited. It's a big hobby world out there. Explore the space.

Is this a pun?

 rednecroncryptek wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I just bought X-Wing and even reading the rules got me excited. It's a big hobby world out there. Explore the space.

Is this a pun?

No, but I wish it had been.
(It was a Christopher Walken line from SNL.)

 Crimson Devil wrote:
His scenario isn't about skill, but army choice. Too many games of 40k are won at the time of codex purchase.

If you have to make 80 pages of house rules ,then why pay $85 for the book? Why not just write your own?

Well, our gaming group never thought the game play process was flawed, only that the game was unbalanced.

There's a big difference between saying that the mechanics of the game are terrible (not fun), and saying that one side always wins because they are more powerful. The first isn't fixable (without rewriting all the rules), whereas the second just requires reprinting lists.

Incidentally, the reason our house rules are so large is that it's mostly lists -- there are many OOP units, including a full Squat list, as there is one guy who doesn't want to give them up

There are very few actual "rules"; mostly, they are points adjustments to lists.

ANY game can be picked apart and aspects cherry picked while ignoring others to make whichever point you like. There is no perfect game and it boils down to preference and opinion. The problem with the internet is that people try to ram their opinion down everyone elses throat and force them to have the same opinion.

 EVIL INC wrote:
ANY game can be picked apart and aspects cherry picked while ignoring others to make whichever point you like. There is no perfect game and it boils down to preference and opinion. The problem with the internet is that people try to ram their opinion down everyone elses throat and force them to have the same opinion.

So did you have a point to make about the quality of 40k, or are you just here to grandstand about how terrible the internet is when people happen to disagree with you?

Lanrak wrote:

The only time a 'genuine' games company update the game rules it to improve the game play based on lots of customer feed back.
The only time a 'genuine' games company up dates the models is to make improvements to the quality and usefulness of the models .

The GW approach of maximizing returns off a dwindling customer base , is fortunately an isolated case.

I understand that the rules for 40k/WHFB are inspiring people to buy stuff.And some to collect paint and convert minatures.
But those wanting to actually play a game using these rules , have such hard work ahead of them compared to playing other games.

One broader issue is that miniature wargaming is a declining industry. The number of hobby shops and their business is much lower than it used to be, say, 20 years ago, because there are video games and TCGs that compete for the same player pool. This means that the cost for the remaining players goes up.

Conversely, if there were 10 times more people playing miniature wargaming or interested in the hobby, everything would be much cheaper, because keep in mind, the FLGS have to stay in business too.

You also have to keep in mind that for a company to stay in business, they need to keep selling stuff. It doesn't help anyone if there's a great product in that first stage, and five years later they fold because nobody has spent more money with them, and there are not enough new players to inject money into the industry.

Incidentally, PP models have become very expensive too. I just bought Bradicus and Borka, and paid around $35 and $55 respectively for two, not very large models. I don't play WM/Hordes, but they are such nice models I just had to get them to paint. Still, you're talking over $100 with tax on two models smaller than dreadnaughts, and with only a little bit that is metal.

Talys wrote:

One broader issue is that miniature wargaming is a declining industry. The number of hobby shops and their business is much lower than it used to be, say, 20 years ago, because there are video games and TCGs that compete for the same player pool. This means that the cost for the remaining players goes up.

Do you have any numbers to back this up?

Most of what I've read/seen/heard shows that miniature wargaming has increased in size in recent years.