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.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Zwei, answer my question. How is having a useless unit like the Penitent Engine good for the game because you've said such imbalance is indeed good. So, explain.

I am not sure you grasp the concept of imbalance.

Imbalance means some things are better, some things are worse. If nothing was worse, and everything was equally valid, there wouldn't be any imbalance.

Yes, I understand what imbalance is, but what you've failed to explain is how having a useless unit is somehow funner than having a unit that actually doesn't punish you for using it. I'm not talking about a las-predator being maybe better than a dev squad, I'm talking about wildly useless units or units that are so OP they're not fun to play against.

So, once again, please answer the question.

 Fenris Frost wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
Wrong. I'm... I'm somebody that uses these models. I try. I TRY MAN! Tzeentch is like my man yo. Yeah, he might backstab me often but he's always got my back in the end. That's how we roll even if it hurts.

Actually, it is extremely easy. Want to know why? Ding ding ding the starter forces. Now then, when I was a new little lad we played DA versus CSM. We were too new to know that DA had more points nor did we realize DA were kitted out to always beat CSM in almost every match unless the dice gods really hated the DA player that day. It crushed my mood. There, the end. Along with that, there's still the fact that the CSM codex is still vastly inferior to a codex like Eldar (and so on). Finally, the average player says. HEY LOOK! The heldrake looks awesome let us use him. *Heldrake slaughters DA constantly that have worthless AA* Well time to shelf this model I guess.

Not every army has a super powerful unit and not all of those powerful units are equal. Along with that, not all of us can be Tau and ally with Eldar perfectly or be Imperial and ally with basically everybody. Some of us play Nids where we can't even ally to one army, not even ourself.

Look at it? You do know the last fiscal year showed them losing stock, even before then they were not gaining any wealth despite increasing costs, the 40k market is slowly shrinking as other games cannibalize it... Yeah it is hurting. It's just 40k is so popular the death will be a slow one much like WoW.

The reason people are so rabid is because he is the one guy that has been here for basically a day and is in a minority opinion that has spouted falsehood, faulty arguments, flawed conceptions, spouted that tailoring makes the game fair, and all sorts of other illogical things. We are human and eventually we all get tired. Plus, this isn't the first time for many of us that we have argued with him. I actually am fine with Zwei when we aren't in this argument. Much like how I'm usually fine with Peregrine whenever it's not a discussion about CC. But shove them in these places and I have already grown tired of it all.

Finally, 40k is a broken mess that can be fixed. It can also be enjoyed by anybody with a liking for it due to the diversity of its purpose from a building/conversion hobby, to a painting hobby, to a collector hobby, to a player hobby, to a bad competitive hobby, and is all washed in deep lore. If you ask people here, you'll find many play it still. I certainly do, in fact, I'm looking forward to going back to town and kicking up a campaign because I love them. That said, the rules are bad, the only real part of the game I truly dislike and I'd like to see them improved so I could actually use what I love.

I actually really liked this post because it isn't rooted in hyberbole like a lot of the other counterpoints, and believe it or not I feel similarly; we shouldn't have to say "0-1 Heldrakes 0-1 Riptides" to have a decently matched game. And I agree with a lot of the other sentiments, too; however, I don't think it is NEARLY as bad a problem as it is depicted. Playing across the country and seeing a lot of tough lists is one thing; this game obviously has the intent that you will be playing it with other people you know for the fun of the story it enacts, rather than other people you've never met on purely competitive grounds. So in ways, even though I agree with both sides of the coin, I take exception only because Zweischneid's point that the game is simply not meant to address any of these concerns is, in itself, a valid one.

Either way, I considered it a good post, as it makes a lot of points that are very relevant without being so "zOMG how could you be so stupid!" about it. So thanks for that.

@Crazy Carnifex, that is a much more valid way to say the game isn't fulfilling, to point out that the Nids don't actually do that on the table. I don't think that means the game is busted or unplayable but I'm not ignorant or blind to the fact that there is a big gulf in mechanics versus the fiction that leads to awkward stuff. That's a lot more valid than just saying "Guys who play three Riptides exist, the whole game is ruined."

As for my comments about extreme examples, I'm not looking for anything literal; but think about it. We talk about power lists versus boned lists all the time in the 40k community. There's no middle? There are no guys that win some and lose some? No people who, with an uphill battle might beat a netlist, or who might lose despite having one? I'm just saying, we should step back a bit and consider where the majority focus of the game lies, for GW's attitude toward development (and our own, toward the state of the game) to have some context.

On a quick note, keep in mind anything I say here is only for this argument. Outside of here, I will likely butt head with some of you at some point but at the same time I won't really dislike you either. I kind of like debating. Sometimes a bit of hyperbole, sometimes a bit of silly humor. Heck, look above and I went a bit OTT. I'll admit, sometimes I just sincerely wish I could play the units I loved and which inspired me to really keep on pressing forth and finally grow to really enjoy this game. Also, doesn't help that debates such as this always end in polarization of individuals.

As per your final question, the problem with the middle is that it's still not the best. And that's really the biggest fault. The riptides still end up crushing the middle tier units. Yes, there will be a greater chance of a middle tier codex besting a top tier codex than a bottom tier, but that would only be due to some combination of the mid tier player being more skilled in the game, although this would make him usually more prone to deploy top tier lists, and the favor/scorn of the dice gods. The real problem comes down to competitive players will use the best choice as it increases their level, decreases chances of luck biting them, and use their skill to test it. Taking a weaker army means more randomness is required and gives an edge to the opponent. Then, you get to casual gamers whom will go all over the place. Some will opt for some pseudo-competitive build where they try to merge the two, often forming a middle tier list but the problem becomes that there are still those lower than them. Along with that, another problem comes down to the fact that as a casual game, one is more prone to play things because they like them. It can lead to unintentional scenarios that make it seem like they are power-gaming. I have a friend who players Tau. He loves Battlesuits, especially Riptides. Bam, he's already there with a force of pathfinders all he needs is a buffmander. Then you have my ork friend that is struggling as is to stand up. Then you have my IG/DE friend who has continuously shelved and un-shleved his DE and basically perma-shelved his DA (due to several games against fliers). Heck, I once got the idea to build an awesome Flying MC spam army because I created a concept of generals of chaos and didn't realize how could it could be. So many things, as a casual player that doesn't really know about the internet side of 40k can run into and ruin a game for others, not to say ruin the game for good.

My biggest critique for GW is that, as of their fiscal score, they are losing money and I truly don't want this game to fall. I like it, I like the world, and I love to play it with friends. I want this game to live on for as long as possible so I can ride this rollercoaster to the end yet GW's attitude is perplexing. It goes by narrative but then breaks it with things like Ahriman not having divination and the sorts. Minor little details yes, but they do stack up and I'm worried that, if things coneinue the way they are, 40k might really become like WoW. Slowly dying away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Zwei, answer my question. How is having a useless unit like the Penitent Engine good for the game because you've said such imbalance is indeed good. So, explain.

I am not sure you grasp the concept of imbalance.

Imbalance means some things are better, some things are worse. If nothing was worse, and everything was equally valid, there wouldn't be any imbalance.

But how does this make it good? The notion of perfect imbalance itself was to make certain things better and others worse on first glance but to reveal that worse unit was actually good at killing the currently good unit to create a natural cycle.

40K is entirely structured the same way as WRG Ancients, a competition ruleset that has troop types, points values and army lists, to ensure a "perfectly imbalanced" game as near as possible.

40K however, no longer even pays lip service to the idea of balance as it used to in previous editions. Instead, 40K tells players to "forge a narrative".

40K is not a narrative game, though. It doesn't contain any rules relating to narrative at all.

Longstreet is a narrative game.
http://www.sammustafa.com/honour/modules-games/future-modules/

The whole point of the game is to play out the career of your Union or Confederate brigade commander in the American Civil War.

 Eldarain wrote:

And many people have agreed with you that certain slight imbalances can benefit a game by promoting an always evolving meta-game.

His question is how does that unit (and many others) being so incredibly far from balanced benefit the game or it`s players?

How do you differentiate between "slight imbalances" and "incredible imbalances".

We agreed on the fact that certain imbalances help promote an evolving meta-game (and other things!). We disagreed about whether or not there is one non-subjective point of "perfect imbalance", or whether multiples exist, catering to a variety of demand in gaming.

Several people have said the amount of "imbalances" in Warmachine is the right amount for their taste. For me personally, it is not nearly enough.

Several people have said the amount of "imbalances" in 40K go to far. For me personally, they are just fine.


We've argued this over several time. I doubt there will be a consensus. I can only appeal to the virtue of diversity. If you think the imbalances in 40K are a step too far, but those in Warmachine are just right, you're probably better off playing Warmachine than 40K (possibly with 40K miniatures and 40K background, if you want to use your old collection and prefer 40K-background).

I cannot, and don't want to convince people who are dead-set in their opinion that 40K is doing it wrong. Pick the game that caters best to your vision of "perfect imbalance" and let other people pick the games that best match theirs. For me... 40K (including the Pentinent Engine, which I don't consider useless).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 StarTrotter wrote:


But how does this make it good? The notion of perfect imbalance itself was to make certain things better and others worse on first glance but to reveal that worse unit was actually good at killing the currently good unit to create a natural cycle.

Well, to start the cycle, people need to flock to the better-than-average unit (and abandon the worse-than-average unit). E.g. champion A in the video. If people don't pick up champion A, the circle doesn't start, even if champion A is overpowered.

If you cling to the weak stuff just to wallow in your misery, that is what you will do.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

And many people have agreed with you that certain slight imbalances can benefit a game by promoting an always evolving meta-game.

His question is how does that unit (and many others) being so incredibly far from balanced benefit the game or it`s players?

How do you differentiate between "slight imbalances" and "incredible imbalances".

We agreed on the fact that certain imbalances help promote an evolving meta-game (and other things!). We disagreed about whether or not there is one non-subjective point of "perfect imbalance", or whether multiples exist, catering to a variety of demand in gaming.

Several people have said the amount of "imbalances" in Warmachine is the right amount for their taste. For me personally, it is not nearly enough.

Several people have said the amount of "imbalances" in 40K go to far. For me personally, they are just fine.


We've argued this over several time. I doubt there will be a consensus. I can only appeal to the virtue of diversity. If you think the imbalances in 40K are a step too far, but those in Warmachine are just right, you're probably better off playing Warmachine than 40K.

I cannot, and don't want to convince people who are dead-set in their opinion that 40K is doing it wrong. Pick the game that caters best to your vision of "perfect imbalance" and let other people pick the games that best match theirs. For me... 40K (including the Pentinent Engine, which I don't consider useless).

You say that the imbalances are just fine but then there are things such as the Penitent Engine, Thousand Sons, Tzeentch marked marines, pyrocasters, flayers, and the flaming chariot of tzeentch. These guys are unavoidably broken in a, they are nigh on worthless way. They will never rise to any point of worth in a natural meta because the only way to make them flow is by breaking the rules, thus ensuring the game isn't flowing naturally. As an example, observe the flaming chariot of tzeentch. What should I do with it? It's a 100 point AV 10/10/10 thing that can either fire d3 lascannon shots that can possibly give fnp or have a S6 (I believe) ap 3 or 4 flamer. Problem is, it's a fast skimmer that can only fire d3 lascannon snapfire shots if it moves. When is this good? When is the pyrocaster worth it at all? When does it have a point? When will it fluidly rise up? When will Ksons rise up when it's proven standard chaos marines are better at the killy job agaisnt enemies even other SM and are equally squishy? If the game was in perfect imbalance, the reign of the screamerstar, taudar, tiptide spam, and waveserpent spam would be long gone and the Heldrake would be considered even under-powered now.

Thing is, playing Warmachine isn't what I want. Not only would not all my models transfer, but the basic theme wouldn't. It'd dissapear and mean nothing.

Well, to start the cycle, people need to flock to the better-than-average unit (and abandon the worse-than-average unit). E.g. champion A in the video. If people don't pick up champion A, the circle doesn't start, even if champion A is overpowered.

If you cling to the weak stuff just to wallow in your misery, that is what you will do.

Do you want to know how many years Tzeentch fans, especially Thousand Son fans have had to cling to this misery? Since before 3.5 edition. Yes, even in the BROKEN chaos space marine codex, Thousand Sons still sucked. There has never been a time, in over a decade that Thousand Sons were ever good. They've always been bad. How is this a part of the flow? How is there flow if the meta is largely stagnant and not diverse in what models are seen? Why does gw just keep on removing models?

 StarTrotter wrote:
If the game was in perfect imbalance, the reign of the screamerstar, taudar, tiptide spam, and waveserpent spam would be long gone and the Heldrake would be considered even under-powered now 4th Edition Cheese-Falcons, Lash & Blast, Leafblowers and Vulkan-Melta Drop-Bombs would be long gone, and Grey Knights would be considered even under-powered now.

I think you're on a wrong time-scale.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
If the game was in perfect imbalance, the reign of the screamerstar, taudar, tiptide spam, and waveserpent spam would be long gone and the Heldrake would be considered even under-powered now 4th Edition Cheese-Falcons, Lash & Blast, Leafblowers and Vulkan-Melta Drop-Bombs would be long gone, and Grey Knights would be considered even under-powered now.

I think you're on a wrong time-scale.

Problem is, that leaves multi-year periods where there is the frustration of the imbalances.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
If the game was in perfect imbalance, the reign of the screamerstar, taudar, tiptide spam, and waveserpent spam would be long gone and the Heldrake would be considered even under-powered now 4th Edition Cheese-Falcons, Lash & Blast, Leafblowers and Vulkan-Melta Drop-Bombs would be long gone, and Grey Knights would be considered even under-powered now.

I think you're on a wrong time-scale.

^ Posting here again because I updated it to respond to your message is for you Zwei. Just edited to respond and not sure if you would see.

Now then, I have to ask, what does all that matter? What does that mean? Here's the thing, 40k has always been horridly imbalanced. There's no denying that. Along with that, the fact Grey Knights are under-powered isn't a good thing. There should never be a time where an entire codex is underpowered. Not even in imperfect balance. That's like all of the top laners in league of legends being terrible. And onto that, yeah, those existed, but they were still stagnant for years upon years. There was no natural rise and flow. It was artificially produced by GW itself that kept on releasing rules to bring new broken choices that then stayed dominant forces before a new edition would crush them into being absolute garbage which yet again is GW forcing it. It's not a natural flow, it's a forced artificial system by GW that stays stagnant for years and even after a decade certain segments of entire armies are still terrible.

 StarTrotter wrote:


Do you want to know how many years Tzeentch fans, especially Thousand Son fans have had to cling to this misery? Since before 3.5 edition. Yes, even in the BROKEN chaos space marine codex, Thousand Sons still sucked. There has never been a time, in over a decade that Thousand Sons were ever good. They've always been bad. How is this a part of the flow? How is there flow if the meta is largely stagnant and not diverse in what models are seen? Why does gw just keep on removing models?

Let me guess. People who've wallowed in their misery for so long are ... miserable.

I have no idea why Thousand Sons didn't get a moment in the sun. Maybe they just sell even worse than Bretonnians. Maybe the studio-guys don't like em. Maybe it's just a stupid mistake on behalf of the game studio. Again, as pointed out time and and time again in this thread, I never said and never believed that GW has mastered the "perfect imbalance".

I quoted the "perfect balance" video to demonstrate that "balance" is not a universal, unmitigated good in game design. There are many reasons for game-designers to reject balance. "Perfect balance" is only one of these reasons at best. Emphasis on narrative is at least another. I didn't quote "perfect balance" to imply that 40K is the best example of it.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:


Do you want to know how many years Tzeentch fans, especially Thousand Son fans have had to cling to this misery? Since before 3.5 edition. Yes, even in the BROKEN chaos space marine codex, Thousand Sons still sucked. There has never been a time, in over a decade that Thousand Sons were ever good. They've always been bad. How is this a part of the flow? How is there flow if the meta is largely stagnant and not diverse in what models are seen? Why does gw just keep on removing models?

Let me guess. People who've wallowed in their misery for so long are ... miserable.

I have no idea why Thousand Sons didn't get a moment in the sun. Maybe they just sell even worse than Bretonnians. Maybe the studio-guys don't like em. Maybe it's just a stupid mistake on behalf of the game studio. Again, as pointed out time and and time again in this thread, I never said and never believed that GW has mastered the "perfect imbalance".

I quoted the "perfect balance" video to demonstrate that "balance" is not a universal, unmitigated good in game design. There are many reasons for game-designers to reject balance. "Perfect balance" is only one of these reasons at best. I didn't quote "perfect balance" to imply that 40K is the best example of it.

Okay then son time to begin. Problem number one, if they sell bad, why not make their rules better to increase their sales? How can you have over 3 editions of stupid mistakes that have never fixed them? A studio making them suck because they don't like them is flawed. All of this runs contrary to perfect imbalance. It shows no real sense of balance and no actual flow. Well then, so what was your point? The notion from what the video described was there was perfect balance and perfect imbalance. Perfect imbalance describes a system that we have gone over many times. Thing is, 40k is neither. It's a game that pretends to only go for the narrative but provides point systems that are somewhat standardized, even if illogically. It has no sense of perfect imbalance in it and instead is built all around pure imbalance.

Whilst the codices have always been flawed, I still can't help but the increased production rate might be hurting the quality of codices though in terms of diversity of models, fluff, and even, maybe, although probably not, rules. At this point, the answer I'm getting is you defends the atrocious failure at attempting either form of balance just because why not.

As per your reference, eh, I wouldn't say miserable just as much as bitter, disappointing, and a bit jaded.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
If the game was in perfect imbalance, the reign of the screamerstar, taudar, tiptide spam, and waveserpent spam would be long gone and the Heldrake would be considered even under-powered now 4th Edition Cheese-Falcons, Lash & Blast, Leafblowers and Vulkan-Melta Drop-Bombs would be long gone, and Grey Knights would be considered even under-powered now.

I think you're on a wrong time-scale.

Two wrongs don't make right (your time scale shift) and previous editions saw meta lists last a few months usually related to a "new hotness" effect of everyone playing it. Only Grey Knights stuck out in 5E because they were designed for 6E in mind (the way the book was written itself suggests this). Ward, in his wisdom, made a book that sucker punched 5E but is appropriately mid-teir in 6E and is better than the first two actual books of 6E.

While there was a lot of power house builds in 5E, it was probably the closest the game has seen to what we want; perfect imbalance. I had a ton of close games with my "cheeseball long fang spam". I didn't just spam missiles, but I maximized my Greys and use Lone Wolves as denial units. Other Wolf players went all missiles. Some went Razorback spam. Some went all Thunderwolves. Some went Loganwing. All were playable and competitive armies. How many variants of Wolves do we see now outside of the obiligatory RP on bike within Super Best Friends? None.

Most of the new codecis have a power build, more often than not revolving around a deathstar involving allies. Adding more to the game isn't fixing it, either. Introducing D weapons, which are horrible by design, makes matters worse...

 StarTrotter wrote:


Okay then son time to begin. Problem number one, if they sell bad, why not make their rules better to increase their sales? How can you have over 3 editions of stupid mistakes that have never fixed them? A studio making them suck because they don't like them is flawed. All of this runs contrary to perfect imbalance. It shows no real sense of balance and no actual flow. Well then, so what was your point? The notion from what the video described was there was perfect balance and perfect imbalance. Perfect imbalance describes a system that we have gone over many times. Thing is, 40k is neither.

The thing the video showed is that there is more than one way to design a game (as has been claimed with respect to balance).

Does that mean there are now only two ways to design a game? Perfect balance and perfect imbalance?

Certainly not. If you think that you've missed the point of why I linked the video. There are probably millions of ways to design a game.

40K might be neither perfect balance or perfect imbalance,, but it is one type of game design. The one pursued by the games workshop design studio. You might not like it, but some people do.

I agree with the OP to an extent in that I think a lot of 'problems' only exist on the internet. They may argue in YMDC about whether they can field two Coteaz's in one army but would anyone really try to force that on someone else IRL? Also, I think there is a fallacy that it is now really difficult to arrange a game because of Escalation and Knights. Again, I don't think this problem really exists as all you have to do is ask your opponent beforehand what they will be willing to play. Do you want to play Escalation? Yes/No. Do you mind if I use my Knights? Yes/No. Both can technically be used in a normal game of 40k, but has anyone really brought out a list and said "Surprise! Warhound Titan!" I also think that a lot of the posts in YMDC are very situation specific, and despite some of the poor wording at times, FAQs and a bit of common sense really do clear things up. While we are waiting for FAQs though there is a problem [how do lasgun arrays on a chimera actually work?]

I have to admit that it is sometimes difficult to be objective about 40k when you're so deeply immersed, both in fluff and also in therms of the monetary commitment. However I've started to try out some different games [particularly X-Wing, a very different game I know] and they do highlight how clunky 40k is. The IGUGO system and all of the USRs make it feel a bit of a chore sometimes. I think the fact that a quick start guide would have to be pages and pages long says something about the need to overhaul the core rules. I also think that 40k has something of an identity crisis. Is it a skirmish game or a large battle game? Is it a shooty game or a close combat game?

Hopefully the next edition brings about a radical overhaul rather than the current model of clearing up some problems, ignoring others, and brining in rules that no-one wanted in the first place which create more problems. To get to a point where we are reasonably happy with the game my group has had to come up with a 6 point house rule system, which isn't ideal.

I feel like in 12-18 months we won't need to worry about this conversation.

GW will either get smart and course correct to put them on the path of their budding competition in terms of how to properly addres their consumers or they topple. After reading the wisdom imparted in the ICv2 thread I linked earlier, there's market data supporting this very notion. So now we play the waiting game. They won't be getting any money from me, probably, until they change their business practices.

And yes, that means I don't get to enjoy their gorgeous new Wood Elf models. Not being sarcastic. I love me some Treemen.

Time will tell at this point.

 TheKbob wrote:
I feel like in 12-18 months we won't need to worry about this conversation.

GW will either get smart and course correct to put them on the path of their budding competition in terms of how to properly addres their consumers or they topple. After reading the wisdom imparted in the ICv2 thread I linked earlier, there's market data supporting this very notion. So now we play the waiting game. They won't be getting any money from me, probably, until they change their business practices.

And yes, that means I don't get to enjoy their gorgeous new Wood Elf models. Not being sarcastic. I love me some Treemen.

Time will tell at this point.

GW is not going to topple in 12-18 months...

No. GW will die slowly as it's fanbase is chipped away by far better companies and by it's own incompetence.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
GW is not going to topple in 12-18 months...

Did you read the thread I previously linked that has two economic / market analysis types discussing the topic? Or the history that when companies fall, it's fast, not slow? GW has their eggs in one grimdark basket. And have shown a double digit decrease in their growth this past year. They certainly aren't doing anything that suggests this will turn around. TSR was rockstar for 30 years and then *poof*.

Go read that thread. I won't try to quote the data the folks there sited as they speak to it better. The separate analysis on Masterminis.net concurs with their reasoning, too. They are performing every act of a company under duress. Previously, they were doing action as a company looking to sell. After their last stock value drop, no one is going to be interested until they are certain that doesn't happen further.

I'm just a science type, myself. I listen to voices of reaso and with data. So far, the ones without reason and data are backing the "narrative horse." I'm betting that doesn't work out in the long run.

Jesus, do not get me started on the dog's job FFG has made of "game balance" in their 40K product lines.

Holy %^&* do I want to walk into their offices with one of their heavy-arse books and slap some folks upside their heads.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
GW is not going to topple in 12-18 months...

Did you read the thread I previously linked that has two economic / market analysis types discussing the topic? Or the history that when companies fall, it's fast, not slow? GW has their eggs in one grimdark basket. And have shown a double digit decrease in their growth this past year. They certainly aren't doing anything that suggests this will turn around. TSR was rockstar for 30 years and then *poof*.

Go read that thread. I won't try to quote the data the folks there sited as they speak to it better. The separate analysis on Masterminis.net concurs with their reasoning, too. They are performing every act of a company under duress. Previously, they were doing action as a company looking to sell. After their last stock value drop, no one is going to be interested until they are certain that doesn't happen further.

I'm just a science type, myself. I listen to voices of reaso and with data. So far, the ones without reason and data are backing the "narrative horse." I'm betting that doesn't work out in the long run.

They're the top selling system in a niche market. Maybe their sales have dropped but they will be around for at least another decade.

They're the top selling system in a niche market. Maybe their sales have dropped but they will be around for at least another decade.

So was TSR... until they weren't. And then they changed hands several times in a very short period of time until they were finally purchased by Hasbro/WotC.

 Psienesis wrote:

They're the top selling system in a niche market. Maybe their sales have dropped but they will be around for at least another decade.

So was TSR... until they weren't. And then they changed hands several times in a very short period of time until they were finally purchased by Hasbro/WotC.

True. But TSR only ever was a studio of guys (and girls?) writing books. Wound down, it was a bundle of licenses and perhaps the odd writer still on contract, passing along.

GW is still a full-blown retail chain, logistics company and manufacturer. It's a bit more .... cumbersome.

 Psienesis wrote:

They're the top selling system in a niche market. Maybe their sales have dropped but they will be around for at least another decade.

So was TSR... until they weren't. And then they changed hands several times in a very short period of time until they were finally purchased by Hasbro/WotC.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Which makes no difference.

Too big to fail has made idiots out of better minds than anyone in this thread.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

They're the top selling system in a niche market. Maybe their sales have dropped but they will be around for at least another decade.

There's a difference between being the biggest slice of the pie and being dominant. The estimates in that thread do not put 40k anywhere near the 51% of the market realm for tabletop gaming and more like sub 30%.

And yes, TSR were the Kings of the RPG World. And *poof* very quickly. So "at least another decade" isn't very valid. And a public company showing decline is very different from a private one, from my limited understanding. A public company showing decline has to answer to folks and if the answers aren't good, then begins the toilet flush of reduced stock values, more selling, more reduction of stock values, etc. etc.

Again, science type, not a money type. Ask a money type this stuff. After having read their lengthy posts, and the Masterminis.net piece, I keep seeing concurrent independant money/business types forcasting a not too bright future for our girmdark friends.

Edit: And I can't speak to TSR's business model, but GW has very much downsized in-house production and moved a lot of product to outsourced models. And they are vertically stacked into essentially one IP at this point. The Hobbit isn't doing it. LotR is all but dead and probably just around because The Hobbit license is still active. Fantasy is no Spring Chicken (though, I still enjoy it, Banners of the World Dragon and what not be dammed). They are a 40k beast right now. One property. And I don't need a business degree to know that lack of diversity can be dangerous for a company.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

They're the top selling system in a niche market. Maybe their sales have dropped but they will be around for at least another decade.

So was TSR... until they weren't. And then they changed hands several times in a very short period of time until they were finally purchased by Hasbro/WotC.

True. But TSR only ever was a studio of guys (and girls?) writing books. Wound down, it was a bundle of licenses and perhaps the odd writer still on contract, passing along.

GW is still a full-blown retail chain, logistics company and manufacturer. It's a bit more .... cumbersome.

Man I like FFG but that 40k balance.... ouch

TSR crumbled and others have. A decade is overblown. Things can collapse very quickly.

And 40k has no PR, has understaffed employees in retail chains they are starting to cut back on, a small staff of game developers, few rule managers, etc. The comany might seem big to us but it's really not that massive.

I'm still waiting to hear how useless units make the game better.

(Basically, what I'm getting at here is that I'm asking for any kind of SPECIFIC EVIDENCE about how gross imbalances somehow work for the better. Several times you've admitted that GW isn't perfect balance, which means it has balance flaws, yet the next breath you claim nothing's wrong with GW's balance. You use using general statements and I'm looking for a specific answer related to the game itself. Because I don't think you can because your argument is ridiculous. Having a useless unit benefits nothing.)

I wouldn't hold your breath (and I doubt you are) because

A) As I have alluded to already, this isn't the first, or even the tenth, time Zwei has dragged a topic onto his pet 'debating' subject. You aren't the first person (or the tenth) to ask that question, and the first person is still waiting too. Basically he can't, but will do anything to avoid admitting it.

B) He's currently busy baiting the Creature Caster guy for creating generic demons that look something like some of the largely generic demons that GW made.

 azreal13 wrote:
I wouldn't hold your breath (and I doubt you are) because

A) As I have alluded to already, this isn't the first, or even the tenth, time Zwei has dragged a topic onto his pet 'debating' subject. You aren't the first person (or the tenth) to ask that question, and the first person is still waiting too. Basically he can't, but will do anything to avoid admitting it.

B) He's currently busy baiting the Creature Caster guy for creating generic demons that look something like some of the largely generic demons that GW made.

LOL! I'm fully aware that Zwei is incapable of proving anything remotely like specific evidence. I just want to make sure that he understands that I know that. I've seen him in other threads shouting the gospel of "Balance is boring" and he didn't make any sense in those threads either.

Zwei, if I had authority, I'd ban you from commenting until you answered my question.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I'm still waiting to hear how useless units make the game better.

(Basically, what I'm getting at here is that I'm asking for any kind of SPECIFIC EVIDENCE about how gross imbalances somehow work for the better. Several times you've admitted that GW isn't perfect balance, which means it has balance flaws, yet the next breath you claim nothing's wrong with GW's balance. You use using general statements and I'm looking for a specific answer related to the game itself. Because I don't think you can because your argument is ridiculous. Having a useless unit benefits nothing.)

I believe he answered this with his 'virtue of diversity' sophistry earlier on this page. Because he has no credible answer except to redirect the topic into murky waters.

Something that i was thinking about last night was this, and it was a rather tired mind it was wending its way through.

there is lots of units that are rubbish in 6th edition, we all know this, now some units being better now and worse now, is ok. because come 7th 8th edition before you might get a codex revamp, those units may become brilliant.

eg. helldrake considered devastating now, come new rule set could be rubbish but 1k sons become good.

remember the re-write of the rage USR, where it went from hopelessly follow, to just better.

now imagine that if all units were equal today, new ruleset comes out and changes how things are for everything and it ALL goes to gak... no ones gonna be happy, but if the good become weaker and the bad better... not all models are then invalidated. which goes with the release of rulesets and codex's. its not all dropped at once, some codex's span multiple editions, so need to be able to weather the changes that come along. and yeah sure you can say feth you GW, your see saw of units is crap, but we know they write rules to sell models.....

So in this manor, the good and bad units ARE ballanced, over multiple editions.. just not all at the same time..

ps. this doesnt excuse some of the truly gak things eg, flamer chariot, etc and the daft typos and that kind of mess.. but it does in some way explain things.

even if you broke your codex's into 3 parts and expected 30% at a time to be good, and the rest bad to average, and rotate it around.