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.

Wow. With a meta that changes daily, D weapons, broken tau formations, and 2++ with rerolls, I'm throwing in the towel on the game with RAW. Seriously, who can compete with maxxed out Tide/side spam? The games just stupid now when dealing with WAAC lists. Tau FireSpam, seer-star, screamer-star, and serpent spam are just sad. It's like Greyknights all over again.

I don't think I'll attend tourneys anymore that run the game as given by GW. Only narrative events for this guy. How do you guys feel about the current state of the game?

PS: please don't move this to house rules, this is about meta not proposed rules.

NZ is exploding with reactions like this. A lot of us are going as far as not buying GW products etc anymore (except books). Fantasy included. People are leaving GW in droves its crazy. Is it a growing trend in other countries i wonder? We simply just play the rule book and non allied codices for fun narratives. GW is getting pretty bad very quickly compared to the usual speed at which things used to change.

This is interesting. I was just thinking of joining a league at my FLGS. I've never had to face these kinds of lists, my friends and I just play casually, tinkering with our own ideas of cool/fun lists. Are the competitive lists really that bad? Should I even mess around with competitive players?

I think the game has gotten to the point where it's not fun in a competitive environment if played by RAW. For the tournament scene house rules are going to be necessary. That is unless you like playing against SideTide and Revenants with Pulsars.

It's possible GW even saw these imbalances. However since they don't care to make a tournament viable game the designers probably just think, "yes someone could bring all those riptides and broadsides, or a revenant with pulsars to every game, but who hates their friends that much?"

I think the US's Feast of Blades tournament is on the right track with their rules addendums.

Pfft, half the time I play 40K like it's 2004 again. I don't think I've ever played RAW.

Its just truly become a game of pay to win. They want their sales numbers to show nothing but green until they sell it. Then after that you can get space marines at Walmart.

I think that there has long been a truth about 40k that some people realise earlier than others: 40k isn't a serious game. You take it seriously at your own eventual peril.

The only difference now is that GW is making moves that make this fact more obvious, so more people are realising it more quickly with all this new stuff.

Ironically enough, though, most of the problems we've been seeing over the last year and a half are because GW pandering to user demand. People demand fliers? Here, have fliers. People demand allies? Here, have allies. People want supplements and a faster development cycle? Here, choke on them. People demand more monstrous creatures, eldar "fixed" to be more like they were in 4th edition with invincible fliers, and for tau to be "fixed" by having the firepower they "deserve"? Done, and done. People want to play with their baneblades in regular 40k? Have I got a book for you.

As Goethe said, be careful what you wish for...

The irony, of course, is that the only way to fix people's idiotic game design fantasies that GW allowed is to rely on those same people's game design abilities to make house rules. You know there are already people fawning over themselves to field be'lakor and baneblades and revenant titans all around you, whether they're being obvious or less obvious about it...

What I do find interesting, though, is that there are threads like this. Normally if you didn't like 40k, you'd just drop out for the rest of the edition and come back in a few years. No probs. The fact that there is the desire to fix 40k implies two things - the first being that trust in GW to fix the problems it created is at a new kind of low, and the second is the idea that people are actually starting to take ownership of the game and the experience playing it themselves. At least in a way that seems new to me.

 Ailaros wrote:
I think that there has long been a truth about 40k that some people realise earlier than others: 40k isn't a serious game. You take it seriously at your own eventual peril.

The only difference now is that GW is making moves that make this fact more obvious, so more people are realising it more quickly with all this new stuff.

Ironically enough, though, most of the problems we've been seeing over the last year and a half are because GW pandering to user demand. People demand fliers? Here, have fliers. People demand allies? Here, have allies. People want supplements and a faster development cycle? Here, choke on them. People demand more monstrous creatures, eldar "fixed" to be more like they were in 4th edition with invincible fliers, and for tau to be "fixed" by having the firepower they "deserve"? Done, and done. People want to play with their baneblades in regular 40k? Have I got a book for you.

As Goethe said, be careful what you wish for...

The irony, of course, is that the only way to fix people's idiotic game design fantasies that GW allowed is to rely on those same people's game design abilities to make house rules. You know there are already people fawning over themselves to field be'lakor and baneblades and revenant titans all around you, whether they're being obvious or less obvious about it...

What I do find interesting, though, is that there are threads like this. Normally if you didn't like 40k, you'd just drop out for the rest of the edition and come back in a few years. No probs. The fact that there is the desire to fix 40k implies two things - the first being that trust in GW to fix the problems it created is at a new kind of low, and the second is the idea that people are actually starting to take ownership of the game and the experience playing it themselves. At least in a way that seems new to me.

I think its because the game has a little something for everyone army and tactics wise, its also easily obtained (price aside) and generally easy to get a game. Gameplay wise it has huge potential to be great from the get go. But it just seems GW is content doing the bare minimum and getting the maximum they can for it. We ask for things to happen and they either go way over board or way under, they just seem to miss the mark. I think its getting to the stage where people are questioning them all the time due to seemingly poor decisions. People will complain but i have only been around with wargames for 5 years and i have seen changes i dont and do like, but one is outweighing the other (changes for the worse). People want to play GW in any way they feel like, just like they can with other game systems. But the system is full of add ons and rules that make it so hard to have a almost 90% guaranteed fair game no matter play style or list.

People are just getting sick of waiting and trying to guess whats coming next. Change is fine and it has potential but people are just getting sick of it now and are either putting up with it, are blessed with great players to game with (like me, so can enjoy the good bits), on the verge of leaving or just given up. I have seen all these happen in just this year alone. My club has decreased in numbers because of it.

I know of a couple of guys that are basically just keeping the core tenants of the rules and are basically redesigning the rest of the rules and such. I like there enthusiasm, but it should never have come to this.
GW is constantly missing the mark as has been mentioned previously

Tourneys have had "house rules" for years.

Everthing from the old adeptacon faq's to the more recent "1999+1" points lists. (them houseruling no double FOC's).

We also had comp back in the day (which in a way, is coming back).

Finally, there have always been power lists - razor spam, GK halbred spam, leaf blower, etc. Now its xenos OP lists...and people are not happy.

if I may use a video game analogy, 40k is kind of like the Super Smash Brothers of wargames. Very popular, not really built for competitive play, and (by the standards of other games of its type) horribly balanced. Now, some people are going to insist on playing competitive. In order to facilitate that they either accept all the randomness and acknowledge that other factors besides player skill "at the tabletop/with the controller" is a major contributing factor (random chance in the case of Super Smash Brothers, List building for 40k. Let's be honest, it doesn't take much player skill to look up the cheesy list), or else they severely limit and restrict the core functions of the game in order to enforce fair and balanced play (feast of blades style house rules for 40k, banning items and 90% of stages for super smash brothers).

That's how I see it anyway.

P.S. Just want to add, that isn't in any way a criticism of 40k. Super Smash Brothers is probably the most played fighting game out there, and tons of drunk college age guys have had a lot of fun with it while not playing super competitively in a tournament likewise 40k can be a very fun game when played in the right mindset, or when played competitively if proper restrictions are enforced. Heck, the Fantasy people hav been awarding "army points handicaps" for years now. Show up with the old book, get a few hundred extra points. Modifying the core rules for tournament play is in no way a bad thing (unless you assert that they shouldn't need modified in the first place).

Personally in my own gaming group 6th edition was the first edition where we actually started using house rules for not only codexes but the main rulebook itself.

I actually liked going to tournaments in 5th edition but as of 6th, I have only been to 1 tournament and don't plan on going to anymore in the future unless there is something done to change the current state of things.

Around my local community, everything seems pretty much the same.

That is to say, everyone complaining loudly and incessantly that the newest codexes are broken, Games Workshop is greedy, Games Workshop is stupid, Games Workshop hates their customers, the game isn't playtested and never was, if our zits don't clear up then Bobby Thompson is never going to ask us to the prom, and the rest of the litany of 'the-sky-is-falling' rhetoric. Nothing different than what I've been hearing since I started playing back in 3rd.

Meanwhile, sales seem to be doing okay. Games Workshop doesn't look like it's in trouble, so I'll still have a game for the foreseeable future, and my local game store seems to be doing okay, so I'll still have a place to play it. Honestly, everything's coming up roses.

I don't particularly feel the need for house rules. I'm excited by the new possibilities. If my opponents want to drop a lot of money on Escalation, and then spend 1/4 to 1/2 of their army points on superheavies, then more power to them. I think I can learn to win against lists like that, even if I take some losses at first.

If someone consistently fields armies I don't want to play against, I'll just stop playing against that person. In competitive games, I relish the opportunity to face new and exciting combinations.

That's just my opinion, of course.

Reading the threads in the Tournament Thread area here on Dakka, I don't think you'll have to worry about Escalation in many tournaments.

First, is this really an issue in your meta? Do the players actually play 3-4 Riptides, or 2-3 Heldrakes, or nothing but Screamerstars? Are you seeing such convoluted armies with a Primary detachment, allied detachment, and whatever detachment of the Inquisition that you don't know if it's legal or not?

Secondly, with Escalation and Strongpoint dropping, are all your players bringing out Titans and Baneblades in 1500-2000 point games?

Until that starts happening, it's all "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

If this starts happening on a regular basis, then sure. Start making up house rules. Or be more choosey about your opponents, and don't attend the tournaments with Escalation or Strongpoint.

Myself, I have too much invested in 40K to just walk away from it now. It's still a fun game when I don't care about winning or losing and playing opponents that don't care about winning or losing either.

Not trying to be harsh or an ass here. GW has made it very, very clear on numerous occasions that Warhammer 40K is our game (as in the player's game), feel free to play it the way we want.

Personally, I find all these new rules and such refreshing, though complicated and sometimes bothersome. It's hard to understand where the play balance is, and I've come to the conclusion that there isn't any. And in that very lack of balance, is balance, if you know what I mean.

Play the game to have fun! If you are not having fun, find new opponents or find a new game. A game of little toy soldiers should not bother anyone so much that they want to quit the game- especially if they have a lot invested in the game!

 Tamwulf wrote:
First, is this really an issue in your meta? Do the players actually play 3-4 Riptides, or 2-3 Heldrakes, or nothing but Screamerstars? Are you seeing such convoluted armies with a Primary detachment, allied detachment, and whatever detachment of the Inquisition that you don't know if it's legal or not?

Secondly, with Escalation and Strongpoint dropping, are all your players bringing out Titans and Baneblades in 1500-2000 point games?

Until that starts happening, it's all "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

If this starts happening on a regular basis, then sure. Start making up house rules. Or be more choosey about your opponents, and don't attend the tournaments with Escalation or Strongpoint.

Myself, I have too much invested in 40K to just walk away from it now. It's still a fun game when I don't care about winning or losing and playing opponents that don't care about winning or losing either.

Not trying to be harsh or an ass here. GW has made it very, very clear on numerous occasions that Warhammer 40K is our game (as in the player's game), feel free to play it the way we want.

Personally, I find all these new rules and such refreshing, though complicated and sometimes bothersome. It's hard to understand where the play balance is, and I've come to the conclusion that there isn't any. And in that very lack of balance, is balance, if you know what I mean.

Play the game to have fun! If you are not having fun, find new opponents or find a new game. A game of little toy soldiers should not bother anyone so much that they want to quit the game- especially if they have a lot invested in the game!

Sigh.....

OK so my friend plays grey knights. He rolls his psycik powers for a squad. His list isnt optimized and so on. Guess what it turns out he can do? Shoot through terrain, ignore cover and reroll his misses on an almost impossible to fail roll. He didnt choose to do this by the way. It just happened to happen to one of his units. They slaughtered so much. and lost a couple of models. People are using your examples of OP as examples of what can happen, but truth is so much more can happen to so many units that seem fun to use. Its easy to have fun but like parents always tell their kids... being fair is being fun.

I havent met someone with more than 1 riptide or use allies. But examples like that arent the only ones.

"First, is this really an issue in your meta?". ummmm people dont kidnap kids in my town and send them to diamond mines until death, but it happens. Thats a very annoying statement to make.

The point is people shouldnt have to make house rules to balance it. Im not saying its GW fault, i think players who exploit the game are just as bad. But its still a problem and the easy solution is GW to fix it so the exploiters cant exploit as much. 2 birds with one stone.

 dementedwombat wrote:
if I may use a video game analogy, 40k is kind of like the Super Smash Brothers of wargames. Very popular, not really built for competitive play, and (by the standards of other games of its type) horribly balanced. Now, some people are going to insist on playing competitive. In order to facilitate that they either accept all the randomness and acknowledge that other factors besides player skill "at the tabletop/with the controller" is a major contributing factor (random chance in the case of Super Smash Brothers, List building for 40k. Let's be honest, it doesn't take much player skill to look up the cheesy list), or else they severely limit and restrict the core functions of the game in order to enforce fair and balanced play (feast of blades style house rules for 40k, banning items and 90% of stages for super smash brothers).

That's how I see it anyway.

P.S. Just want to add, that isn't in any way a criticism of 40k. Super Smash Brothers is probably the most played fighting game out there, and tons of drunk college age guys have had a lot of fun with it while not playing super competitively in a tournament likewise 40k can be a very fun game when played in the right mindset, or when played competitively if proper restrictions are enforced. Heck, the Fantasy people hav been awarding "army points handicaps" for years now. Show up with the old book, get a few hundred extra points. Modifying the core rules for tournament play is in no way a bad thing (unless you assert that they shouldn't need modified in the first place).

Except competitive SSB players DO eliminate all the "casual" fun stuff and all random factors, but people still talk about keeping in formations or Escalation because they're "official" and "legal".

NO TERRAIN
ELDAR ONLY
FINAL DESTINATION

 Swastakowey wrote:

Sigh.....

OK so my friend plays grey knights. He rolls his psycik powers for a squad. His list isnt optimized and so on. Guess what it turns out he can do? Shoot through terrain, ignore cover and reroll his misses on an almost impossible to fail roll. He didnt choose to do this by the way. It just happened to happen to one of his units. They slaughtered so much. and lost a couple of models. People are using your examples of OP as examples of what can happen, but truth is so much more can happen to so many units that seem fun to use. Its easy to have fun but like parents always tell their kids... being fair is being fun.

I havent met someone with more than 1 riptide or use allies. But examples like that arent the only ones.

"First, is this really an issue in your meta?". ummmm people dont kidnap kids in my town and send them to diamond mines until death, but it happens. Thats a very annoying statement to make.

The point is people shouldnt have to make house rules to balance it. Im not saying its GW fault, i think players who exploit the game are just as bad. But its still a problem and the easy solution is GW to fix it so the exploiters cant exploit as much. 2 birds with one stone.

1 - Im always amused (OK, not the right word) by people not communicating. In all games Im used to friendly agreement. "Hey, man, i get you can build great combo, but it isnt fun. Take something else or its useless, I can spend my time hitting head into wall instead". It usually works, in non-tournament games its about playing for fun. Tournament is dfferent case, but I guess you are not playing just tourneys.

2 - GW clearly states that people should make house rules. They give you big bunch of possibilities. When SA and escalation came out, its just another possibility. Nobody can force you to play against it and in tournament is about decision od TO. Which was a long time ago, nothing new.

Honestly, the "sky is falling" is beginning to be tedious. Its highly modifiable game. In purpose. So modify it and dont say that someone else should do it and you wont buy models (I mean it in common sense, not to you personally, mate and its pay to win, because before, GW gave you every model for free and it definetly wasnt pay to play

 dementedwombat wrote:
if I may use a video game analogy, 40k is kind of like the Super Smash Brothers of wargames. Very popular, not really built for competitive play, and (by the standards of other games of its type) horribly balanced. Now, some people are going to insist on playing competitive. In order to facilitate that they either accept all the randomness and acknowledge that other factors besides player skill "at the tabletop/with the controller" is a major contributing factor (random chance in the case of Super Smash Brothers, List building for 40k. Let's be honest, it doesn't take much player skill to look up the cheesy list), or else they severely limit and restrict the core functions of the game in order to enforce fair and balanced play (feast of blades style house rules for 40k, banning items and 90% of stages for super smash brothers).

That's how I see it anyway.

P.S. Just want to add, that isn't in any way a criticism of 40k. Super Smash Brothers is probably the most played fighting game out there, and tons of drunk college age guys have had a lot of fun with it while not playing super competitively in a tournament likewise 40k can be a very fun game when played in the right mindset, or when played competitively if proper restrictions are enforced. Heck, the Fantasy people hav been awarding "army points handicaps" for years now. Show up with the old book, get a few hundred extra points. Modifying the core rules for tournament play is in no way a bad thing (unless you assert that they shouldn't need modified in the first place).

QUOTED! FOR! TRUTH!
So glad to be vindicated on the thing I've been saying since I entered the game. "Warhammer 40,000 is not a suitable platform to host competitive play in any viable fashion as it stands or has stood for some time" It is however a rather intriguing sandbox to prepare and play a 3 hour game with awesome models and tables with a little bit of work beforehand preparing the rules for it.

A Space Marine yells at a Tau Shas'ui on the battlefield, his shouts muffled by the titantillation of war.
Next to him a Shas'la hits his helm-com and relays to the Shas'ui "Sir, that marine is trying to speak to you!". He is ignored.
The marine furiously charges the Tau foxhole where the Shas'ui and 'la are posted, "Face me in single combat! Xenos Scum!"
The Shas'la, now frantic, grabs his leaders shoulder and points to the Power Armor thundering towards them.
Seemingly annoyed, the Shas'ui turns his rifle and draws bead on the noble threat that comes to face him, still 100 ft off.
Slowly, steadily, the trigger is pulled. One pocket of super heated plasma bursts from the rifles end, on way to its destiny.
Unerring the burst hits the imminent sergeant in his left eye, his helmet not present, it extinguished the life now only fifty feet distant.
Stunned, the Shas'la stares at his unflappable leader. The com clicks in on his helm.
"We don't accept or decline challenges, we meet them. Keep firing Shas'la."

 UlrikDecado wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Sigh.....

OK so my friend plays grey knights. He rolls his psycik powers for a squad. His list isnt optimized and so on. Guess what it turns out he can do? Shoot through terrain, ignore cover and reroll his misses on an almost impossible to fail roll. He didnt choose to do this by the way. It just happened to happen to one of his units. They slaughtered so much. and lost a couple of models. People are using your examples of OP as examples of what can happen, but truth is so much more can happen to so many units that seem fun to use. Its easy to have fun but like parents always tell their kids... being fair is being fun.

I havent met someone with more than 1 riptide or use allies. But examples like that arent the only ones.

"First, is this really an issue in your meta?". ummmm people dont kidnap kids in my town and send them to diamond mines until death, but it happens. Thats a very annoying statement to make.

The point is people shouldnt have to make house rules to balance it. Im not saying its GW fault, i think players who exploit the game are just as bad. But its still a problem and the easy solution is GW to fix it so the exploiters cant exploit as much. 2 birds with one stone.

1 - Im always amused (OK, not the right word) by people not communicating. In all games Im used to friendly agreement. "Hey, man, i get you can build great combo, but it isnt fun. Take something else or its useless, I can spend my time hitting head into wall instead". It usually works, in non-tournament games its about playing for fun. Tournament is dfferent case, but I guess you are not playing just tourneys.

2 - GW clearly states that people should make house rules. They give you big bunch of possibilities. When SA and escalation came out, its just another possibility. Nobody can force you to play against it and in tournament is about decision od TO. Which was a long time ago, nothing new.

Honestly, the "sky is falling" is beginning to be tedious. Its highly modifiable game. In purpose. So modify it and dont say that someone else should do it and you wont buy models (I mean it in common sense, not to you personally, mate and its pay to win, because before, GW gave you every model for free and it definetly wasnt pay to play

Yes but its also common sense to make a fair game. Its also reasonable to expect to play a game with a stranger without a discussion. And im mot complaining about escalation as we won't be playing it. But most people would agree they shouldn't make someone re roll powers because its too powerful. As s group of laid back friends who don't exploit the game we still come across some ludicrous stuff and its getting annoying.

A site like dakka could get the momentum behind it to push a "patch" to substantially improve the balance of 40k. The site owners/mods organize a group of people to push out a regularly updated patch to fix all GWs obvious blunders.

- Vendetta: +20 ppm, no transport capacity
- Night Scythe: +20ppm
- Lychegarde -10ppm
- Ogryn: -10ppm
- etc.

It'll be homebrew rules, but it'll have a very large organisation and playerbase supporting it so it will be quasi-officlal. Dakka does it, uses it substantial playerbase to playtest it etc. and voila, much more balanced 40k. You'll have a bad game system with semi-balanced rules, but it won't be a bad game system with absolutely horribly balanced rules. A substantial improvement imo.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Meanwhile, sales seem to be doing okay. Games Workshop doesn't look like it's in trouble, so I'll still have a game for the foreseeable future, and my local game store seems to be doing okay, so I'll still have a place to play it. Honestly, everything's coming up roses.

I disagree. GW is in a lot of trouble right now. Despite price increases and aggressive cost-cutting GW's revenue and profits are barely above inflation, which pretty strongly suggests that sales volume is dropping. And in a market where other games are growing this means that GW's market share is also dropping. Meanwhile the quality of new releases like Escalation (especially the content vs. price ratio) isn't looking very impressive, which suggest a rush to get things done and sold as fast as possible without spending money on playtesting/better fluff and art/etc. The overall picture is a company that will probably remain profitable by milking the cash cow a while longer, but that is completely unable to do anything to grow or innovate and has to settle for trying to extract the maximum profit from what they already have.

Have to agree with Peregrine about dropping sales volume and greatly increased competition. GWs much faster release rate lately is good for them, and should be for us but as he also says, quality especially for the non-dexes is definitely subpar. You could easily argue that the dexes are being intentionally crippled to push fixes int he form of the smaller supplements that gets them more sales. imo, it's just leaving openings for new big players in the market.

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:


Except competitive SSB players DO eliminate all the "casual" fun stuff and all random factors, but people still talk about keeping in formations or Escalation because they're "official" and "legal".

Every. Single. Time.

Someone always has to have this dig. No one anywhere is saying you HAVE to play against anyone. That doesn't change the fact that escalation or formations are a legal part of the game. You don't have to play against Gray Knights, or someone who plays a deathstar, or against a spam list. That dose not make them any less legal or official. It is just the same. The only reason people keep bringing it up is that people keep pushing this thing of trying to stop other people playing and making arguments about why they don't have to play against them to push some imagined moral high ground for refusing from. Play against who you want, how you want, as long as you both agree.

There has always been house rules, just like any game. SSB is having to be house ruled to use it competitively. Most sports and games end up with house rules at some level or other. As long as everyone is ok and aware of them then you are good. If not you have a choice between agreeing to play by the base rules or not playing.

Tournaments house rule already, and give advance notice as to what will be allowed. If you can't prepare for a possible threat then maybe don't enter this entirely voluntary super serious tournament.

Casual games are all about house rules and have been since the game's inception. You're encouraged by the rulebook to do whatever you want with the rules. You are entirely within your right to never play anything but the same six missions in the BRB and no allies or fliers or specific clumps of models or orks painted blue. You're also allowed to complain about how boring the game is.

This thread could have been on dozens of forums over the last 15 years. The sky is falling! All my friends have stopped buying 40k! Gw are doomed!

Dooooooooooomed!

But, no. 40k is a casual ruleset, if you don't like super heavies or riptides, don't play them.

To be honest, I'm not entirely convinced that any 'breaking' of the game is intended or encouraged by GW, and nor is it their fault. It is simply a case of how people approach the game.

Every gamer I know plays very casually, using units because they like the look/fluff of them rather than sheer optimisation. And in all the time I've played (started early 5th) we have never really encountered an issue with balance at all. The game does not get broken because none of us try to break it. We have players that win a lot, but that's mostly down to player skill rather than any attempt at power-list-building or utilising cheese combos.

Looking at the wider meta, there seems to be a very interesting and slightly odd paradox. You have people complaining that Riptides/fliers/screamerstars are OP and are ruining the game, and then whenever anyone asks for advice for an army, you are almost certain to find 'you should go and buy -insert OP unit here- as it's the best' within the first few replies. I do wonder how people expect the game to change to a more balanced meta when everyone is being recommended the powerlist combos. I have nothing at all against anyone who enjoys playing competitively, but when you have people that simultaneously demand balance, mock the poor implementation of fliers/MCs/gunlines ect and then exploit these balance issues to the max, something doesn't add up. If every new player is told to but Screamerstars/Dettaspam/Triptides then of course the meta is going to be skewed towards them.

It seems obvious to me that causal games are the games GW really intend to be played. Their official batreps usually include custom scenarios and house rules, their rulebooks positively encourage you to change the rules however you want to make the game more cool/cinematic/watever you want to call it. They've stopped running tournaments for a reason, and it seems that that reasons is the fact that they aren't really bothered with catering to the competitive crowd.

Complaining about balance in a GW game that seems designed for casual games (where balances is notably less of an issue) is like buying a Formula One car and then complaining about its lack of off-road capabilities. If you're looking for a balanced and tourney-centric game, there are plenty out there, but it appears GW games are not what you're after. Rather than rewriting a game that clearly isn't meant to tournaments, you're better off going for a different game.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:


Except competitive SSB players DO eliminate all the "casual" fun stuff and all random factors, but people still talk about keeping in formations or Escalation because they're "official" and "legal".

Every. Single. Time.

Someone always has to have this dig. No one anywhere is saying you HAVE to play against anyone. That doesn't change the fact that escalation or formations are a legal part of the game. You don't have to play against Gray Knights, or someone who plays a deathstar, or against a spam list. That dose not make them any less legal or official. It is just the same. The only reason people keep bringing it up is that people keep pushing this thing of trying to stop other people playing and making arguments about why they don't have to play against them to push some imagined moral high ground for refusing from. Play against who you want, how you want, as long as you both agree.

There has always been house rules, just like any game. SSB is having to be house ruled to use it competitively. Most sports and games end up with house rules at some level or other. As long as everyone is ok and aware of them then you are good. If not you have a choice between agreeing to play by the base rules or not playing.

I don't think you understand the way tournaments work.

We've had house rules for a long time at my place (our usual location for 40k games).

We literally drink beer, eat pretzels, and play 40k. With that being said we have votes to pass rules and make the game more enjoyable.

NO SPAM! We have a Tau player, a Daemons (me), a Chaos, and a Salamanders player. No more than 1 riptide, no more than 1 Helldrake, and I have agreed never to run the stupid screamer-star list.

Its just more fun this way, plus we all try to run fun fluffy lists! We can all take a loss, the worst thing that happens when you lose is you to have to chug your beer... Oh well


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and no expansions, supplements, or "formations". You bring 2 books, your BrB and your Codex. Period.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 UlrikDecado wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Sigh.....

OK so my friend plays grey knights. He rolls his psycik powers for a squad. His list isnt optimized and so on. Guess what it turns out he can do? Shoot through terrain, ignore cover and reroll his misses on an almost impossible to fail roll. He didnt choose to do this by the way. It just happened to happen to one of his units. They slaughtered so much. and lost a couple of models. People are using your examples of OP as examples of what can happen, but truth is so much more can happen to so many units that seem fun to use. Its easy to have fun but like parents always tell their kids... being fair is being fun.

I havent met someone with more than 1 riptide or use allies. But examples like that arent the only ones.

"First, is this really an issue in your meta?". ummmm people dont kidnap kids in my town and send them to diamond mines until death, but it happens. Thats a very annoying statement to make.

The point is people shouldnt have to make house rules to balance it. Im not saying its GW fault, i think players who exploit the game are just as bad. But its still a problem and the easy solution is GW to fix it so the exploiters cant exploit as much. 2 birds with one stone.

1 - Im always amused (OK, not the right word) by people not communicating. In all games Im used to friendly agreement. "Hey, man, i get you can build great combo, but it isnt fun. Take something else or its useless, I can spend my time hitting head into wall instead". It usually works, in non-tournament games its about playing for fun. Tournament is dfferent case, but I guess you are not playing just tourneys.

2 - GW clearly states that people should make house rules. They give you big bunch of possibilities. When SA and escalation came out, its just another possibility. Nobody can force you to play against it and in tournament is about decision od TO. Which was a long time ago, nothing new.

Honestly, the "sky is falling" is beginning to be tedious. Its highly modifiable game. In purpose. So modify it and dont say that someone else should do it and you wont buy models (I mean it in common sense, not to you personally, mate and its pay to win, because before, GW gave you every model for free and it definetly wasnt pay to play

Yes but its also common sense to make a fair game. Its also reasonable to expect to play a game with a stranger without a discussion. And im mot complaining about escalation as we won't be playing it. But most people would agree they shouldn't make someone re roll powers because its too powerful. As s group of laid back friends who don't exploit the game we still come across some ludicrous stuff and its getting annoying.

40K armies are rarely "fair". May I point out to you the Grey Knights and their Warp Quake shenanigans of last edition, which could prevent an entire army from deploying onto the table, giving the GK an automatic, Turn-1-hasn't-even-started win?

Playing a 2K point game and dude drops a Baneblade? There's half his points. Field twenty dudes in squads of 5 packing Melta. Eat his lunch.

I disagree. GW is in a lot of trouble right now. Despite price increases and aggressive cost-cutting GW's revenue and profits are barely above inflation, which pretty strongly suggests that sales volume is dropping. And in a market where other games are growing this means that GW's market share is also dropping. Meanwhile the quality of new releases like Escalation (especially the content vs. price ratio) isn't looking very impressive, which suggest a rush to get things done and sold as fast as possible without spending money on playtesting/better fluff and art/etc. The overall picture is a company that will probably remain profitable by milking the cash cow a while longer, but that is completely unable to do anything to grow or innovate and has to settle for trying to extract the maximum profit from what they already have.

http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Games-Workshop-Group-13-combined-FINAL-without-title-page.pdf

Their earnings report would suggest otherwise, and suggests a company that is quite aware of its industry position, the marketplace challenges it faces, and has plans that may prove viable in place to ensure continued growth in the future. Given that this is a company centered on a product that relies wholly on discretionary spending, during a financial crisis that rivals the Great Depression, that they make *any* money is kind of amazing.