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.

Football (as everyone not in USA know it) is the most popular sport in the world, however, like 40k, FIFA (the world football governing body) make little effort to fix the game so it can't be exploited by players breaking the rules. This means players diving and abusing loop holes etc floods the sports pages of news papers every day and is discussed by football fans daily. Some people, including myself believe Football thrives off this and is the reason why little is done about it while in other sports such as Rugby or Athletics they are embracing things like the sin bin and technology in order to stamp out this behaviour.

Like FIFA, GW seem to be avoiding trying to make a truly balanced codex. One moment they release Dark Angels and Chaos the next they release Tau and Eldar which are seen as much stronger. They release Dark Eldar and Blood Angels and then they release Necrons which are also really strong. They almost seem to be trying to break their game and get people complaining and talking, jumping armies and buying the new stuff and leaving their old stuff on the shelves.

What are your thoughts on this comparison? Do you agree? Will they ever try to balance the game?

Both things are basically as far apart as you could get. GW only wants people to buy models and the books for those models. If they wanted to do what you say, matt ward would still be around.

People love controversy because its something to talk about it really doesn't matter what kind just look at tabloids and television news.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
People love controversy because its something to talk about it really doesn't matter what kind just look at tabloids and television news.

Ah, no.
It is just easier to get people talking when something a person cares about goes wrong.
If people are happy about something not much needs to be said: steady as she goes.

40k isn't thriving regardless of controversy or not.

People just spend their money elsewhere.

If it did then their financial reports wouldn't be so silly.

 Desubot wrote:
If it did then their financial reports wouldn't be so silly.

Don't be so otiose.

Ok, maybe it's not thriving, but the comparison is there.

With a few simple additions football could become a lot less controversial and make it a lot easier for people to get away with diving etc through making video replays available to the ref yet the don't.

GW could make 40k a lot less controversial and more balanced by a few rules alterations yet they don't.

Maybe their reasons are different but its still two organisations who appear to be making an effort to keep their games broken or at least putting no effort into fixing the problems.

Oh, you mean soccer

Eh, I don't think the kind of controversy you're referencing is intentional, but rather just the bi-product of a complex game. Controversy will always exist in games that are updated that people are passionate about.

For instance, in League of Legends, a couple of characters got specific changes, and people blew up on both sides, both for and against the changes.

In another example, in World of Warcraft, Restoration Druids were super common. Blizzard changed how their traits worked in a patch, and again people blew up. Some said the changes were good, allowing other healers to flourish, but a lot of people were upset, as it really hurt Druids.

I doubt GW tries to create controversy. Their motto is "Forging the Narrative" and creating absurd rules loopholes doesn't really seem to foster friendly games, which is what they seem to be aiming for.

I actually don't think your basic premise is correct.

Football doesn't thrive off controversy, controversy is a bi-product of 24 hour rolling news' need to fill it's airtime with anything and a lot of young, not terribly bright, men with an awful lot of money and time on their hands.

Putting that to one side and taking that assumption at face value, I think 40K isn't really generating the right sort of controversy, I think there's too much which just negatively impacts too many, rather than generating a genuine discussion.

Yeh Liverpool didn't exactly thrive off Suarez's bitting or racist incidents and Chelsea haven't benefitted from John Terry having the affair with Bridge's wife or his racism towards Anton Ferdinand. Nor the recent Paris Metro affair. Heysel resulted in English clubs being banned from Europe for 5 years. This year CSKA Moscow had to play 3 games behind closed doors due to racism from fans. There is the massive corruption scandal of bribes for world cup bids from FIFA representatives. And the entire world outside of football (and many in it) believe Blatter to be a charicature joke of a man.
Football thrives despite these things, not because of them.

I want to mention that Canadian football is more similar to American football than it is to Soccer.

balancing a game sounds easy but it's pretty hard. someone mentioned LoL and WoW. and actually I think it's worth looking at those for a second. MMOs of all stripes have balance issues as well, and... just like 40K, you have the cycle of buffs and nerfs. and some classes irregardless are just useally pretty strong.

But at least the people running LoL and WoW can be seen to be making an effort, even if they don't always get it right.

That'd go a long way with me and GW.

BrianDavion wrote:
balancing a game sounds easy but it's pretty hard. someone mentioned LoL and WoW. and actually I think it's worth looking at those for a second. MMOs of all stripes have balance issues as well, and... just like 40K, you have the cycle of buffs and nerfs. and some classes irregardless are just useally pretty strong.

For LoL and somewhat for 40k(especially with supplements now) this video does a great job of explaining it:

40k doesn't even come close to what perfect imbalance espouses.

MMO's and MOBA's are made or broken on their balance and dozens of people spend most of their working hours collecting data, running tests, gathering feedback and making tweaks. That cannot be said of 40k and their team. Not by a long shot.

It also doesn't help that every time the scales are tilted you aren't asked for $50-$85 just in rules

Ok, so their both controversial and the companies behind each are doing nothing to fix it but maybe that's where the similarity ends. So I'll just ask...

Do you think GW want to fix 40k?

Cause from their point of view surely as soon as the game is fixed they won't release any new editions and people won't have to buy new rules reducing their income.

Taffy17 wrote:


Do you think GW want to fix 40k?

Not particularly, no. From their actions to their statements we know that they care little for conducting research, gathering feedback, and concerning themselves with competition. We know that they believe that the 'hobby' is buying GW models, and they truly believe that 'Forge the Narrative' is an acceptable excuse for poor writing.

I don't think they want to, and if we're wearing our tinfoil hats, I'd believe that Kirby simply cares about riding out his cash cow until he retires.

Cause from their point of view surely as soon as the game is fixed they won't release any new editions and people won't have to buy new rules reducing their income.

Why do people assume this? Just because a game is properly written and balanced doesn't mean its untouchable and can never changed, tweaked, or have additions made to it. That, and no ruleset will ever be perfect, so there will always be changes, no matter how small. Not to mention you can always supplement the core rules with campaign books, supplemental material, and just simply adding to the game at a reasonable pace.

Plus, most gaming companies don't even depend on rules sales to keep the company afloat. Several successful miniatures companies offer their rules for free in some fashion, or for far less than GW and they're doing well.

Perfect imbalance is a super bad idea for a game where you spend months of work and hundreds of euro/ dollars to build an army. If GW was practising perfect imbalance on purpose, that would practicaly be a scam especially given the fast release scheulde. I wish people stopped using it as excuse for bad balance in 40k.

Games like this attract competitive players. It would be literlly impossible for GW to "fix" the game or come up with a set of rules that everyone can agree on. Pretty much no game can. Heck, even playing paper rock scissors or checkers, your going to have people argue.
When you find a game like this, especially such a successfull one where there are different "types" of players and people who are attracted to it for different reasons, your "controversy" is going to be that much worse.

BrianDavion wrote:
balancing a game sounds easy but it's pretty hard. someone mentioned LoL and WoW. and actually I think it's worth looking at those for a second. MMOs of all stripes have balance issues as well, and... just like 40K, you have the cycle of buffs and nerfs. and some classes irregardless are just useally pretty strong.

If 40k was a game with a well written, water-tight, solid base ruleset (basically the BRB) that had a few units as outliers with regards to power in the various codex out there, it would be pretty good.

As it stands 40k is.. the opposite. The BRB is full of more holes than your average hunk of . The rules are poorly written, unclear, often times peter of without explaining things (A psyker can cast a number of abilities based on his mastery level.. How the two interact is anyone's guess, the BRB doesn't go on to explain), full of loop-holes / exploitable wording, and in some cases are just flat out broken. If the BRB was at least solid the game would benefit immensely, and the more insane codex (in one way or the other) would be much more manageable.

I dont think that is the question.
The game has never ever been well written or lacking lookholes or exploits. there is no such thing as a game that is all of that. Even chess has issues or moves that people argue over.
the fact is, even if it WERe possible to create the "perfect game" in 0k, there would STILL be arguments and controvery. Paint jobs, conversions, combinations, what point levels are best to play, the fluff, why "bob" should take a bath, "Paul" takes too long to take his turn, Who looks better Young Geena Davis or Maralyn Monroe......
Competitive players and humans in general will always find excuses and reasons to have controversy.

The question is does 40k thrive on it? I would say not really. the problem we have is within the players themselves and their inability to understand that they cant always get their way or exactly what they want (because everyone wants something slightly different) and in turn become so enraged at not getting their way that they try to purposely break the subject. Does this mean that GW couldnt do things better? No it doesnt (in fact, I think they are currently a bunch of fething idiots but that doesnt mean we have to be the same). the whole topic is simply NOT a black and white situation. The answer lies in the grey area between the extremes.

I disagree! 40k does not thrive on controversy!
Let's have a controversy and argue about 40k for another 10 pages! (and accidentally prove you right, but anyway...)

I believe that forums thrive on controversy, not 40k.

 Talon of Anathrax wrote:
I disagree! 40k does not thrive on controversy!
Let's have a controversy and argue about 40k for another 10 pages! (and accidentally prove you right, but anyway...)
I believe that forums thrive on controversy, not 40k.

But it is the only other means of advertising GW gets aside from within WD!
Think about the poor company as Kevin awaits his retirement, I am just not sure if starving them of funds or throwing more at them will speed the process either way.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Games like this attract competitive players. It would be literlly impossible for GW to "fix" the game or come up with a set of rules that everyone can agree on. Pretty much no game can. Heck, even playing paper rock scissors or checkers, your going to have people argue.
When you find a game like this, especially such a successfull one where there are different "types" of players and people who are attracted to it for different reasons, your "controversy" is going to be that much worse.

Completely wrong.

Warmahordes and Magic are two examples where what you say doesn't apply. Every single sport played professionally also makes a mockery of what you're arguing.

I have never had an argument playing Rock Paper Scissors or draughts.

I have had one or two issues when learning chess as a kid, but nothing that wasn't solved by checking a rulebook.

It isn't about making a perfect game out of the gate, you're correct in as much as that would be almost impossible, but actively managing the game to buff/nerf as needed, and address rules conflicts as they arise in a timely manner is all perfectly reasonable, and that is what marks GW out from their competitors, they simply can't be arsed.

We aren't asking for perfect (or perfectly imperfect) we're just asking for better, and for them to be seen to be trying.

Fixing 40k means they'll have no reason to make a new edition. New editions means new rulebooks, means enforced purchases.
I'm sure GW would prefer the furore following every update or change to go away. If they wanted chatter, they'd issue rebuttals and 'their side' of the issue. As they stay silent, they must be happy keeping out of it.

 juraigamer wrote:
Both things are basically as far apart as you could get. GW only wants people to buy models and the books for those models. If they wanted to do what you say, matt ward would still be around.

...the same guy who released one of the worst internally balanced codices? Huh?

This thread is the best troll I've ever seen.

@Skinnereal.
What about the games that got the rules fixed early on, and just released new campaign books for an advancing story line that supported new units and models as well and the old ones?

So players get more options to play games in a variety of fun ways with massive ranges of models and units to chose from.

Rather than having to pay more money out to play the same restricted game in slightly different broken ways..