Hi all.
This is just me listing some observations , and maybe leading to a discussuion to help us understand the way 40k has-is developed over time.
It is not meant to be a rant against anyone/thing inparticular.
But maybe by understanding how 'external influences' effected-effect development.And we may be able to arrive at a better understanding of why 40k is the way it is!

The original Rogue Trader rule set used WH 3rd ed rules to help WH players cross over to the 40k background.This game was set at the skirmish level and was very much a 3d RPG .This game was heavily narrative driven , and lots of fun but open to abuse.(An umpire games- master helped no end, IMO.)

2nd ed tidied up the plethora of addition rules and stream lined things a bit to allow for more models to be used in the game.
Most gamers thought 2nd ed was a natural progression from RT and was welcomed.(As far as I am aware.)
So all we have at this time is rules development driven by gamers requests and upping the model count(sales.)Win Win.
(Still some abusable things, but they were just not used by friendly gamers,by agreement.)

At this time GW offered a wide range of games suitable for all ages and abilities.
Sci fi games
40k (14 and over?)
Space Crusade. (Ages 8 and up?)
Advanced Space Crusade/Space hulk (Ages 12 and up ?)
Adeptus Titanicus -Epic Space Marine.(Grand battles for ages 14 and over.)

Toward the end of the 1990s the boxed games were dropped.

40k was now required to attract the Space Crusade/ Space Hulk customers, as well as the vet 40k players.

3rd ed was a complete change in direction as reguards to game play.(It was romuored the actual rule set was a bit rushed .)

A larger amount of models on the table , and a wider demographic to attract.

Although a lot of gamers wanted 2n ed to be 'tidied up',many thought 3rd ed threw the baby out with the bathwater.
And quit 40k ....

However most agree the 'get you by lists ' in the 3rd ed book were 'quite well balanced , if a bit bland'


A bareley noticable change from 2nd to 3rd ed was the Codex were sold as Suppliments for 40k in 2nd ed.And were added to by the monthly gameing supliment White Dwarf.(Codex and WD were seen to be equaly valid.)
And the articles in WD supported the free flowing narrative nature of 40k and WH.

Any how as we progress though 3rd and 4th ed , more and more new gamers think 40k and WH are suited to competative play.
They have PV and force composition lists, so this means they are ballanced for competitions ,right?
And during this time the gaming content in WD declines .
GW promotes tournaments and we get ever more special rules to help sell the new minatures....

10 years after 3rd ed hit the shelves , Allessio (SP?) states that 40k is not suitable for 'overly competative game play'.(I am paraphasing as I left my copy is at Phills house..)

So after letting gamers think 40k works ok for ballanced competative play , and has coined in lots of money from tournament players.(And caused a fluff/ power gamer split, maybe?)

The devs admit that 40k is not that well balanced, and according to Jervis it dosent have to be because tournament players only make up 5% of all GW gamers.(After streamlining options to try to get better balance, and failing BTW.)

I suppose the studio staff have ALWAYS seen WH and 40k as a co-operative narrative driven games.And played in this way they work great.(Lots of fun.!!!!)

Perhaps other forces at GW towers enforced the underplaying of this, to help sell more minatures to the more competative gamers?

Compared to how much narrative reinforcment there was in the early 1990s in WD and stores.
Currently thier is very little.ANY optional list -unit in WD gets the same responce.
IS IT TOURNAMENT LEGAL!!!(And every time I see/hear this, I just die a little inside... )

40K ,(and to a lesser extent WH,)appear to have had thier game play comprimised by external influences.

40K has to appeal to a very wide demoghraphic, and so has to have 'something for everyone.'
And as such, may have lost its focus?

So what was covered by 4 types of seperate rule sets ,(detailed skirmish, large scale skirmish, platoon-company level tactical command, and battalion -regimental level strategy.)
Is now attempted in one rule set.(40k).

I belive 40k attempts to be too many things to be effective at any thing inparticular.And maybe multiple focused rule sets might be a better option?

Anyhow thanks for reading.(I do tend to ramble it is my age... )

TTFN
Lanrak.

I think 40k is pretty well-focused with relatively few compromises.

The 40k5 AoBR starter is a great value and intro to the game. It has lots of cool minis, small scenarios, and first-timer hobby information.

The 40k5 main game (Rulebook & Codices) are relatively tight and with adequate (not "perfect") balance. The core Rulebook has almost NO rules issues, and is a huge improvement over 40k3 and 40k4. Codices are well-themed and distinctive.

Despite the Devs claiming not to care much about balance, 40k actually does a better job of supporting Tournament play than every before. Fundamentally, the rules are at least clearer than before, with less need for FAQ. Balance-wise, it's fair that the Devs admonish the players to take the responsibility of fielding a "fair" army. That certain, vocal players (i.e. TFGs) refuse to do so is more a reflection on those players who want to be TFG than the Devs.

Apocalypse covers all of the fun stuff, permissiveness, and miscellany and just doesn't need to care about balance per se. Wierd, wacky stuff happens with such variety and non-repetition, that seeking perfect balance in detail in all conditions is a fool's errand.

All I can say is that I'm happier in 5th Apocalypse than I ever was in 4th.

Lanrak wrote:IS IT TOURNAMENT LEGAL!!!(And every time I see/hear this, I just die a little inside... )

Yes, I've grown kind of sick of that as well. I remember having a friend over, and he'd use all my unpainted plastic orks and gretchin and behind them would be a small scrap of paper touting them as Striking Scorpions or whatever. In his defense they were GW models, but were they tournament legal?

Very nice write up. It brought back some fond memories of my first games with the hobby. Particularly when I thought forces were supposed to be deployed upon the LONG sides of the table. I never could figure out why they included HtH rules as models would never make it in time! (Give me a break guys, I was like 10 at the time and I figured it out after a few games).

Thanks enjoyed the read, I disagree on no particular point, all I have to ad is this;

Having played through everything described I am prepared to accept what I have come to find is the reality, the game will always be changing, it will never be about balance or improvement, moving the story forward, or anything else, it will always be planned obsolescence to keep the new products selling. If it were ever perfectly published all at once it would be immposssible to keep selling new material.

Its like the expanding collapsing model of the universe in physics (I am Nerd, heh) cyclical, foreever.

Any player considering long term involvement in the hobby probably ought to realize this or not start in the first place.

Back to painting Marines, LOL

5th Ed is certainly the most playable of it's various incarnation.

Fairly well written rules, pace is good, and some interesting tactical opportunities just by dropping in running and going to ground. Adds a smidge of realism, without requiring clunky mechanics.

But with regard to studio's view, I do agree. The game is designed as a Hobby. A hobby to me is something to be indulged in with like minded people.

And theres the crunch. Like minded. Me, I don't care for Tournaments. Not my bag at all, so I have a group of fellow gamers who see it as your aforementioned co-operative narrative game. None of us particularly enjoy fighting a Powergamed list, yet we are happy to take on more exotic lists for the change and the challenge (my Dark Elf Monster army being a notorious example).

To be honest, I don't think there can be a mutually satisfying compromise. The Tournament players are welcome to play as competitively as they want, as long as their demands for greater and greater balance (essentially fewer options and a loss of flavour to my mind) don't start infringing on my enjoyment.

So many times I have read things on the Interwebs *demanding* that Option X become 1 per Y,000 points, or 0-1, or something else should be dropped in points. All healthy debate I'm sure, but by taking up Tournaments, you are tying yourself to the rulebook too much. One of the core principals of GW's games (and others) is to do as you will with the rules. Want to tinker, go ahead. Playtest with your circle, find out what suits you best. The rules as sold can be used as they are, sure. But step back from them a bit, and you'll see a framework for a great game. For example, Campaigns.

I wrote an article on the subject for The Watchman which went down quite well. And I encouraged people to use such things as a testbed for new ideas, and to break out the box of self imposed, slavish rules following. Outside of a Tournament, where things need to be as equal as possible, a game does not need to have equal points. Why? Because it is more than possible to write a Scenario where regardless of points, both sides have an equal chance of winning. And it goes further. Want to use a list from Eye of Terror? Go for it. Was balanced then, it's balanced now. Main reason GW don't back it fully is that as a company, their resources are finite and there are far bigger fish to fry first.

Sorry, went on a bit of a gibber there...time to steer back to topic.

Essentially, compromise is not that possible. I don't want a game where everything has been playtested to destruction, as the armies are likely to become clones of each other, even across Codex and Army Book. I like the variety on offer, even if it means things are a bit shonky. Quick bit of houseruling or a Gentlemans Agreement (example being not directing attacks at characters in Warhammer. Reasoning? It's boring, and there such thing as challenge rules!) and you are there. But Tournament players deny themselves this through their own choice....

I have to agree with John, i was very worried about 5th ed 40k with TLOS and some of the other rules that were introduced, but in effect is what in my eyes at least GW have done is combined both 2nd Ed and 3/4th Ed and make a complete new rules set that works, it works for tournament play it works for friendly games, the game feels slightly more complete now, forget the balancing issues, as said if you want to TFG in your FLGS or Club go ahead, not many people will play you if you continue along that road

Interesting read.

Anything regarding White Dwarf having too little gaming content is entirely the fault of White Dwarf editors putting in too little gaming content. I too would love to see something relevant to my love of the 40k hobby beyond the 8 page blurb sandwiched between umpteen pages of LotR and advertisements.

ZamboniKnight wrote:I remember having a friend over, and he'd use all my unpainted plastic orks and gretchin and behind them would be a small scrap of paper touting them as Striking Scorpions or whatever.

The 2nd Ed ork dreadnought punchout counter! Super legal! I take 5 in my ork armylist!

turn sideways no true los, be funny to find one of those and put it in an Ork buggy...

I agree with what's been said about 5th editions ability to cater to a broad range of players.

I do have to chuckle a bit at the casually allusions to power gamers and TFG, particularly as associated with "vocal" and tournament gamers. The implication being that the vocal minority of "win at all costs" style gamers are destroying the fluff and options you love so much because they have no decency and exploit every loophole. In short: they're why we can't have nice things.

I find this increasingly disturbing for a couple of reasons. Partially because it's a thinly veiled way to openly mock and/or hate the way other people play the game (or possibly even the people themselves), but mostly because it's completely untrue! TFG wants books riddeled with loopholes and exploitable combos. He wants to bully people into his rules interpretations. He wants sickly over powered lists that he can build and dominate with.

Even beyond TFG, power gamers understand that there are some units that are only for fun. Who are complaining aren't the power gamers, but the tournament gamers who run into those folks! Now, we all know that no matter how minutely more powerful one unit is than another, that'll be enough to take it. This is true in any field of human endeavor with low transactional costs. The notion that the game can be perfectly balanced is simply untrue. What people want is a little more consideration paid to balancing units, to allow for, wait for it, MORE variety at the tournament level.

It took people about a day to figure out unkillable falcons back in 4th, or the possiblities of loota spam in for orks. I contend that a little more playtesting, and maybe a bit of stress testing, could have upped the costs of those units/options by a bit.

Another option would be for GW to sanction a 40k tournament board that simply places tournament restrictions on units/upgrades etc. Basically a group of high level tournament gamers decide that lottas are a 0-2 choice, for example.

Now, I know that the difference between a top shelf tournament army and a pretty well built army is pretty narrow, while the skill difference in players is pretty wide. Some match ups become very difficult, and that's what a little regulation could avoid, but the current state of tournament 40k is fundamentally very, very solid.

So, my rejoinder to those that cast aspersions on the tournament gamer is to remember that the balance rules and codices you are enjoying are at least partially a response to the gross imbalances discovered and abused by tournament gamers. The split into Apocolypse also offers a bulletproof "not for tournament use" environment for truly interesting stuff. I think that the modern environment is better for all players, and the requests of tournament players will only continue to improve everybody's play.

Polonius wrote:So, my rejoinder to those that cast aspersions on the tournament gamer is to remember that the balance rules and codices you are enjoying are at least partially a response to the gross imbalances discovered and abused by tournament gamers.

I don't think that the tournament players are the tail that wags the dog, simply because GW generally ignores TFG from a rules / balancing perspective.

No, I think it's the kiddies who buy GW new, without preconceptions and ask questions that drive GW's attention.

Really, the tournament players owe Jervis' son (and all of the other n00bs who get confused) a word of thanks and apology.

Lanrak wrote:IS IT TOURNAMENT LEGAL!!!(And every time I see/hear this, I just die a little inside... )

JohnHwangDD wrote:Balance-wise, it's fair that the Devs admonish the players to take the responsibility of fielding a "fair" army. That certain, vocal players (i.e. TFGs) refuse to do so is more a reflection on those players who want to be TFG than the Devs.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Me, I don't care for Tournaments ... None of us particularly enjoy fighting a Powergamed list

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:To be honest, I don't think there can be a mutually satisfying compromise.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Tournament ... demands for ... balance [shouldn't] start infringing on my enjoyment.

99MDeery wrote: forget the balancing issues, as said if you want to TFG in your FLGS or Club go ahead,

Wow... how Dakka has fallen.

Now the guy who wants a balanced ruleset is suddenly TFG?

People who want a balanced ruleset want to have less and less options?

When the feth did these fallacies and outright lies become home truths at this website? WHEN???

It's disgusting.

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:Really, the tournament players owe Jervis' son (and all of the other n00bs who get confused) a word of thanks and apology.

Does you sycophantic behaviour know no bounds DD? Does it?

Looking at the new Marine Codex, it's clear that GW doesn't know the first thing about making a simple and uncomplicated Codex. It's all well and good they draw pretty pictures now so people can tell the difference between a Bolt Pistol and a suit of Terminator Armour, but have you read that Wargear section? Half of it is just lines telling us to look in other places in the book.

What in the high hell is the point of having a Wargear section where half of it tells you to look elsewhere to find rules? Why even have it in the first place? Why have an army list where the rules for one unit are contained in four different sections?

We owe Jervis and his son feth all.

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Really, the tournament players owe Jervis' son (and all of the other n00bs who get confused) a word of thanks and apology.

What basis do you have for this statement? Tournament players generally care most about balanced rules sets, and Jervis has supposedly stated an indifferent position towards balance, and an assumption that everyone "knows how it should be played."

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lanrak wrote:IS IT TOURNAMENT LEGAL!!!(And every time I see/hear this, I just die a little inside... )

JohnHwangDD wrote:Balance-wise, it's fair that the Devs admonish the players to take the responsibility of fielding a "fair" army. That certain, vocal players (i.e. TFGs) refuse to do so is more a reflection on those players who want to be TFG than the Devs.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Me, I don't care for Tournaments ... None of us particularly enjoy fighting a Powergamed list

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:To be honest, I don't think there can be a mutually satisfying compromise.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Tournament ... demands for ... balance [shouldn't] start infringing on my enjoyment.

99MDeery wrote: forget the balancing issues, as said if you want to TFG in your FLGS or Club go ahead,

Wow... how Dakka has fallen.

Now the guy who wants a balanced ruleset is suddenly TFG?

People who want a balanced ruleset want to have less and less options?

When the feth did these fallacies and outright lies become home truths at this website? WHEN???

It's disgusting.

BYE

Agreed. I just report trolling like that when I see it, and that's all it is...Trolling.

sourclams wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Really, the tournament players owe Jervis' son (and all of the other n00bs who get confused) a word of thanks and apology.

What basis do you have for this statement?

Tournament players generally care most about balanced rules sets,

and Jervis has supposedly stated an indifferent position towards balance, and an assumption that everyone "knows how it should be played."

I'm drawing from Jervis' own statements.

JJ sez GW doesn't pay attention to the tournament players, so it's the other 95% of "the GW Hobby" (tm) that matters. Of the non-tournament crowd, the guys with the questions are going to be the n00bs who simply don't know. JJ stated that his son was an example of such a n00b, as the catalyst or eye-opener that got GW to rethink the game's direction. So the increased clarity, etc. can be attributed to trying to meet the needs of n00bs like Jervis' son.

What TFG / Tournament Player cares about, GW could care less.

As I interpret Jervis' comments on balance, my sense is that GW only aims for shotgun hits. Not rifle precision. If GW gets the balance "close enough", they call it done and move on to something else.

IIRC, the assumption that "everybody knows" was clarified to only refer to the studio staff, not players at large, much less n00bs like Jervis' son.

skyth wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lanrak wrote:IS IT TOURNAMENT LEGAL!!!(And every time I see/hear this, I just die a little inside... )

JohnHwangDD wrote:Balance-wise, it's fair that the Devs admonish the players to take the responsibility of fielding a "fair" army. That certain, vocal players (i.e. TFGs) refuse to do so is more a reflection on those players who want to be TFG than the Devs.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Me, I don't care for Tournaments ... None of us particularly enjoy fighting a Powergamed list

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:To be honest, I don't think there can be a mutually satisfying compromise.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Tournament ... demands for ... balance [shouldn't] start infringing on my enjoyment.

99MDeery wrote: forget the balancing issues, as said if you want to TFG in your FLGS or Club go ahead,

Wow... how Dakka has fallen.

Now the guy who wants a balanced ruleset is suddenly TFG?

People who want a balanced ruleset want to have less and less options?

When the feth did these fallacies and outright lies become home truths at this website? WHEN???

It's disgusting.

BYE

Agreed. I just report trolling like that when I see it, and that's all it is...Trolling.

I have decided to stick with 4th edition, regardless of the so-called improvements that are being forced on me. See you in 2004, where I belong, apparently.

JohnHwangDD wrote:What TFG / Tournament Player cares about, GW could care less.

And there we have it folks. In the wonderful world of DD, Tournament Gamers are synonymous with TFG.

If that is the view that Dakka shares, and it seems to share that now, then all I have to say is congratulations - This website just lost The Game.

BYE

Hi all.
Just thought I would clear up a point or two.
My comment about asking if elements-units in WD were tournament legal or not.
Was simply that WD used to be the main medium to update codexes/armies as needed, SO ALL WD material was used without question.
Currently if a gaming article appears in WD its that rare,people question its legitimacy!This is what I found so sad.

I was not trying to say that competative gamers have not got a legitimate play style.
But GW studio have NEVER made 40k or WH with a suitable level of balance for 'serious competition'.
Kewl looking and relaxed co-operative fun are the order of the day.(Along with sub par proof reading and playtesting. )

But maybe that message was comprimised by corperates desire to shift product?
And through most of 3rd and 4th ed the narrative bias of the gameplay was quietly underplayed to the point of not being promoted much at all.
And alot of gamers though that the game SHOULD be suited to tournament play as GW supported and promoted tournaments.

I agree with the comments about 5th ed (AoBR) rule book being an improvment on layout and clarity over past editions.
But GW insisted on changing at least 2 things that didnt need changing, cover and VP.(IMO.)
(I am sure they put in obvious errors so they can have easy fixes to sell the next edition of the rule book.)

But my main proposal was that the GWs 40k gamers, might be served beter with several 40k rule sets.Each focused on a specific style of play.

Rather than the 'comprimised' 40k development we curently have?;-
Rules and mechanics fixed by a comprimise for WH cross-over which is not a high priority any more?

Comprimise on gameplay with micro and macro managment of elements. (Detailed skirmish rules to support minature sales clashing with gross abstraction to make them fit current model count.)

Comprimising tactical interaction because of unsuitable rules structuring /game mechanics.

Comprimising proportionality (modifiers) with abstract results, in the name of simplicity(rolling dice.)

Comprimising player options to attempt to improve ballance.

Compimising simplicity with lots of exeptions and contradictions,(Special rules.)

If we had 4 seperate rule sets ...

Narrative skirmish.(Kill team-Necromundia size.Starter game)
Narrative Platoon level.(Curent game size with more narrative driven rules.)
Ballanced rule set for tournament play .(At current game size.)
Apoc rules.

Perhaps this would meet more gamers expectations ?

Again no offence was intended to any one.
I just tend to ramble on sometimes.(Its not just you anymore MDG. )

TTFN
Lanrak.

i have to agree with H.B.M.C. that not all tournament gamers are power gamers
i go to all the tournaments at my flgs and try my best towin every single time but i dont run chees list
and i do know TFG and i hate him more than the person who still hasnt goten a rulebook

And I'm sorry, but saying that TFG is the type of guy who wants to have a balanced ruleset? TFG is the guy who goes looking for imbalances, bends (and even breaks) rules? What would an idiot like that want with a balanced and well-play-tested ruleset.

It's just yet another attempt to vilify the tournament scene by the 'casual crowd', make them out to be a group of fringe players with their own aims that are mutually exclusive to the 'proper way' to be involved in this hobby.

The arrogance people like JohnHwangDD and his the other vocal and vacant cohorts display over this issue - that it's their way or the highway - is just mind boggling.

Pyromaniac wrote:i have to agree with H.B.M.C. that not all tournament gamers are power gamers

There just as many power-gamers in the 'casual' side of things than there is the tournemnt side, no matter how much the 'casual gamers' think that they have a halo over their heads and play the game 'properly'.

BYE

Lanrak wrote:I agree with the comments about 5th ed (AoBR) rule book being an improvment on layout and clarity over past editions. But GW insisted on changing at least 2 things that didnt need changing, cover and VP.(IMO.)

(I am sure they put in obvious errors so they can have easy fixes to sell the next edition of the rule book.)

But my main proposal was that the GWs 40k gamers, might be served beter with several 40k rule sets.Each focused on a specific style of play.

From a literalist standpoint, GW doesn't really *need* to change anything in the ruleset. But that doesn't sell new books or new minis. So if 40k remains static, it becomes stagnant and dies. So GW generally changes a few things, just because they can or feel like it.

I don't think GW put in any obvious errors per se - in fact, for the most part GW put in a lot of clarifications along with "suggestions". GW got rid of "bonus movement" by inconsistent measurement along with cocked dice and tricky rolling. This totals a full extra fold of rules (several pages) over the old book. It's why there are so few rules problems now.

Right now, GW has multiple rule sets: AoBR for n00bs & small games, 40k rulebook for regular-sized games, and Apocalypse for for large games. What else do you think GW needs a ruleset to cover?

Why does everybody hate Temple Flameguard

In my opinion, tournament players usually fall into one of three catagories:

1. People who want to use their internet having skills to copy and paste broken lists and stomp on people, so that they can feel superior. These people don't really want the game to be balanced, as they rely on unbalanced lists to win. They will usually argue for "RAW," when they think they can get an advantage from it. They don't want their opponent to know RAW, because it could be used against them, and they want RAW to be the final word so that people can't argue against their rules exploitations. They generally don't like FAQs or erratas because it's likely this will mess up their ability to "rules lawyer." These players are hopefully the least common, but make up for it by the amount of hatred they create.

2. People who want to compete tactically, often (but not always) with a list that is as powerful as they can make it (so as not to lose to someone who is a worse tactician due to being handicapped by their list). These people really want the game to be balanced, so that they can make any army they want without having to worry about it weighing them down.They want RAW to the final word in all cases, so that they can be sure how every issue will solved in-game. They want their opponent to know and believe RAW as much as they do so that they will be on the same page from the game's begining, and their opponents can't contest the win. They generally like FAQs and erratas, as they (hopefully) help to balance the game within the confines of RAW. These people are often the second most common.

3. More casual gamers who nonetheless apear at tournaments. This is really sort of an "all the rest!" catagory, but these people usually play with what they like, what they have painted, what was really good last edition, and so forth. They prefer RAI over RAW, whenever RAW becomes counter-intuitive. The fact that they often don't know/care about what's RAW occasionally leads to friction with people from catagory 2, and attracts people from catagory 1 who are trying to get an easy win. They want the game to be balanced so that their forces won't be automatically stomped by people from catagory 1, but don't want the game to give up too many options/fluff for this to happen (as they primarily play amongst friends, etc). These people are often the most common, although they are more common in smaller events than big ones.

So, what to do about the 1st catagory (which is, no doubt, the evil one)? Well, a more balenced rule set is mostly what's needed, followed by more clearly defined rules and more timely FAQs and erratas.

A more intuitive ruleset helps catagory 2 and 3 people get along better, as it causes less RAI vs RAW arguments.

I might really just be totally off here, I didn't get all that much sleep last night.

Orkeosaurus wrote:1. People who want to use their internet having skills to copy and paste broken lists and stomp on people, so that they can feel superior.

Would you say this type of person does not exist within local ponds and is only present in tournament gaming?

BYE

No, definately not, but they have an easier time in a tournament setting. You can't just outright refuse to play the person you're matched up against in a tournament. You can call over a judge to settle rules disputes, but often times judges have other things to be doing; they don't want to ref your whole game. Also, tournaments are more public, which alows them to parade their victories around more easily.

There are people somewhat like this who woudn't ever set foot in a tournament as well. Those people tend to do less "rules lawyering" and more blatent cheating. They also tend to go after people who don't know the rules well. Even a casual tournament goer would know the rules to well to be suckered by this kind of guy, so they just sort of lurk.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Right now, GW has multiple rule sets: AoBR for n00bs & small games, 40k rulebook for regular-sized games, and Apocalypse for for large games. What else do you think GW needs a ruleset to cover?

I'm sorry, I don't understand this at all- how is AoBR for small games? The AoBR rules are the same as the "regular-sized" game rules. There is basically one rule set for 40k with one expansion to those rules (Apocalypse). Rules for skirmish sized games (that are actually supported- not forgotten like the specialist games) would be nice.

Beyond this, how would having a balanced system for tourney gamers take anything away from "casual" gamers? And what's with the assumption that casual game play would be hurt with balanced rules? I can't see who would be worse off with consistently updated and playtested rules.

theHandofGork wrote:Rules for skirmish sized games (that are actually supported- not forgotten like the specialist games) would be nice.

I fully agree with this; Necromunda, Gorkamorka, Kill-Teams, and Spacehulk could all be wrapped into one set of skirmish rules. One of the problems with specialist games is there's so many to keep track of; combining a few would help with this, as well as making small scale games easier for people who are just getting started with the hobby (although they would have keep some similarities in the rules for that to work).

theHandofGork wrote:Beyond this, how would having a balanced system for tourney gamers take anything away from "casual" gamers? And what's with the assumption that casual game play would be hurt with balanced rules? I can't see who would be worse off with consistently updated and playtested rules.

Making the rules perfectly balenced would likely require limiting many of the options that casual gamers really care about. However, I think that without really taking away any options, the game could be balanced quite a bit better than it is already is (and balanced well enough for the vast majority of 40k players to be happy with it).

H.B.M.C. wrote:And I'm sorry, but saying that TFG is the type of guy who wants to have a balanced ruleset? TFG is the guy who goes looking for imbalances, bends (and even breaks) rules? What would an idiot like that want with a balanced and well-play-tested ruleset.

It's just yet another attempt to vilify the tournament scene by the 'casual crowd', make them out to be a group of fringe players with their own aims that are mutually exclusive to the 'proper way' to be involved in this hobby.

The arrogance people like JohnHwangDD and his the other vocal and vacant cohorts display over this issue - that it's their way or the highway - is just mind boggling.

I'm going to agree, that while more powergamers might be drawn to the tournament scene, that there are casual ones, and they are not all TFG. The affectionately dubbed TFG is the guy who tries to call you on every rule you might have broken, bends anything to his advantage, and tries to fire his heavy weapon squad twice if he doesn't think you're paying attention, whilst powergamers are just people who like to play competitively, with most likely unfluffy lists.

My friends and I don't do tournaments, but when we play games we find it fun to tailor our lists for our respective opponents since we've known each other for so long and bring the cheese just to mix things up, but I can see how other people wouldn't like that. We acknowledge that this isn't a fair representation of the game, but we've known each other so long, it doesn't make a big deal. That said, we do run normal lists too, especially when playing with other people outside of our circle.

If you want to play in the fluff, and make backstory for you lists, but don't get angry at others for finding enjoyment in other aspects of the game. Though, some guy you've never met showing up, seeing what you got, then changing his army on the spot to specifically counter whatever it is you have can be pretty annoying.

Orkeosaurus wrote:In my opinion, tournament players usually fall into one of three catagories:

1. People who want to use their internet having skills to copy and paste broken lists and stomp on people,

2. People who want to compete tactically, often (but not always) with a list that is as powerful as they can make it (so as not to lose to someone who is a worse tactician due to being handicapped by their list). These people really want the game to be balanced

So, what to do about the 1st catagory (which is, no doubt, the evil one)? Well, a more balenced rule set is mostly what's needed, followed by more clearly defined rules and more timely FAQs and erratas.

The 1st category is solved by restoration of heavy weight on everything *except* Battle. That means significant weight on Sports, heavy weight on player-judged Comp. Red-flagging, ejecting, and banning "problem" players. Zero Tolerance for TFG.

Except that the game cannot ever be completly balanced for the simple reason that power is multiplicative or exponential, not additive. That's why nobody cares about single units, but when you max those very same "fair" units out, suddenly, they're no longer fair. The other thing is synergy. Some units and options are worth very little on their own, but become tremendously powerful in combination. All that one can expect is for a reasonable cost for "ordinary" play, but to try and balance everything at optimal build, means that sub-optimal builds become unplayable. Or costing becomes non-linear.

For example, a single Drop Pod in an otherwise vehicle-free list is probably only worth 20 pts, because it generates very little advantage and is destroyed immediately. But even 40+ pts per pod probably isn't too much in an all-Pod list.

theHandofGork wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Right now, GW has multiple rule sets: AoBR for n00bs & small games, 40k rulebook for regular-sized games, and Apocalypse for for large games. What else do you think GW needs a ruleset to cover?

I'm sorry, I don't understand this at all- how is AoBR for small games? The AoBR rules are the same as the "regular-sized" game rules.

Beyond this, how would having a balanced system for tourney gamers take anything away from "casual" gamers? And what's with the assumption that casual game play would be hurt with balanced rules?

AoBR doesn't use the full scope of the rules. A lot of the rulebook doesn't apply. No Monstrous Creatures. No Psykers. etc. So the scope is smaller for teaching / starting.

Having a separate "tourney" system necessarily takes resources away from non-Tourney play. If GW makes a Tournament set, those resources aren't available for Apocalypse or anything else. If GW notes that Tournament players are 5%, then the market of any product is naturally limited. Why do you think GW no longer cares about Tournaments? OTOH, new armies have potentially huge sales. Ogre Kingdoms and Tau proved that pretty handsomely. And Apocalypse pushing huge armies among the casual gamer crowed. Yeah, that pretty much sealed things up for GW. When the 5% buys very little and can never be satisfied, wheras the other 95% is easy to please and buys far more stuff, even Tom Kirby can figure out what gets supported...

My only disagreement with the original post was that 3rd ed many people left.

It was a golden age in my town for 40k when 3rd ed was released.

The rules became much more playable, it became easier to play with the larger forces the long time players had, new players could pick it up quickly.
For about 4 years it was brilliant (playing at clubs in regional Queensland and in the UK).
Then the wheels started to fall off as too many exceptions were brought in, too many new releases, and the awful trial vehicle rules. :(

I barely played a game of 4th ad and am building an army for 5th because I see more 3rd ed in 5th ed than 4th ed ever had (if that makes sense)

JohnHwangDD wrote:
...power is multiplicative or exponential, not additive. That's why nobody cares about single units, but when you max those very same "fair" units out, suddenly, they're no longer fair.

I think this is the hardest problem GW faces in game balance. You just can't kill 180 orks - and you just can't kill 8 monsterous creatures - and you just can't kill an armored company, etc.

GW did try and limit this with the force organization chart; you can't bring 5 Basilisks, so you don't have to worry about the effects of having so many. They also used to have 0-1 or 0-2 limit on some things, but for some reason these look like they're going away. A 0-3 limit on carnifexes would have been good. Nobody needs to have more than 5 monsterous creatures outside of apoc anyway.

With things like ork boys it's trickier; they're a troops choice, so you can't limit them by force organization. A 0-4 limit would hurt KoS players for no reason. Horde orks is fluffy, so putting in a rule that says you can't have over 120 boys might be overly restrictive, but better than the first idea. The most balanced way to do it would be, as you noted, to get rid of the linear cost; make every boy after 100 cost 7 points, after 150 cost 8 points, etc. That might be a lot of math though, if it runs through multiple units in the army. It also makes victory points kind of useless, if you wanted to use them.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Having a separate "tourney" system necessarily takes resources away from non-Tourney play.

Tourney system? What are you blathering about now DD?

JohnHwangDD wrote:If GW makes a Tournament set, those resources aren't available for Apocalypse or anything else.

A 'tournament' isn't a product DD. It's not like you can walk in and buy a book for a tournament. All a tournament requires is a clear, well written and balanced set of rules. That should be the aim of the writers from the get-go. It's not a product that requires resources to be taken away. What imaginary set of standards have you invented for all this bull$hit that you spew on a constant-fething-basis.

Having a clear set of rules benefits everyone. I really cannot fathom why this is such a difficult concept for your mind to grasp.

Bad ruleset = Competitive Players Unhappy & Casual Players don't care.
Good ruleset = Competitive Players Happy & Casual Players don't care.

One is WIN/WIN for everyone, the other is this imaginary land YOU seem to dwell in where making a good set of rules is somehow a separate product that requires resources to be taken away from other areas of the hobby.

And as for your precious Apocalypse, have you read Apoc: Reload, where they basically state that the rules for 5th don’t work with Apoc because of the way scoring is done, and hold their hands up saying ‘Do whatever you want!’ when it comes to working out how you’re going to play it.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If GW notes that Tournament players are 5%

You take everything JJ says as gospel, now don't you DD?

BYE

1. There is no problem with the rules (both core and in individual army codices) that cannot be solved by some combination of:
a) Better initial writing
b) More thorough playtesting
c) Timely and well-written FAQs (these should be a 'living document', BTW, not a rare release)

2. There is no problem with game balance that cannot be solved by:
a) Reviewing points costs (after proper playtesting)
b) Applying appropriate restrictions on unit selection in a standard FOC

I would like someone to explain why doing this would in any way spoil the enjoyment of the 'casual gamer'.
Such improvements would not prevent any of the following things from happening:
'Anything goes' games (such as Apocalypse)
Scenarios or other narrative-driven games
Friendly beer-and-pretzel game evening

I am not advocating removing choice from gamers - I am advocating increasing choice for gamers. The 'three types of tournament player' was spot on.
I can, for example, use my SoB Repentia in friendly play. I love the models and the fluff. Taking them to a tournament would be useless, because I'd be giving my opponent a head start.
Why can't GW give every gamer a chance to use any models they want in all settings? Instead of handing out free 'epic fail' cards for a lot of their products?
Surely this would drive sales up? And encourage exactly the sort of 'fluffy' armies they claim they want to see?

Good, balanced rules don't damage the game. They enhance it for all participants.

Imagine a codex that has a unit in it like this:

HQ : Big Stompy Guy : Megatough : 250 Points : 0-1

Let's assume that unit is perfectly balanced with the other components of its army and the codex it is in is perfectly balanced with all other codexes. This satisfies the tournament players.

Now suppose you are a "narrative" player and you want to use three of these units in your game. What's stopping you?

H.B.M.C. wrote:Having a clear set of rules benefits everyone. I really cannot fathom why this is such a difficult concept for your mind to grasp.

Bad ruleset = Competitive Players Unhappy & Casual Players don't care.
Good ruleset = Competitive Players Happy & Casual Players don't care.

One is WIN/WIN for everyone, the other is this imaginary land YOU seem to dwell in where making a good set of rules is somehow a separate product that requires resources to be taken away from other areas of the hobby.

I think there's one very important problem you're forgetting H.B.M.C. - writing a good balanced ruleset is hard. It's really easy to write unbalanced rules, but it's a lot harder to write balanced ones. And the studio doesn't like doing things that are hard.

It's easy to sell books and models to kids.

Oh, and it's easy to KICK ASS with the new space marine codex! *air guitar*

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Having a clear set of rules benefits everyone. I really cannot fathom why this is such a difficult concept for your mind to grasp.

Bad ruleset = Competitive Players Unhappy & Casual Players don't care.
Good ruleset = Competitive Players Happy & Casual Players don't care.

One is WIN/WIN for everyone, the other is this imaginary land YOU seem to dwell in where making a good set of rules is somehow a separate product that requires resources to be taken away from other areas of the hobby.

I think there's one very important problem you're forgetting H.B.M.C. - writing a good balanced ruleset is hard. It's really easy to write unbalanced rules, but it's a lot harder to write balanced ones. And the studio doesn't like doing things that are hard.

Actually, I think it would be nigh on impossible. After all, 40k has how many seperate armies? And Fantasy has more. And within those armies there are usually at least a dozen or more basic options, with various possible upgrades etc. You cannot playtest that to destruction. There are simply far, far too many variables introduced to do so in the space of time a Codex or Army Book has to be developed in. Smaller games can manage it by limiting internal variations (for example, in Warmachine, you tend to just buy Unit X, and that is how it comes. Some have optional additions, but to my knowledge, this is for the minority of units). But over time, as your game naturally expands, more and more options crop up.

Seriously people, think about what you are demanding from GW, and then honestly consider the practicalities involved.

so you are saying that because the product would be hard to do we should let GW slide on it?

How is that any different than letting Microsoft go for releasing a buggy as hell operating system. Hell, at least Microsoft gets updates out reasonably fast.


Dont excuse their poor rules writing

Hi all.

Perhaps I should point out some facts.

ALL gamers play styles are valid!
From very realxed casual, make it up as you go, to very exact and presise competative play.Its your hobby , enjoy it !(It helps if you play with like minded players.Its worth haveing a pre game chat to make sure both players share game play preferences. )

There is NO right or wrong JUST DIFFERENT!

Some gamers prefer very detailed skirmish game, and would like a rule set to use 40k minatures in this way.(3D RPG)
How is this request wrong or not valid?

Some gamers like the current 40k rule set,or minor adaptations of it.(Apoc-CoD).
Does this make other game play preferences less valid?

Some gamers prefer a tighter written rule set developed for ballanced competative play, and would like a rule set to use thier 40k minatures in this way.(Tournament play)
How id this request wrong or invalid?

(A skirmish game would be a better intro into 40k than the current 40k rule set IMO.Fewer minis to build-paint, so less investment before you get a feel for a particular force-faction. And this could naturaly lead to current 40k rules set-game.OR the tournament rule set-game.)

The current 40k rule set HAS NEVER been developed with competative play in mind.NO concideration to this style of play has EVER been made.(AFAIK)
This makes getting the current 40k rules 'balanced enough for the competative minded players' practicaly impossible.(Unless GW towers sanction 10,000,000 hours of playtesting. )

So rather than radicaly change a popular rule set for narrative play.(Current 40k rule set.)To try to 'artificaily inject' more 'ballance'.

Why not develop a NEW rule set for 40k ,with competative play front and formost in the design brief?

To get similar or more complex tactical game play, with much simpler rules and therfore easier to prove levels of (im)ballance.

Any how, thats my thoughts for what they are worth.

TTFN
Lanrak.

In other words, develop a new edition to be balanced from day 1. That's what they need to do.

Sadly, the only way to ensure 100% balance at a Tournaments is to Chess it. By that, I mean a single list, drawn up by the organiser which all participants must adhere to.

Why? Every army has an achilles heel, and every army has a potential opponent very good at exploiting it. This is, strictly speaking, not balanced or necessarily fair. For example, Tau tend to do well against Guard, as their main weakness is HTH, which Guard are hardly noted for. Add in the ease Tau have in taking out Armour, and the IG in most cases is facing an uphill struggle from the get go.

And yet, Guard can do better against Nids, as the higher volume, lower strength shots will serve better against Genestealers, Gaunts etc than the Tau Pulse Weapons.

I really think Balance should stem from the missions. Sure, KPs don't work they way they could, this is known, but when it comes down to taking and holding, most armies will have a fair crack at winning this, with the deciding factor being less power lists, and more gamer ability.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Sadly, the only way to ensure 100% balance at a Tournaments is to Chess it. By that, I mean a single list, drawn up by the organiser which all participants must adhere to.

Nonsense. There are plenty of games that work and have a balanced ruleset that aren't Chess FFS.

BYE

I don't think making the game 100% balanced is really necessary. Being more balanced than it is now would still be nice. Some of the balance issues should be clear even before playtesting begins; 6 carnifexes might not be such a good idea, flashgits really aren't going to be able to do much, etc. I could see that flashgits weren't all that great just reading the ork codex for the first time, and when I first heard about 6 carnifexes being allowed in the new tyranid codex I knew that was going to be too much for most armies to handle.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:5th Ed is certainly the most playable of it's various incarnation.

Fairly well written rules, pace is good, and some interesting tactical opportunities just by dropping in running and going to ground. Adds a smidge of realism, without requiring clunky mechanics.

But with regard to studio's view, I do agree. The game is designed as a Hobby. A hobby to me is something to be indulged in with like minded people.

And theres the crunch. Like minded. Me, I don't care for Tournaments. Not my bag at all, so I have a group of fellow gamers who see it as your aforementioned co-operative narrative game. None of us particularly enjoy fighting a Powergamed list, yet we are happy to take on more exotic lists for the change and the challenge (my Dark Elf Monster army being a notorious example).

To be honest, I don't think there can be a mutually satisfying compromise. The Tournament players are welcome to play as competitively as they want, as long as their demands for greater and greater balance (essentially fewer options and a loss of flavour to my mind) don't start infringing on my enjoyment.

So many times I have read things on the Interwebs *demanding* that Option X become 1 per Y,000 points, or 0-1, or something else should be dropped in points. All healthy debate I'm sure, but by taking up Tournaments, you are tying yourself to the rulebook too much. One of the core principals of GW's games (and others) is to do as you will with the rules. Want to tinker, go ahead. Playtest with your circle, find out what suits you best. The rules as sold can be used as they are, sure. But step back from them a bit, and you'll see a framework for a great game. For example, Campaigns.

I wrote an article on the subject for The Watchman which went down quite well. And I encouraged people to use such things as a testbed for new ideas, and to break out the box of self imposed, slavish rules following. Outside of a Tournament, where things need to be as equal as possible, a game does not need to have equal points. Why? Because it is more than possible to write a Scenario where regardless of points, both sides have an equal chance of winning. And it goes further. Want to use a list from Eye of Terror? Go for it. Was balanced then, it's balanced now. Main reason GW don't back it fully is that as a company, their resources are finite and there are far bigger fish to fry first.

Sorry, went on a bit of a gibber there...time to steer back to topic.

Essentially, compromise is not that possible. I don't want a game where everything has been playtested to destruction, as the armies are likely to become clones of each other, even across Codex and Army Book. I like the variety on offer, even if it means things are a bit shonky. Quick bit of houseruling or a Gentlemans Agreement (example being not directing attacks at characters in Warhammer. Reasoning? It's boring, and there such thing as challenge rules!) and you are there. But Tournament players deny themselves this through their own choice....

Very well written, I agree 100% with this viewpoint.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Essentially, compromise is not that possible. I don't want a game where everything has been playtested to destruction, as the armies are likely to become clones of each other, even across Codex and Army Book.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Playtesting armies so that they are balanced does not create armies that are clones of one another. One does not automatically cause or lead to the other.

BYE

Mad Doc Grotsnik, you should have a look at games like WRG Ancients or Field of Glory or Warmaster Ancients.

There is huge variation between different armies yet all are reasonably balanced against each other within the parameters of terrain etc.

(For instance, a mainly heavy cavalry army is always going to have trouble on a table consisting of swamps and mountains.)

And those are games where a man is a man is a man. No SMs or Space Elfs or Nids, with their different base characteristics.

There is no logical reason why game rules cannot cater for a wide variety of fighting styles and still have balance.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Why does everybody hate Temple Flameguard

You just made my night.

I honestly didn't know what TFG was before this thread (I know who he is just not that the acronym stood for "that fething guy." But I have played warmachine before!

Chimera_Calvin wrote:1. There is no problem with the rules (both core and in individual army codices) that cannot be solved by some combination of:
a) Better initial writing
b) More thorough playtesting
c) Timely and well-written FAQs (these should be a 'living document', BTW, not a rare release)

2. There is no problem with game balance that cannot be solved by:
a) Reviewing points costs (after proper playtesting)
b) Applying appropriate restrictions on unit selection in a standard FOC

I would like someone to explain why doing this would in any way spoil the enjoyment of the 'casual gamer'.

First off, if this were as easy and simple as you say, GW would have done it already. However, what you ask for requires a lot off effort for very little gain. Assuming that this is even possible. Compared to where we are right now, we might be 5% better-balanced at the cost of halving the release schedule (i.e. doubling the time and effort required to produce something). Now if it costs twice as much for only 5% gain in "balance", with no benefit in Fluff or sculpting, is that really a smart business decision?

No, it is a foolish decision.

And that is why GW isn't doing what you want them to.

Now if the cost/benefit ratio were reduced (twice as balanced for only 5% more effort), I'd agree with GW finding a way to do this.

Secondly, GW is moving away from restrictions, to support the casual philosophy that, if GW makes it available, there is no reason not to take as many as the FOC and pocket money budget allow.

twigg wrote:so you are saying that because the product would be hard to do we should let GW slide on it?

Dont excuse their poor rules writing

I would agree, if not for the fact that GW rules quality is better now than at any other time aside from the immediate aftermath of the 3E Rulebook release and all armies were forced to use the Rulebook lists.

I also don't believe that this "perfect" balance that you want exists.

Kilkrazy wrote:Mad Doc Grotsnik, you should have a look at games like WRG Ancients or Field of Glory or Warmaster Ancients.

There is huge variation between different armies yet all are reasonably balanced against each other within the parameters of terrain etc.

And those are games where a man is a man is a man. No SMs or Space Elfs or Nids, with their different base characteristics.

There is no logical reason why game rules cannot cater for a wide variety of fighting styles and still have balance.

If these are all human-based games, then I don't think you have anywhere near the variation you have in 40k or WFB. Ogre Kingdoms is hugely different from Undead which is different from Humans or even Elves. Certainly, I don't want Ogres and Elves to be reduced to just Men, as that rather defeats the point.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Mad Doc Grotsnik, you should have a look at games like WRG Ancients or Field of Glory or Warmaster Ancients.

There is huge variation between different armies yet all are reasonably balanced against each other within the parameters of terrain etc.

And those are games where a man is a man is a man. No SMs or Space Elfs or Nids, with their different base characteristics.

There is no logical reason why game rules cannot cater for a wide variety of fighting styles and still have balance.

If these are all human-based games, then I don't think you have anywhere near the variation you have in 40k or WFB. Ogre Kingdoms is hugely different from Undead which is different from Humans or even Elves. Certainly, I don't want Ogres and Elves to be reduced to just Men, as that rather defeats the point.

These are games of historical ancient and medieval warfare. The game factors include something like six armour classes, 5 morale classes, 3 formation classes, two training classes, a variety of weapons with different ranges and different effects on armour and formation, and some rules also have special rules or factors (skilled swordsmen, shock lancers.) On top of all that there are command and control rules giving variability to the way armies are set up and controlled. Also, movement differs by the armour, formation and training classes and by the type of terrain.

I think you can see that there can be a huge variation between an English Wars of the Roses army with a lot of heavy infantry, longbows and some artillery, a Lithuanian army consisting mainly of light cavalry, and an Inca army with no cavalry but lots of fast-moving, disciplined infantry and slings.

All that is done without "racial characteristics", which could easily be added.

[Edited to add more detail.]

@JohnHwangDD - at no point was I saying that balancing armies and writing better rules would be easy or simple to do. What I was saying is that doing so would have no impact on non-tournament games.

As I stated in my post, anyone is at liberty to do what they want with the game as it is now. You can write scenarios, you can play mad games unrestricted by FOC's, anything you like.

If the rules were better and more balanced, tournament play would improve - I haven't heard anyone dispute that. What I would like to hear is a cogent argument from anybody that states that improving rules and game balance would have a detrimental effect on non-tournament players.

JohnHwangDD wrote:First off, if this were as easy and simple as you say, GW would have done it already.

False dilemma.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If these are all human-based games, then I don't think you have anywhere near the variation you have in 40k or WFB. Ogre Kingdoms is hugely different from Undead which is different from Humans or even Elves. Certainly, I don't want Ogres and Elves to be reduced to just Men, as that rather defeats the point.

Another false dilema.

You're creating imaginary critiera - both you and Grotsnik are very good at this.

"It can't be done because it's impossible" and "They have different races, therefore it can't be done!" are not arguments. They're nonsense.

BYE

I said it was very hard to balance it as Tournament Players wish, whilst still leaving the variety open to less competitive play.

For example, themed lists. I love my themed lists, but with the balance wanted for Tournaments, certain themes would be lost.

Seriously, consider the amount of options available to a player when raising a force. There are loads. That there is any balance is surprising all things considered. The books are balanced against the Rulebook, and itself. To do so against all other books would take an age, and most likely require all books to be released simaltaneously, which although possible, is not good business sense.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Seriously people, think about what you are demanding from GW, and then honestly consider the practicalities involved.

Like what? Like demanding, oh I don't know, that they NOT put things like Fzorgle in the game. You know, like maybe expecting Gav Thorpe to be like, "I got an idea! Let's put Fzorgle in the game! Oh wait, on second thought let's not - because MAYBE THAT WOULD BE slowed." Yeah I guess demanding stuff like that is just not practical.

Yes. Lash. Because including it in your army means you are guaranteed, 100% of the time to win with incredible ease and by a huge margin?

Utter nonsense. And if the utility of a single power is the best arguement you can come up with, the game is pretty much perfectly balanced.

Seriously, so many apparent 'fixes' suggested on the Interwebs are simply people trying to get round a problem they can't on the Battlefield. You know, with tactics, instead of randomly imposed limitations.

As I said, the they way GW designs their lists is internally. The options available are priced within the context of their own list. Hence Orcs in Fantasy are more expensive than you might think, because the Orc player has the option of fielding cheap and cheerful (and not as bad as you might think) Gobbos for a variety of battlefield duties. Like distraction and baiting. Using them thus enables the Orcs to be more of a threat than in a Gobbo free list.

There is a lot more to balancing a list than you guys giver credit.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Seriously, so many apparent 'fixes' suggested on the Interwebs are simply people trying to get round a problem they can't on the Battlefield. You know, with tactics, instead of randomly imposed limitations.

There is a lot more to balancing a list than you guys giver credit.

QFT.

Next time, play better!

It's not so much about playing better, as being a better player.

Bad workman blames his tools. Bad Players blames his opponents rules. Sometimes there appears to be a mental block preventing a proportion of gamers just accepting their opponent played a blinder, and they weren't in a position to predict or counter it.

Me? I tend to accept I got chinned fair and square. For example, in 45 minutes, I'm off to GW to play Dan's Chaos army. He's using the new book, and I've not had a chance to read it fully. I'm expecting more than a couple of surprises from him which I won't be ready for, and I intend to learn from my mistakes. Though having said that, I do have a cunning, cunning plan up my sleever to wreck his day (Orc Krooz Missile equivalent, straight into his Chaos Lords face!).

Is it the fault of the rules writer that I personally was not prepared for what he has chosen? Of course not. I don't know his army book, let alone his list. My fighting is done on the tabletop, not when I write my list.

So be a better player. Take your licks, accept you defeats as graciously as your victories. And next time, have a plan to prevent his last trick.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:For example, themed lists. I love my themed lists, but with the balance wanted for Tournaments, certain themes would be lost.

And you base this on what?

Again, Grotsnik, post hoc ergo propter hoc. Having balanced rules does not automatically (or even logically) lead to lesser options or theme.

BYE

The game rules are based on maths, probability and logic.

It is absolutely possible to balance everything, it simply depends on how much effort the design team put in.

I accept that 100% balance for everything may not be possible given commercial constraints. However, the problem is there are very obvious cases of imbalance which should not have got into the game. The excuse that it isn't written for tournament players is just a cop-out.

Hi all.
The basic original game rules were based on statistical comparisons and probability.
But the addition of several situational and subjective exclusions have made calculable levels of ballance harder.(Marketing requirment has comprimised the integrity of the game play.IMO )

Perfect ballance is theoretical.
However provable levels of imballance is what most competative tournament players require.( That element/unit cost X amount , and here is how we we arrive at that value in a finite way.Not 'well we thought it was about right after playing a few games'.)

The maths involved in accurate PV calculation for 40k are very complex.
And as FoC and numerical restrictions require playtesting , perhaps GW devs are more comfortable with playtesting to get ballance they think is good enough.

As they have limited playtesting resources , any improvment in ballance would mean they reduce the amount of variables.
So to get the current 40k rule set to the required level of 'ballance ' required for 'ballanced competative play' would require comprimising the variety of the units available.
Even then the values and FOC would still be purley subjective.
So what would be the point?

The real problem as far as I can see is lots of competative minded gamers were sold 40k as a game suitable for ballanced competative play.
And after they spent a small fortune on GW product,(over 10 years or so), GW tell them 40k is NOT the game they thought it was!

Oh BTW when I say narrative driven game play, I mean senario based engagments.(Not just make stuff up and change it as you go along.)
Stargrunt II is a good example of a rule set in this style.(I think of it as the game RT would have eventualy developed into.)
(By Ground Zero Games .)

However a new rule set developed SPECIFICALY for competative 40k.(Not a WH clone) would be well recived IMO.

Happy Gaming .
TTFN
Lanrak.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Yes. Lash. Because including it in your army means you are guaranteed, 100% of the time to win with incredible ease and by a huge margin?

No. Lash. Because including it in your game means you are guaranteed, 100% of the time to be A COMPLETE AND UTTER FAILURE AS A GAMES DESIGNER.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Seriously. Did I say that Fzorgle is a guaranteed auto-win? Did I even say that Fzorgle is the best option in the game? No I did not. I merely said that any games designer with a half a brain would have taken one look at Fzorgle and IMMEDIATELY arrived at the same mind-numbingly OBVIOUS conclusion the rest of us have - that this power is a Very Bad Idea. The decision to include Fzorgle in the Chaos codex demonstrates a level of incompetence so egregious that it is just... bogglesome.

Furthermore do you really intend to stand by the assertion that as long as a game doesn't include anything that is so good that it "guarantees you will win 100% with incredible ease and by a huge margin" then it is "pretty much perfectly balanced"? Seriously? That is one of the stupidest assertions I have ever heard anyone make. In fact I would even go so far to say that the kind of person who would make such an assertion is precisely the kind of person who would think that including Fzorgle in the Chaos codex was a smashing good idea.

Careful Doobie, you're walking that fine line.

Remember at Dakka it's ok to be an idiot, but you're not allowed to call someone on being an idiot.

BYE

Well, first of all, do try to read things in context, instead of simply seeking something to get offended about.

And since you nominated Lash of Submission as an example of a design faux pas, perhaps you would care to explain exactly why a single power is so absolutely awful, something you have, to this point, completely neglected to do.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And since you nominated Lash of Submission as an example of a design faux pas, perhaps you would care to explain exactly why a single power is so absolutely awful, something you have, to this point, completely neglected to do.

No. I am not going to explain why Lash of Submission is powerful, as it should be obvious (or at least obvious to everyone except you and the guy who decided it was a good idea to include it in the codex).

Well, first of all, do try to read things in context, instead of simply seeking something to get offended about.

Nor am I going to explain irony to you. Sorry.

Saying "it should be obvious" really isn't a solid foundation to base an argument on.

Why not? If it's so obvious, humour me. Otherwise one might suspect you've never faced off against it, and are simply repeating Interweb Hyperbole.

There is nothing fundamentally unbalanced in the basic rules. The places where there are problems are units that are either weaker or stronger than cost, or can be taken in quantities which by synergy make them stronger than cost.

Bear in mind that the point of tactics is to make battles unbalanced -- meaning that a skill of a general is to concentrate his strength against his enemy's weakness. This doesn't mean a game should start from a position of imbalance because some armies have better (cheaper) units than others.

Its just to admitt, the version of 40k played nowdays is horribly watered down version of what we had before. Every edition pushing it even further into everything is the same.

It was alot worse in RT regarding balance but considering the huge amounth of time gone since that and all the variety removed really should have made the game pretty much balanced. IF that was what the company wanted, but since they already stated that they dont want that and care about it.. it wont happen. Why should it? Lash is a good example, everyone can see how unbalanced it is compared(in its own) but if the creators dont care and think it looks cool, thats what the gamers will get.

Like many others said beore tho, the rule system isnt very flawed in itself but in some of the choices, making the game overall alot less fun then it used to be.

Again, I don't see the huge problem with Lash. Can someone please explain to me? Moving a single unit d6" is hardly game breaking now, is it?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Again, I don't see the huge problem with Lash. Can someone please explain to me? Moving a single unit d6" is hardly game breaking now, is it?

If you only wanna move them d6 thats up to you.

Look at results and see how well it makes an army competative, only by basing it on lash. Pretty much the same with Orcs, there is a reason for some things dominating others big time.

Oh of course, double lash. But then, thats the limit, isn't it? 2 Lashes tops. How scary. They might pull a unit out of position, unless I somehow figure out the best way to stop this is to kick the Sorcerors teeth down their throats as fast as possible, or shoot them in the pills with a suitably impressive gun.

Or does having Lash somehow make you immune to your enemies tactics perhaps? Or give the Sorceror a 2+ Invulnerable save? No? Of course it doesn't.

Lash of submission moves a unit 2d6, double lash is 4d6. If you wanna jump people you should know the rules before attacking them.

It really is the base of one of the best armies out there and really, just looking at it should show a competent game designer that it might not be the most balanced thing to put into a game. This is not the worst example, just used it cause it already was in the thread.

Modquisition:
We've had several reports on this thread. Please keep your comments polite.

Happy Feast of Samhain, where did I put those sacrificial victims again...
Modquisition off

I think the problem with lash is two fold. First, including a power that lets you move your opponents figures isn't a good idea. I use it occasionally and I always ask my opponent to move his unit where I'd like it to go if the power is successful. Unfortunately there are some players who are not as mature/thoughtful as the rest of us and would just as soon reach across the table and start manhandling my figures, something I don't want anyone to do without my explicit permission.

Second, and this is the rules part of it, lash has such an obvious synergy with plasmacannon toting obliterators that you would have to be blind not to notice. The pair works so well that when you're writing a competitive list it is hard to ignore. That is the lack of balance right there and it has nothing to do with the individual units. It has to do with a pair of units totally overshadowing the rest.

Frankly, I think that anybody that needs explanation why Lash is overpowered is being obtuse, but here goes:

In 40k, models can move, shoot, and assault certain distances. In addition, there are ways to position models to gain benefit: keeping them out of charge range, or in cover, or disperesed to prevent blast weapons from ripping them up.

Lash breaks all of those rules. It takes the ability of a player to control his army away, and allows for an enormous range of fun tricks such as:
-Bringing enemy units into assault range
- Pushing enemy units out of their assault range
- Pulling units out of cover and bunching them up so your oblits can plasma cannon them to death
- pushing units off of objectives
- moving shooty units so they no longer have LOS

Now, these are all pretty cool and useful, but would be tolerable, except that the power is both relatively cheap and available on a platform (Demon prince) that is both fast, durable, and pretty good in assault.

What lash does is to prevent your enemy from countering the rest of your army. Normally, any chaos army can be countered: stay in cover from oblits, stay out of range of berzerkers, etc. The lash dramatically decreases an opponents ability to react to your army.

Oh, and it causes a pinning test as well.

The point of nearly everybody that dislikes the lash is that it's an inherently hard ability to balance: it does no damage, it doesn't make anything tougher, etc. What it is, however, is a tool that becomes dramatically more useful in the hands of a skilled player. This was, I think most people would argue, not a flaw in execution, but a flaw in concept.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:

If the rules were better and more balanced, tournament play would improve - I haven't heard anyone dispute that. What I would like to hear is a cogent argument from anybody that states that improving rules and game balance would have a detrimental effect on non-tournament players.

I would like to hear someone explain this as well. How does more rules balance = worse experience for casual gamers? I would consider myself a casual gamer (I've been to two tournaments in my 20 year life as a mini gamer) and I fail to see how more balance is bad. No one is asking for perfect balance...just more of it. Anyone?

The theory seems to be that more balance = boring selection choices.

Kilkrazy wrote:Bear in mind that the point of tactics is to make battles unbalanced -- meaning that a skill of a general is to concentrate his strength against his enemy's weakness. This doesn't mean a game should start from a position of imbalance because some armies have better (cheaper) units than others.

This is definitely true. I would add that making the battle unbalanced (tactically) also involves concentrating similar units for a net increase in power; for example, having all of your vehicles move up one flank while your infantry moves up the other, making it difficult for both sides of your opponent's gunline unable to cope with the amount of vehicles/infantry. I think that allowing players to do this with armylists (nidzilla, 180 boys, 7 land raiders, etc) can start the game with an unbalance that's beyond simple problems with point costs.

--------

Also, I think that Lash is really closer to, say, a spell from Fantasy than a psychic power for 40k. The key difference is that fantasy has a whole system in play for casting and countering spells, and most armies have similarly powerful spells they can use. 40k's psychic power system is: make a leadership 10 psychic test to use it. If you play eldar or an imperial army, it might be countered, otherwise you're in the clear. The spell is probably some sort of shooting attack.

Look at Lash compared to Bolt of Change, or Nurgle's Rot. It's way better than either, and cheaper than Bolt of Change. That's bad balancing just within the Chaos codex. It also makes sorcerers of Slaanesh the top dogs, while sorcerers of the God of Magic sit at home and wish they were still the far more effective loyalist librarians.

Kilkrazy wrote:The theory seems to be that more balance = boring selection choices.

Why? What's the reasoning or logic here? Saying it is so, does not make it so. What's the explanation?

JHDD/Grotsnik: I find it quite interesting that you would uphold 5th Edition as being "balanced" and for the naysayers to "use tactics" instead of arguing supposed unbalance. While I am in 100% agreement about 5th Edition being a fine ruleset - your arguement that people should use "tactics" is a poor one at best, as 5th Edition has continued the trend started by 4th Edition by removing tactical options...

Options removed by 4th Edition:

1. Assaulting from a transport after moving (open topped excepted).
2. Half squads shooting from a transport.
3. Split shooting and assaulting between targets.

Options removed by 5th Edition:

1. Trapping infantry in destroyed vehicles by blocking hatches.
2. Negative modifiers from attrition based shooting.
3. Consolidating into new combats
4. Using large fodder squads as combat tarpits
5. Hiding behind area terrain - unless are terrain is completely continuous - with no gaps.
6. Protection of special weapons through wound allocation
7. Target priority is gone (This is a good thing, though the -option- of having your opponent fail the check is gone.)

Guys... I will admit that 5th is a more "streamlined" system, but more tactical? Give me a break -

In this game, everything moves at a homogenous rate, small arms fire at a homogenous range. A unit typically performs their action each turn against one enemy opponent. The new rules have made that action more decisive now, so the winner can go on to make their one future action against a future target! The way the writers have made the game, doing anything to surprise your opponent is hard. You can deepstrike, but 2/3 of the time, your guys end up in the wrong spot, and then your guys are stuck standing around for a turn. You can try outflanking, but 1/3 chance, your guys show up in the wrong place... There is little to no synergy between units due to each unit being specacularly unflexible in use!

Example: Say I have a squad of firedragons and a squad of banshees. There are two squads of marines nearby. Given that each unit can only engage one enemy unit due to the idiotic assault what you shoot rule - neither unit can help the other, either by adding shooting casualties, or by lending help in assault (unless the banshees forgo shooting - which would be a bad idea, since each girl is only good for 1/2MEQ on average). In the old days, one could dump all the meltagun shots and pistol shots into one squad, and then jump the remaining one with both aspect squads - which would be the most logical. This is why the game has moved away from combined arms to the more unbalanced type "one trick" armies you see these days.

The game is to random in the wrong places, and too homogenous in the wrong places as well. Fantasy has the right idea with differing movement rates - psychology that actually does something in the game.

keezus wrote:JHDD/Grotsnik: I find it quite interesting that you would uphold 5th Edition as being "balanced" and for the naysayers to "use tactics" instead of arguing supposed unbalance. While I am in 100% agreement about 5th Edition being a fine ruleset - your arguement that people should use "tactics" is a poor one at best, as 5th Edition has continued the trend started by 4th Edition by removing tactical options...

Huh? 5th Edition forces the player to make decisions. If forces player to make choices that have impact. Think about what that means. By definition, it means that the game is more tactical.

Options removed by 4th Edition:
1. Assaulting from a transport after moving (open topped excepted).
2. Half squads shooting from a transport.
3. Split shooting and assaulting between targets.

All of these are excellent, tactical changes that force players to play smarter.

Tactical decisions required in 4th Edition:
1. Move up, or disembark
2. be safe in transport, or shooting outside
3. choose between shooting, assaulting, and which target to eliminate

All good!

Options removed by 5th Edition:
1. Trapping infantry in destroyed vehicles by blocking hatches.
2. Negative modifiers from attrition based shooting.
3. Consolidating into new combats
4. Using large fodder squads as combat tarpits
5. Hiding behind area terrain - unless are terrain is completely continuous - with no gaps.
6. Protection of special weapons through wound allocation
7. Target priority is gone (This is a good thing, though the -option- of having your opponent fail the check is gone.)

Similarly as above
1. rebalance so Transports become more viable as transports, not bunkers.
2. Simplification, but to be fair, you need to note the new option to Go To Ground. That is a game-changer.
3. rebalance, to make assaults unitary, rather than just allowing unlimited, "win more" rampage
4. if large squads can't do any damage via weight of numbers, they *should* run.
5. models are models, not 3-d tokens
6. you still have this, tactically, you only place minimal wounds that allow saves on specialists, rather than no-save & extra wounds.
7. speed-up and remove extra measuring cheating. All good.
Mostly this is preferences, not a problem.

Guys... I will admit that 5th is a more "streamlined" system, but more tactical? Give me a break -

Maybe you should just play better.

In this game, everything moves at a homogenous rate,

Except for Run/Fleet, Bikes, Jump Packs, Fast Vehicles, Beasts, and Transports, yes.

small arms fire at a homogenous range.

Except for Templates and Tau and Eldar, yes.

A unit typically performs their action each turn against one enemy opponent. The new rules have made that action more decisive now, so the winner can go on to make their one future action against a future target! The way the writers have made the game, doing anything to surprise your opponent is hard.

One unit = one target - what's so hard about that concept? If you want to engage more targets, bring more units.

You can deepstrike, but 2/3 of the time, your guys end up in the wrong spot, and then your guys are stuck standing around for a turn.

Really? I thought DS allowed you to choose where your models DS, and then you scatter. If you make a good tactical decision and weigh the risk of scatter appropriately, your guys will end up where they need to be. DS is far more tactical now, almost entirely in the player's control. Problems are when you get greedy and scatter. That's the player's fault.

You can try outflanking, but 1/3 chance, your guys show up in the wrong place...

Nothing forces a player to outflank. It's a tactical (strategic) decision to outflank from reserves vs start on the board. If you gamble, sometimes, you lose. That's fair.

Say I have a squad of firedragons and a squad of banshees. There are two squads of marines nearby. Given that each unit can only engage one enemy unit due to the idiotic assault what you shoot rule - neither unit can help the other, either by adding shooting casualties, or by lending help in assault (unless the banshees forgo shooting - which would be a bad idea, since each girl is only good for 1/2MEQ on average). In the old days, one could dump all the meltagun shots and pistol shots into one squad, and then jump the remaining one with both aspect squads - which would be the most logical. This is why the game has moved away from combined arms to the more unbalanced type "one trick" armies you see these days.

I don't see the problem here. It's not like the MEQs could savage the girls with Bolter Rapid-Fire, then kill the Dragons in assault if the situation were reversed... In fact, the new balance says that the Eldar have the situational advantage being armed with Assault / Pistols vs Rapid Fire which denies Assault. Is there some kind of balance problem that I've missed?

The game is to random in the wrong places, and too homogenous in the wrong places as well. Fantasy has the right idea with differing movement rates - psychology that actually does something in the game.

Then go play Fantasy. 40k isn't for everybody. And GW is deliberately separating 40k from WFB, so they work differently. I happen to prefer 40k over WFB. That's why there are many games out there. More distinctive choices in gaming is better.

Kilkrazy wrote:The theory seems to be that more balance = boring selection choices.

Actually the theory is more like: more balance => boring selection choices. I don't think this has to be the case - it's just that the more choices you have more work it takes to balance them. On the other hand the converse is definitely not true (ie, boring selection choices => more balance) as the latest Chaos codex amply demonstrates.

Acheron wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The theory seems to be that more balance = boring selection choices.

Why? What's the reasoning or logic here? Saying it is so, does not make it so. What's the explanation?

Well, I don't agree with it. That is just the impression I get from a lot of the postings critical of making a balanced, tournament ready ruleset.

I don't want to be accused of setting up a straw man. Some of my previous posts in this thread have pointed out ways in which a lot of variety can be combined with balance.

Completely balancing the core rules and all codexes as has been stated before would be impossible. Making the core rules and all codexes more balanced than they are now is not impossible. Look in the "Proposed Rules" section, there are *some* very good ideas with regards to things like Kill Points and the cost/abilities of certain units.

To make tournament players happy, GW only has to do one thing, email Yakface with the following:

"We'd like you to expand your Adepticon FAQ with a comprehensive 'Balance Errata' suitable for tournament play. You may have X months to playtest and finalize the initial document, after which time we will sanction it for competitive play. We would like you to provide quarterly/bi-yearly updates to this document based on new releases, tournament data, further playtesting, etc. that would nescessitate changes. All of this is done on a volunteer basis on your part and you are not obligated in anyway to perform any of these requests."

And if they don't, I think Yak should organize and develop a "Dakka Recommended Tournament Errata" document. GW sanctioned events may or may not adopt it, but I'm sure many local leagues and non-sanctioned tournaments would (I know mine would). Who knows, if it received well enough, they very well just might adopt it, like how they've used several of his FAQ items in their latest round of FAQs.

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The theory seems to be that more balance = boring selection choices.

Actually the theory is more like: more balance => boring selection choices. I don't think this has to be the case - it's just that the more choices you have more work it takes to balance them. On the other hand the converse is definitely not true (ie, boring selection choices => more balance) as the latest Chaos codex amply demonstrates.

Yes.

The game is a mathematical construction and the number of different possible units is a function of the number of variables and the range of each. There is actually a large range of variables available and we do see quite a bit of variation even in basic troops -- compare IG, Orks, Tau and SMs for example. That is the basic stats, not even counting the weapon variables. To some extent GW do not make use of the variability available. WS makes little difference, for instance.

Wargear and special rules are a way of adding more variability. What you usually have is a basic mathematical mechanism dressed up with a fluffy description. For example, Tau markerlights, SoB Faith points and the Eldar psychic powers all do the same thing -- die roll modifiers -- with a different description.

The big problem is when the designer flips his lid and invents a totally mad power (e.g. Lash.) Some of the major characters fall into this category because of the collection of super stats and wargear they embody.

But Lash isn't a real problem power when you look at what it does. The problem with Lash is that it's needlessly rules-complex / imprecise, like WBB.

What's a problem are global rules, like Rites of Battle. How do you cost that fairly? If you have a lot of infantry in a large game, then making them all Ld10 is huge. If you're more Veteran / Mech, meh, it's hardly worth mention. How do you cost that?

Hi Kilkrazy.
I would like to pick up on your comment about 'totaly mad powers'.
GW game devs primary goal is to help sell the latest range of Citadel Minatures.
Every new release has to be 'shiny and kewler' than everything else.

And eventualy they run out of sensible ideas and options .

If you strip away years of marketing driven development of 40k.You end up with a poor WH clone.

If you started from scratch with a clear idea of game play requirments, and wrote a rule set with this specific game play in mind.
You get much better rule sets.(GWs SGs have lots of examples of great game development.IMO.)

But GW is a minatures company NOT a games company.
Which is a massive hinderance to the GW game devs , and a dissapointment to lots of gamers....

Good job there are lots of great games companies out there!(Thane Games, Ground Zero Games,etc.)

I have a huge amount of respect for Yakface , for putting so much effort into the FAQs etc, (that GW couldnt be bothered to do).
But any ones oppinion is just that , a subjective opinion!
And why should it be up to the customers to put right poor quality product?

If you got a mis cast minature from GW .
And GW said , 'Just buy some more 'green stuff' off us and re sculpt it yourself!'
You would feel GW were not being very fair, wouldnt you?

TTFN
Lanrk.








Happy gameinfg

JohnHwangDD wrote:But Lash isn't a real problem power when you look at what it does. The problem with Lash is that it's needlessly rules-complex / imprecise, like WBB.

What's a problem are global rules, like Rites of Battle. How do you cost that fairly? If you have a lot of infantry in a large game, then making them all Ld10 is huge. If you're more Veteran / Mech, meh, it's hardly worth mention. How do you cost that?

Rules such as WRG Ancients simply charge more points for a figure with a higher morale value.

Right, but RoB is folded into the cost of a single model. It's not like you pay 50 pts for the Captain +1 pt for every other model with base Ld8 and +5 pt for every unit with Ld9.

Lanrak wrote:Hi Kilkrazy.
I would like to pick up on your comment about 'totaly mad powers'.
GW game devs primary goal is to help sell the latest range of Citadel Minatures.
Every new release has to be 'shiny and kewler' than everything else.

And eventualy they run out of sensible ideas and options .

If you strip away years of marketing driven development of 40k.You end up with a poor WH clone.

If you started from scratch with a clear idea of game play requirments, and wrote a rule set with this specific game play in mind.
You get much better rule sets.(GWs SGs have lots of examples of great game development.IMO.)

But GW is a minatures company NOT a games company.
Which is a massive hinderance to the GW game devs , and a dissapointment to lots of gamers....

Good job there are lots of great games companies out there!(Thane Games, Ground Zero Games,etc.)

I have a huge amount of respect for Yakface , for putting so much effort into the FAQs etc, (that GW couldnt be bothered to do).
But any ones oppinion is just that , a subjective opinion!
And why should it be up to the customers to put right poor quality product?

If you got a mis cast minature from GW .
And GW said , 'Just buy some more 'green stuff' off us and re sculpt it yourself!'
You would feel GW were not being very fair, wouldnt you?

TTFN
Lanrk.








Happy gameinfg

Every figure and unit in the whole game isn't a shiny modelfest. It's mostly a few special characters. Look at Tau, they only have three special characters and no one uses Space Pope because he is rubbish.

GW make the real money from having all the players buy more boxes of basic infantry rather than some players buying one special character. I don't own any characters for my Tau (though tell the truth I have just ordered a Shadowsun.) But I've got four boxes of Fire Warriors and two boxes of Kroot.

JohnHwangDD wrote:But Lash isn't a real problem power when you look at what it does. The problem with Lash is that it's needlessly rules-complex / imprecise, like WBB.

What's a problem are global rules, like Rites of Battle. How do you cost that fairly? If you have a lot of infantry in a large game, then making them all Ld10 is huge. If you're more Veteran / Mech, meh, it's hardly worth mention. How do you cost that?

Rites of Battle is actually a really hard one to judge. If you look at the current Calgar, he's way to pricy for 1850, a stretch at 2500, but basically stupid not to take in Apocolypse. There's really not good way to balance that, since the value goes up as the game goes up.

The best way is to build the base cost into the troops themselves. I mean, how much is the bump from ld9-ld10 worth? not even a point a piece, I'd argue. A slight uptick in the squads prices helps nullify the bonus from Rites of Battle. RoB was a bargain in 4th with 6-man las/plas that would normally be ld8, but Sicarius is nowhere near as good now that most marine units are LD9. Additionally, bundling the ability with other mandatory gear helps a great deal. Buying a naked 75 pt Master was a great deal, but he's less so at 100pts with a built in Iron Halo.

Exactly. Ld9 to Ld10 is worth about 1/2 pt, which is why RoB isn't a big deal in a Ld9 army.

And similarly, I don't much like the new SCs - I don't really want to play that way.