1- Balance issues all over the place. Done on porpoise to boost sales mostly i know.
2- Rules that don't add up or have consistency issues.
3- Obvious lack of important rules like what actually are "small" and "large" terrain pieces.
4- Painful rules to apply while gaming like removing guys from the front when it applies to a 20+ piled in unit.
xxvaderxx wrote: 1- Balance issues all over the place. Done on porpoise to boost sales mostly i know.
2- Rules that don't add up or have consistency issues.
3- Obvious lack of important rules like what actually are "small" and "large" terrain pieces.
4- Painful rules to apply while gaming like removing guys from the front when it applies to a 20+ piled in unit.
because they are a model firm first, gaming firm second
Trondheim wrote: because they are a model firm first, gaming firm second
People keep saying that when it's been demonstrated that they make rules that don't have any existing models - and wait literally years before making those models. If models came first, that would not be the case.
xxvaderxx wrote: 1- Balance issues all over the place. Done on porpoise to boost sales mostly i know.
Most powerful armies tend to be cheapest. Look how cheap it is to make a Draigowing army - maybe 5% the cost of a horde guard army.
Not that "facts" have ever got in the way of GW bashing, just look at the statistical analysis in Dakka discussions showing price inflation of 4-5% per annum for a regular army, then simply a list of people whinging about price increases.
2- Rules that don't add up or have consistency issues.
No ruleset is perfectly written, especially one as complex as 40k. Thankfully we have FAQs and errata, and the "major" rules holes that have yet to be fixed are actually very trivial.
4- Painful rules to apply while gaming like removing guys from the front when it applies to a 20+ piled in unit.
Not as painful as having 5 lascannons and 5 plasma guns standing right in the open but being able to remove casualties from the unit from the guys standing 12" away at the back of a ruin.
... Be best if we ended this particular diversion and returned to the original topic please folks.
... well played though
Fair enough.
To actually contribute to the topic at hand... I don't think any balance issues are done on purpose. Look at CSM. If they really wanted to boost sales by making them OP, they could've done a far better job of it.
But the rules set is much better than it was does it have clunky bits .....yes. Is it missing important pieces of info? Yes. Keep in mind whenever some one writes a ruleset they understand it can blind them to possible missing elements as they can understand their intent even if we do not.
Evertras wrote: To actually contribute to the topic at hand... I don't think any balance issues are done on purpose. Look at CSM. If they really wanted to boost sales by making them OP, they could've done a far better job of it.
Because ya know, a $75 flier that slices things open as you fly over them then cooks things with a hell house incinerator doesn't meet those guidelines at all...
Evertras wrote: To actually contribute to the topic at hand... I don't think any balance issues are done on purpose. Look at CSM. If they really wanted to boost sales by making them OP, they could've done a far better job of it.
Because ya know, a $75 flier that slices things open as you fly over them then cooks things with a hell house incinerator doesn't meet those guidelines at all...
Except it doesn't because it can't fire the flame behind itself. (Well, it can - but it can't wound anything)
xxvaderxx wrote:1- Balance issues all over the place.
2- Rules that don't add up or have consistency issues.
These are matters of mere opinion, though. All you're saying is that GW doesn't agree with your idea of what balance should be, not that GW isn't doing balance correctly.
Plus, you can either have a rules edition that is carefully balanced, or you can have rules edition that adds new stuff, but you can not have both, especially not at the scale GW is doing things.
xxvaderxx wrote:3- Obvious lack of important rules like what actually are "small" and "large" terrain pieces.
4- Painful rules to apply while gaming like removing guys from the front when it applies to a 20+ piled in unit.
You know, you could always start playing 4th ed with your friends. Both of these were "fixed" back then.
xxvaderxx wrote:3- Obvious lack of important rules like what actually are "small" and "large" terrain pieces.
4- Painful rules to apply while gaming like removing guys from the front when it applies to a 20+ piled in unit.
You know, you could always start playing 4th ed with your friends. Both of these were "fixed" back then.
So you are essentially agreeing with me that they did bad rules then and do bad rules now?.
xxvaderxx wrote:1- Balance issues all over the place.
2- Rules that don't add up or have consistency issues.
These are matters of mere opinion, though. All you're saying is that GW doesn't agree with your idea of what balance should be, not that GW isn't doing balance correctly.
Plus, you can either have a rules edition that is carefully balanced, or you can have rules edition that adds new stuff, but you can not have both, especially not at the scale GW is doing things.
Srry to burst your bubble, Warmahordes has a much higher unit count than WH40K and 2 different rules systems and actually manage to strike a much better balance than GW does.
xxvaderxx wrote:1- Balance issues all over the place.
2- Rules that don't add up or have consistency issues.
These are matters of mere opinion, though. All you're saying is that GW doesn't agree with your idea of what balance should be, not that GW isn't doing balance correctly.
Plus, you can either have a rules edition that is carefully balanced, or you can have rules edition that adds new stuff, but you can not have both, especially not at the scale GW is doing things.
xxvaderxx wrote:3- Obvious lack of important rules like what actually are "small" and "large" terrain pieces.
4- Painful rules to apply while gaming like removing guys from the front when it applies to a 20+ piled in unit.
You know, you could always start playing 4th ed with your friends. Both of these were "fixed" back then.
Yes, let us go back to 4th ed. I cannot wait to have my entire gun line rolled up again. Nothing like two rounds of shooting before auto losing!
Because the only thing GW hates more than making money is their fans
Well besides that let's take a little trip back in time...
1987 Warhammer 40k 1st edition (Rogue Trader) comes out, followed by several rule changes, additions, army lists. The game is still developing so over time they end up completely rewriting the vehicle and assault rules. In order to play you need a minimum of 4 or 5 books and countless templates and tables.
1994 Warhammer 40k 2nd edition comes out, all the rules are in one place, there are new army lists for (almost) all the factions. The stats and game engine is more or less the same so existing fans can adapt quickly. But the game still needs you to buy 2 box sets and a codex can carry all kinds of templates and tables. And this makes all the books that fans and retailers bought worthless overnight. They have to buy everything over again. It also makes many models obsolete.
1998 Warhammer 40k 3rd edition comes out, this time they're serious about making the game playable. 1 rulebook, 3 templates, and a codex and you're good to go. And the stats and game system are still more or less the same. But again it makes all previous codexes and rule books worthless along wtih some models.
2004, 2008, 2012 4th, 5th and 6th editions come out. They hold to the same pattern that you should only need 1 rulebook and 1 codex and that these books will keep all previous models (from 3rd edition on) useful and playable.
It's the need for each rule set to accomodate older books that really makes the rules overcomplicated and unbalanced.
Just a quick example, Jump Troops now have a rule called Hammer of Wrath which gives them an extra attack on the charge. So why not just put that in their profile? Because it has to be backwards compatible with existing books like the Ork, Nid, Eldar and 5 different marine codexes.
Plus you have a team of writers, each with their own ideas of how the game should be.
So you get a mess.
So we have a 1987 game engine, which got its last serious changes in 1998, and now has 14 years of add-ons, revisions and bright ideas.
pretre wrote: Why are posters dead set on putting our poor quality complaint posts?
I don't know for sure where he's from but the flag says Argentina. Given how bad my Japanese and Chinese are I give non-native English speakers a lot of leeway.
xxvaderxx wrote: Srry if i offended you spelling sensibility, see red blue and white on that little flag over there? no, me neither. Americans...
Two things.
One: It was satire. Funny. Apparently, they don't have humor outside of the US.
Two: It was satire. Funny. Apparently, they don't have humor outside of the US.
Three: (See? Funny) That was only one point. The main point was that the argument itself (not the spelling) was poorly phrased and thought out.
Trondheim wrote: because they are a model firm first, gaming firm second
People keep saying that when it's been demonstrated that they make rules that don't have any existing models - and wait literally years before making those models.
If models came first, that would not be the case.
They come right out and say that's exactly what they are in their report to shareholders. A model company. The fact that they don't immediately have models but have rules wasn't an issue as it was for future expansion, until others started filling the gaps and threatening their copyright.
Dont get me wrong, i got a laugh out of the Dolphin thing my self, but getting "offended" by things like less than perfect spelling/grammar over a 20 seconds post on the interwebs... this are usually the same people that request you speak "American" to them.
Back to the OP, why is GW so dead set on using the "we are a miniatures company" line, it does not fly with games, it does not fly with modelers and it is about to get busted legally in court with the Chapterhouse law suit, so why are they so dead set on it?.
They keep using it to as a crutch for every rules screw up, they could instead do a 15 minutes update on the FAQs and be done with it.
xxvaderxx wrote: Dont get me wrong, i got a laugh out of the Dolphin thing my self, but getting "offended" by things like less than perfect spelling/grammar over a 20 seconds post on the interwebs... this are usually the same people that request you speak "American" to them.
Swing and a miss.
Again, content was the thrust of it. And satire, definitely satire.
Back to the OP, why is GW so dead set on using the "we are a miniatures company" line, it does not fly with games, it does not fly with modelers and it is about to get busted legally in court with the Chapterhouse law suit, so why are they so dead set on it?.
They keep using it to as a crutch for every rules screw up, they could instead do a 15 minutes update on the FAQs and be done with it.
Or, and this is crazy, they are a miniatures company and bad at rules. Despite everyone's expectations, hopes and dreams, GW has never put the money or effort into getting better at it. My contention has always been that we have much different expectations about what a good ruleset than GW does. They think it is good because they play almost a different game than we do.
Occam's Razor. Rather than assume that GW has this grand conspiracy to build bad rules in order to sell models, it is probably easier to just assume their rules guys aren't very good at it.
Testify wrote: See my above post, which was ignored in all the *hilarity* ensueing a joke about dolphins.
There are a lot of people on dakka who insist that 40k's rules are a pile of crap. Seems weird that 40k is so popular really
Racing is one of the least successful football clubs in recent history in my area, immensely popular thou, popularity is not directly related to quality.
Testify wrote: See my above post, which was ignored in all the *hilarity* ensueing a joke about dolphins.
There are a lot of people on dakka who insist that 40k's rules are a pile of crap. Seems weird that 40k is so popular really
Racing is one of the least successful football clubs in recent history in my area, immensely popular thou, popularity is not directly related to quality.
Or alternatively, you've just revealed your arrogance in equating your personal subjective taste with objectivity.
They just don't have the management or game design talent to handle their own product. It's as simple as that. Management isn't willing to risk turning people away from the hobby by making major changes to the rule set, and the game designers aren't talented enough to build a consistent and balanced rule set that accomodates the old codecies that are still in use.
Nate668 wrote: They just don't have the management or game design talent to handle their own product. It's as simple as that. Management isn't willing to risk turning people away from the hobby by making major changes to the rule set, and the game designers aren't talented enough to build a consistent and balanced rule set that accomodates the old codecies that are still in use.
So the game designers are too incompetant to build a completely new rules system, while making nothing obsolete? Your standards are far too high.
Testify wrote: See my above post, which was ignored in all the *hilarity* ensueing a joke about dolphins.
There are a lot of people on dakka who insist that 40k's rules are a pile of crap. Seems weird that 40k is so popular really
Racing is one of the least successful football clubs in recent history in my area, immensely popular thou, popularity is not directly related to quality.
Or alternatively, you've just revealed your arrogance in equating your personal subjective taste with objectivity.
Nate668 wrote: They just don't have the management or game design talent to handle their own product. It's as simple as that. Management isn't willing to risk turning people away from the hobby by making major changes to the rule set, and the game designers aren't talented enough to build a consistent and balanced rule set that accomodates the old codecies that are still in use.
So the game designers are too incompetant to build a completely new rules system, while making nothing obsolete? Your standards are far too high.
Apparently not for Privateer press, but what ever, lets not mention the big elephant in the room.
Nate668 wrote: They just don't have the management or game design talent to handle their own product. It's as simple as that. Management isn't willing to risk turning people away from the hobby by making major changes to the rule set, and the game designers aren't talented enough to build a consistent and balanced rule set that accomodates the old codecies that are still in use.
I don't think it's possible, to put it bluntly. It's easy to armchair design, but with as many variables as 40k has with codices that span multiple editions from multiple designers from different eras? I hate to pull this card, but I'd like to see you do it.
Should they have let it get to this point in the first place? That's debatable. But working with what they have now, it's not a question of talent.
Trondheim wrote: because they are a model firm first, gaming firm second
People keep saying that when it's been demonstrated that they make rules that don't have any existing models - and wait literally years before making those models.
If models came first, that would not be the case.
They come right out and say that's exactly what they are in their report to shareholders. A model company. The fact that they don't immediately have models but have rules wasn't an issue as it was for future expansion, until others started filling the gaps and threatening their copyright.
Yes, they absolutely say they're a model company. That's a meaningless statement. If Nike made the statement to their shareholders that they were a video game company, it would be similarly meaningless.
Nate668 wrote: They just don't have the management or game design talent to handle their own product. It's as simple as that. Management isn't willing to risk turning people away from the hobby by making major changes to the rule set, and the game designers aren't talented enough to build a consistent and balanced rule set that accomodates the old codecies that are still in use.
So the game designers are too incompetant to build a completely new rules system, while making nothing obsolete? Your standards are far too high.
No, I'm saying their bosses won't let them throw the old stuff out, and they're not good enough to make the old stuff work.
But their incompetence goes beyond that, because they're also completely unable to make a consistent rule set.
No, I'm saying their bosses won't let them throw the old stuff out, and they're not good enough to make the old stuff work.
But their incompetence goes beyond that, because they're also completely unable to make a consistent rule set.
So you want them to make stuff obsolete? Just so we're clear, you're knocking GW for not invalidating millions of pounds of peoples' models? And you think this makes them a bad company?
Nate668 wrote: They just don't have the management or game design talent to handle their own product. It's as simple as that. Management isn't willing to risk turning people away from the hobby by making major changes to the rule set, and the game designers aren't talented enough to build a consistent and balanced rule set that accomodates the old codecies that are still in use.
So the game designers are too incompetant to build a completely new rules system, while making nothing obsolete? Your standards are far too high.
No, I'm saying their bosses won't let them throw the old stuff out, and they're not good enough to make the old stuff work.
But their incompetence goes beyond that, because they're also completely unable to make a consistent rule set.
Its funny they want to sell the "we are a miniature company" pr BS and will not adopt a digital "FAQing" model to reset the units point costs, when necessary. For a miniature company they sure put selling the game first.
Nate668 wrote: They just don't have the management or game design talent to handle their own product. It's as simple as that. Management isn't willing to risk turning people away from the hobby by making major changes to the rule set, and the game designers aren't talented enough to build a consistent and balanced rule set that accomodates the old codecies that are still in use.
So the game designers are too incompetant to build a completely new rules system, while making nothing obsolete? Your standards are far too high.
No, I'm saying their bosses won't let them throw the old stuff out, and they're not good enough to make the old stuff work.
But their incompetence goes beyond that, because they're also completely unable to make a consistent rule set.
What would you do to do it 'competently'?
At a minimum, use words consistently. Remove From Play vs Remove From Play As A Casualty. Or define them if you're going to use them.
Don't ignore things for multiple editions that are literally just sloppy writing (Seriously - 6th edition vehicles still can't make invul saves) (Also - FNP vs other "unsaved wound" abilities).
Read through YMDC and the long threads - a few extra minutes spent on the rule set would've avoided 99% of them.
rigeld2 wrote: At a minimum, use words consistently. Remove From Play vs Remove From Play As A Casualty. Or define them if you're going to use them.
Totally agree on this. There's a line when things get too 'legalese', but clarity and consistency should be used.
Don't ignore things for multiple editions that are literally just sloppy writing (Seriously - 6th edition vehicles still can't make invul saves) (Also - FNP vs other "unsaved wound" abilities).
Read through YMDC and the long threads - a few extra minutes spent on the rule set would've avoided 99% of them.
This is a little fuzzier. Hindsight is always 20/20.
Nate668 wrote: They just don't have the management or game design talent to handle their own product. It's as simple as that. Management isn't willing to risk turning people away from the hobby by making major changes to the rule set, and the game designers aren't talented enough to build a consistent and balanced rule set that accomodates the old codecies that are still in use.
So the game designers are too incompetant to build a completely new rules system, while making nothing obsolete? Your standards are far too high.
No, I'm saying their bosses won't let them throw the old stuff out, and they're not good enough to make the old stuff work.
But their incompetence goes beyond that, because they're also completely unable to make a consistent rule set.
What would you do to do it 'competently'?
I would love they FAQed codexes to adjust point costs when necessary. If costed appropriately the age of the codex is not really relevant.
xxvaderxx wrote: I would love they FAQed codexes to adjust point costs when necessary. If costed appropriately the age of the codex is not really relevant.
There's a nice simplicity to being able to look at your book and go "Ok, that's what this is." And leave it at that. The potential problem with too much FAQ tweaking is you're adding more complexity. With a PC game patch, everyone's automatically brought up to the current version. With FAQs floating everywhere, things get muddier.
That being said, I do agree in general. It's just easy to make things worse if they're not careful.
Don't ignore things for multiple editions that are literally just sloppy writing (Seriously - 6th edition vehicles still can't make invul saves) (Also - FNP vs other "unsaved wound" abilities).
Read through YMDC and the long threads - a few extra minutes spent on the rule set would've avoided 99% of them.
This is a little fuzzier. Hindsight is always 20/20.
Hindsight? Sure, in 5th *maybe* I could see it - but that's what Errata and FAQs are for. Note that they never addressed either of those things throughout the course of 5th edition nor in the 6th edition book nor in the 6th edition FAQs.
The Night Scythe - it should take all of one playtest game to see how its interaction with the rule is messed up. And by playtest I mean - don't "assume" you know the rules, literally use the book for every step of the game. You're not out to "have a good time" or "win a game" you're out to find holes in the rules.
Gonna stop quoting because it's getting lengthy and I have two people to respond to.
Testify, don't put words in my mouth. I'm not suggesting that they obsolete all of the models, just all of the current rules.
If I were in charge of the game design team, I would tell them to throw out all of the current codecies and rulebooks and start over. Try to keep the original "feel" of the game as much as possible, but build it from the ground up.
And how would I do it competently? Use consistent wording and definitions when describing rules. It's not too much to ask, and it makes a huge difference in keeping a rule set tight and unambiguous.
This is what Privateer Press (they make Warmachine and Hordes) has done, and they are making huge gains in the tabletop gains market since doing so, because while they alienated some of their original players by completely changing the rule set and making all of the old books invalid at first, they now have an excellently balanced and consistent rule set, and that attracts gamers.
And if you haven't heard of Warmachine and Hordes, I suspect you will soon. My FLGS from college switched over from mostly 40k players to mostly Warmahordes players while I was there, and my current FLGS is quickly moving in the same direction.
xxvaderxx wrote: 1- Balance issues all over the place. Done on porpoise to boost sales mostly i know.
2- Rules that don't add up or have consistency issues.
3- Obvious lack of important rules like what actually are "small" and "large" terrain pieces.
4- Painful rules to apply while gaming like removing guys from the front when it applies to a 20+ piled in unit.
Well 1 I can give you to some degree on the "the better a new codex is, the more likely someone will buy the new army minis" front, but in general balance issues are more a primary symptom of the fact that I don't believe that GW's writers have any clue as to how to balance anything. The simplest thing in the world should be to base the costs of units and options in specific chapter marine codex books off of the vanilla marines book, but they can't even do something as simple as that. So instead we end up with Long Fangs, cheaper weapon options, ability to split fire and other abilities all for less than a devastator model would cost. That is just stupid and very poorly done. Simple situation: Take the baseline vanilla codex when writing the next chapter specific book. If the unit is BETTER than the equivilant in the vanilla book then it costs more. If it is worse then it costs less. All weapons should cost the same across the board as well. So a heavy weapon marine pays the same for his heavy weapon whether he is a space puppy, dark angel or imperial fist. Again, they can't even do that, which would be incredibly simple to do if they just tried. After they had that in place they could extrapolate those costs for individual models and unit options across to other armies and generally get the per model cost based on model stats and unit options relatively consistent across the board. Again, since they can't even do it with space marine chapter codecies this is impossible for them.
2) It irks me after all these years and rules versions that GW still has no clue how to make tighter rules and actually IMPROVE their rules instead of just changing them apparently on a whim. Edition X has too much power in the hands of shooting units, so in X+1 instead of balancing more towards shooting and melee being on par they usually go the complete opposite direction and make melee king. Then in X+2, they swing back to shooting after all the player complaints. Thus every edition people's armies have to change. How annoying, but it does sell more minis. Meanwhile if they balanced it more no specific army build would dominate from a given codex and more options would see time on the table top in my opinion.
3) I don't necessarily consider small and large terrain designations to be important rules, but I do agree that somethings just are not included at times or even spelled out clearly enough to make even the slightest sense. My fav was the marking of Nobz, Wolfguard and Paladins as characters in the update lists in the back of the new rule book leading many to believe that meant they now had full units of characters who could all issue challanges and the like. Only the space wolf FAQ specifically mentioned a ruling that made this seem unlikely, but since GW is not consistent across its books of course no one accept that as to likely apply to the other units. Eventually it came out in the main rulebook FAQ that they were only characters when leading a unit. So the leader of a Nobz squad was a character, but the rest of them weren't.
4) In any game there is some abstraction that is necessary to simulate a fight. Personally I think it makes sense that when your models are being killed from a certain direction then the models on that side of the unit should be taking casulaties. It isn't the fault of the rules if you play a horde force and need to move more things forward. I disliked that you could easily target an opponent's special weapon and heavy weapon models, though I also disliked the change to targeting that pretty much meant those models *always* survived until the very end as well.
People will use the reasoning that other game companies' rulesets are not perfect as an excuse for how GW does things. Other ruleset writers actually *fix* their rules issues eventually, though and that is an area where GW has long failed. The only game I feel that they succeeded with is Bloodbowl, which has been updated through the years, but its basic concepts have remained the same and been refined through the years. The game play is effective, consistent and also fun. Meanwhile each new edition of 40k and WFB plays slightly differently from the last, is inconsistent within itself and while fun can be darn frustrating and annoying at the same time. I find I play less 40k these days simply due to the fact that I have much more fun fighting agaisnt my opponent than fighting against the rules first to get to my opponent. I'll always play 40k, but I would be happier about it if GW would make a real effort to make their rules better.
My experience with 6th so far has been fair.
I think the main rules overall are fine but the problem and over a lot of problems come from out of date codex’s where there are many components don’t even work (command control node lol) I think there would be a lot less complaints if they would at least write all the codex’s at the same time per new edition and actually balance them together. They won’t do it because they are a “model firm” first and instead we get a bunch of individual authors that have wildly different concepts of balance. This is all an opinion though I has no clue how they write internally.
Nate668 wrote: They just don't have the management or game design talent to handle their own product. It's as simple as that. Management isn't willing to risk turning people away from the hobby by making major changes to the rule set, and the game designers aren't talented enough to build a consistent and balanced rule set that accomodates the old codecies that are still in use.
Well this would really be tough given the lack of consistency in the codex books themselves too. It will be hard to make a ruleset today that would put the old tau codex on par with the current Grey knights codex. The books are just written so radically different from each other in power level it would be hard. Honestly if the codex books were made more consistent with each other it would make the overall rules issues less painful because you wouldn't be fighting inconsistent rules and codex power creep at the same time.
Either way it has to start somewhere. The shift from 1st edition of Flames of War to 2nd editon Flames of war was a bit dramatic, but necessary to establish some new standards for the game. This meant that the shift from 2nd to 3rd edition was less dramatic and actually significantly improved those areas of the rules that were not as robust and that bothered players a lot. Just the fact that Battlefront focused a lot of its fixed for 3rd edition in those areas their customers had been having issues with regularly also bespeaks to a company that is paying attention to the wants and needs of its player base and not just walking around with the "we are the best game company out there and know better than everyone" approach that GW uses at times.
Desubot wrote: My experience with 6th so far has been fair.
I think the main rules overall are fine but the problem and over a lot of problems come from out of date codex’s where there are many components don’t even work (command control node lol) I think there would be a lot less complaints if they would at least write all the codex’s at the same time per new edition and actually balance them together. They won’t do it because they are a “model firm” first and instead we get a bunch of individual authors that have wildly different concepts of balance. This is all an opinion though I has no clue how they write internally.
I agree that i dont think/know if doing all codex at once is viable. How ever what they could very well do, is errata the point cost of the units, so you dont get Witches that are T3 armor 5 cost 10 points a pop will likelly die in the now even more fragile vehicles and will have to withstand a round of rapidfire before getting into combat.
Here's a huge shocker; GW doesn't give a flying rat's fart about writing a 'competitive tournament' style rules set like Privateer Press does.
GW themselves have said for years and years that their games are ment to be 'beer and preztals games between friends'.
They tried to make a comprehensive competitive rules set in 4th, and it sucked hard core. Remember how the game turned into nothing but 'Nidzilla or SW's or Flying Circus Eldar with a smattering of 3.5 CSM's? Because that was really fun.
If you want a super ballsbusting hardcore competitive rules set, then go play Warmahordes and be happy. The majority of 40k players aren't tourny players, but somehow, the vocal minority insist that their way is the right way and GW are dumb@$$es for thinking otherwise...
Experiment 626 wrote: Here's a huge shocker; GW doesn't give a flying rat's fart about writing a 'competitive tournament' style rules set like Privateer Press does.
GW themselves have said for years and years that their games are ment to be 'beer and preztals games between friends'.
They tried to make a comprehensive competitive rules set in 4th, and it sucked hard core. Remember how the game turned into nothing but 'Nidzilla or SW's or Flying Circus Eldar with a smattering of 3.5 CSM's? Because that was really fun.
If you want a super ballsbusting hardcore competitive rules set, then go play Warmahordes and be happy. The majority of 40k players aren't tourny players, but somehow, the vocal minority insist that their way is the right way and GW are dumb@$$es for thinking otherwise...
You can have a tight rules set and not give a flying fart about tournaments. No one brought up tournaments before you really...
It's not about wanting tight rules for competitiveness. It's about not wanting arguments about something that should be easy to read and figure out.
Having a tight rules set leads to the potential for a competitive environment, but (obviously) it's not required.
Solid reliable consistent rules help everyone. Loose rules piss people off (both competitive and not).
They tried to make a comprehensive competitive rules set in 4th, and it sucked hard core. Remember how the game turned into nothing but 'Nidzilla or SW's or Flying Circus Eldar with a smattering of 3.5 CSM's? Because that was really fun.
Solid reliable consistent rules help everyone. Loose rules piss people off (both competitive and not).
This, pretty much. I'm not planning on ever doing a tourney, but I'd like things to be as clearly stated as possible. I can still have a beer and pretzel game just as well without the "Wait, what?" moments.
Experiment 626 wrote: Here's a huge shocker; GW doesn't give a flying rat's fart about writing a 'competitive tournament' style rules set like Privateer Press does.
GW themselves have said for years and years that their games are ment to be 'beer and preztals games between friends'.
They tried to make a comprehensive competitive rules set in 4th, and it sucked hard core. Remember how the game turned into nothing but 'Nidzilla or SW's or Flying Circus Eldar with a smattering of 3.5 CSM's? Because that was really fun.
If you want a super ballsbusting hardcore competitive rules set, then go play Warmahordes and be happy. The majority of 40k players aren't tourny players, but somehow, the vocal minority insist that their way is the right way and GW are dumb@$$es for thinking otherwise...
Super Ballbusting Competitive and Consistent are not the same thing, nor are they mutually exclusive. All I'm asking for is a rule set that is well defined and consistent, so that it's possible to get through a game without a rules dispute. If somebody has a question about a rule, you should be able to look it up and say "here, this is what the book says," but with 40k, it's "here, this is what the book says," followed by 10 minutes of discussion about what it actually means, or a random roll-off to decide who's right.
Experiment 626 wrote: Here's a huge shocker; GW doesn't give a flying rat's fart about writing a 'competitive tournament' style rules set like Privateer Press does.
GW themselves have said for years and years that their games are ment to be 'beer and preztals games between friends'.
They tried to make a comprehensive competitive rules set in 4th, and it sucked hard core. Remember how the game turned into nothing but 'Nidzilla or SW's or Flying Circus Eldar with a smattering of 3.5 CSM's? Because that was really fun.
If you want a super ballsbusting hardcore competitive rules set, then go play Warmahordes and be happy. The majority of 40k players aren't tourny players, but somehow, the vocal minority insist that their way is the right way and GW are dumb@$$es for thinking otherwise...
This is like selling a 3 wheel car because you know, it is not supposed to be a "racing" car...
xxvaderxx wrote: 1- Balance issues all over the place. Done on porpoise to boost sales mostly i know.
2- Rules that don't add up or have consistency issues.
3- Obvious lack of important rules like what actually are "small" and "large" terrain pieces.
4- Painful rules to apply while gaming like removing guys from the front when it applies to a 20+ piled in unit.
Alright. Well don't play the game then.
But, I must answer your points...
1. A corporation trying to make money?!?!!!!? The Mayans were right, the world is ending.
2. Because humans are, ya know, perfect beings that create perfect products.
3. Er, where in the rules does this matter? It doesn't say "Place X large and Y small terrain pieces on the battlefield" or anything. You just place terrain based on what looks cool and is relatively fair for both players.
4. So common sense is painful. Hrm. No wonder it's such a rare trait (myself included at times).
Use your models and play another game system, there are countless free Sci-Fi games out there on the internet that you can use for them, and also quite a few really good buy-able Sci-Fi games. GW won't be changing the way they make their games anytime soon.
I also see most of the problem is not with the BRB, but mostly with the codexes. The older codexes have so many rules that don't line up. But, here lays an issue.
GW has multiple writers. This brings up the issue that every writer has different ideas so we get varying codex strengths. Also, they may get released at different times but they all come out fairly regularly (with the exception of a few Special SM chapters that seem to have been forgotten).
Now, they could balance them out by having one or two writers who share a vision. BUT the issue there is we would be getting a new codex once every few years (because they will take their sweet time, and accounting that they don't start the new one ASAP after the last one). And a new edition? That's gonna take a longggggg time.
Now they could just release all the new edition codexes at the same time as a new edition, but again that would take a long time between updates and balance could be an issue.
However, I would much prefer a good rough balance between them all rather than speed
Testify wrote: Probably because it's incredible obscure? I don't think I've ever met anyone in the UK who's heard of it.
However feel free to *back up your point* by comparing and contrasting it to 40k.
Ahh the typical "not in my country" position...reminds me of a line from the Mel Brooks film To Be or Not to Be: "How can you not have heard of Frederic Bronski? He's world famous in Poland!"
No point in trying to explain the way the rest of the world gaming market exists and works outside the UK today since you have your blinders on.
xxvaderxx wrote: 1- Balance issues all over the place. Done on porpoise to boost sales mostly i know.
2- Rules that don't add up or have consistency issues.
3- Obvious lack of important rules like what actually are "small" and "large" terrain pieces.
4- Painful rules to apply while gaming like removing guys from the front when it applies to a 20+ piled in unit.
Alright. Well don't play the game then.
But, I must answer your points...
1. A corporation trying to make money?!?!!!!? The Mayans were right, the world is ending.
2. Because humans are, ya know, perfect beings that create perfect products.
3. Er, where in the rules does this matter? It doesn't say "Place X large and Y small terrain pieces on the battlefield" or anything. You just place terrain based on what looks cool and is relatively fair for both players.
4. So common sense is painful. Hrm. No wonder it's such a rare trait (myself included at times).
I surely could, how ever given i have spent hundreds of dollars in this game, i would rather it not follow the course Fantasy did (on which i have also spent hundreds of dollars) gathering dust on my shelf.
washout77 wrote: I also see most of the problem is not with the BRB, but mostly with the codexes. The older codexes have so many rules that don't line up. But, here lays an issue.
The BRB is a big part of the issue because the ruleset is not really any better today than it was in 3rd edition. It just keep changing instead of improving. Thus when a new BRB comes out it can invalidate certain aspects of already existing codecies. If the rules were improvements instead of outright changes there would be less direct impact on the codex lists and less need to always have to be rewriting the codex lists either. Then when they are rewritten they can also focus on improving instead of just adapting to the way the new rules have changed, so that they continue to be less contingent on the specifics of the BRB. It is all one big process, and acting like one part is not an issue is just incorrect.
Clear concise rules are not mutually exclusive from having fun. When people are calling you tfg in a pickup game just because you know 6th ed rules (chimeras can flat out, rapid fire can shoot full range and move, etc.) something is horribly wrong.
The only way they're fixing this game is starting over again from step 1 and burning the current ruleset to the ground so they can start fresh. GW will never do this.
I only play now because I still love the universe and because it's the main game my friends play. I'm getting into Bolt Action and looking for a sci fi game to get into as well for "serious" games.
Simply put, 40k is turning into a chore to play, rather than a fun game. It'll be the death of it eventually, but its going to take an even bigger mess than 6th to do it.
Hey guys im really new to 40k but i like the rules tbh, seems all good to me, me n my mates have a right laugh when we play, the clues are in the format, its a game, not to be taken too seriously, hope im not the only one who thinks that.
MrMoustaffa wrote: The only way they're fixing this game is starting over again from step 1 and burning the current ruleset to the ground so they can start fresh. GW will never do this.
Given that they did exactly that when going from 2nd to 3rd, I think 'never' is a bit too strong a term.
Also, people have called you tfg for knowing the rules? That's rough man! I've never heard of such a thing. I've certainly played people who have been caught out by not knowing a key rule change, but every time it's been met with "Wow, it's played like that now? Damn! I'll remember that for next time!"
edit: to obi - It's not just you, I've been playing 40k for a long time and I play it because it's fun. I've tried other miniatures games and for me, 40k is still my favourite. It's all a matter of personal preference. Don't worry about it
obi wan shinobi wrote: Hey guys im really new to 40k but i like the rules tbh, seems all good to me, me n my mates have a right laugh when we play, the clues are in the format, its a game, not to be taken too seriously, hope im not the only one who thinks that.
Ah fresh meat Haha Its not the game part thats the problem for alot of us, play a few other games and youl see. I play most other games like this, its fun none of the rules hassle we get from 40k. Like was said above, i dont like having to go from enjoying my game to a half hour of looking through multiple books just to figure out how to interpret rule X.
As for privateer press, "not in england" or whatever was said? Seriously? Maybe try playing somewhere other than your attic mate, dont know about you but its bigger than 40k in the several FLGS around me Hell one of them has a warmahordes wall bigger than the GW stock.
As for privateer press, "not in england" or whatever was said? Seriously? Maybe try playing somewhere other than your attic mate, dont know about you but its bigger than 40k in the several FLGS around me Hell one of them has a warmahordes wall bigger than the GW stock.
Meh, no one really dwells on that comment, those are GWs coins ringing on his pocket.
Hi all.
Just to clarify.
Developing a well defined elegant and intuitive rule set is VERY labour intensive and difficult to do.
And is ONLY needed if you require the rules to generate and retain interest in your game and associated products.
You know like game companies who need every gamer to use word of mouth to promote their games.
Compared to 40k , 40k is an all right game.
Only when compared to other rule sets does 40k seem counter intuitive and clunky..
40k is a fun game.
Other rule sets are well defined intuitive easy to learn and fun.(Not to mention cheaper too!)
Lanrak wrote: Hi all.
Just to clarify.
Developing a well defined elegant and intuitive rule set is VERY labour intensive and difficult to do.
And is ONLY needed if you require the rules to generate and retain interest in your game and associated products.
You know like game companies who need every gamer to use word of mouth to promote their games.
Compared to 40k , 40k is an all right game.
Only when compared to other rule sets does 40k seem counter intuitive and clunky..
40k is a fun game.
Other rule sets are well defined intuitive easy to learn and fun.(Not to mention cheaper too!)
Guess what I would rather play.
Haha and bricks are great for brain surgery compared to bricks ^^ But damn that hi-tech medical equipment is looking nice im joking obviously mate, and agree with your point. Its why GW seems like its relegated now to being the "entry hobby" compared to the other games, that is at least till they change or whatever.
@Cryogen, I know what they did between 2nd and 3rd, but I highly doubt we'll see it again. Gw would have to rewrite every codex, or drop some entirely, and the way they are now I just dont see them doing that.
As for the TFG incident, the flatout bit angered him the most for some reason, when i did a couple of things that would've been considered "beardier (for example, using the fact that you can place a template wherever you want on a vehicle now to ensure better results if it scatters) I had to come in turn 2 and moved a couple of chimeras and a battlewagon flat out. I showed him where it was and that literally almost every vehicle can do it now but he was still upset.
To be fair, i think the guy had had a long day or something. He's usually really nice so I figure he just had a rough day at work. had a beautiful sisters of battle army too.
Gaming company inertia.
They've had the "same" game for so long, that changing it to a different way of playing would be too much effort.
Too old, too set in their ways, are they.
They cannot change, they are like the rock of Mcdonalds.
Hey now Mcdonalds changed! Pretty sure the kids meal toys back in my day were awesome! Got some rose tinted glasses from there once, great things, wonder where i left them
obi wan shinobi wrote: Hey guys im really new to 40k but i like the rules tbh, seems all good to me, me n my mates have a right laugh when we play, the clues are in the format, its a game, not to be taken too seriously, hope im not the only one who thinks that.
You're not. That's pretty much how it goes when I play. We play and have a laugh making our plastic soldiers murder each other. No need to fuss about it.
While I can't say I've lived through the editions like some people. I like putting in my two cents. And here it is. I agree that the codexes (Codices?) should be put out at the same time. I don't remember who said something about just one team of writers with a vision could do it but it would take longer between editions.
Well I say that would be a worthy trade off. I mean I'm sure most people who play the more neglected and older codexes (Codices? I really can't remember which) will agree that they'd rather have a book that was written with the current edition in mind. Heck, if the DE codex had held up long enough for the new edition to be released then people probably would either
(A) have a lot less wyches sitting on the shelf/in an army case
(B) probably have a codex written with the 6th edition rules on assault and vehicles written in mind.
That being said, someone else said something about restarting the rules completely and trying something completely new. I don't see why that would be nessesary. The current rules have the potential to be a smooth and easy game to play. Heck, hasn't anyone tried playing the Dark Vengence starter box according to the "Read This First" basic rules? Pretty quick game regardless of size. So the potential is there for streamlining the game. It might take a lot of work. Especially cutting out a lot of rules. But it's possible.
Finally There was something said about consistant rules are automatically competitive. I don't buy it. Checkers is consise and easy to pick up, and it's both for laid back "Pretzel with a beer" and can be played competitively. I see no reason Or law of physics that says the same cant be done for 40k
That's my two cents, make of it what you will. Just remember while fun and immersive, 40k is still a game and nobody should get overly upset about.
xxvaderxx wrote: 1- Balance issues all over the place. Done on porpoise to boost sales mostly i know.
Balance would imply that everything was built to have a counter in every other codex. About half a thousand threads on this already.
xxvaderxx wrote: 2- Rules that don't add up or have consistency issues.
Again, consistency would be accomplished if one team was writing all the rules and they all dropped at the same time.
xxvaderxx wrote: 3- Obvious lack of important rules like what actually are "small" and "large" terrain pieces.
It's called common sense and judgement. Start using it.
xxvaderxx wrote: 4- Painful rules to apply while gaming like removing guys from the front when it applies to a 20+ piled in unit.
Would you complain if the opposite of the rule was used against you? Peeling CC wounds off the back makes no sense and can make assaults into boring grindfests. Taking from the front, especially when your opponent beats you on initiative makes it possible to shuffle some guys around when their turn comes in.
Yes, it is an imperfect system. Thank you. We all got that memo. Got something to contribute?
Use your models and play another game system, there are countless free Sci-Fi games out there on the internet that you can use for them, and also quite a few really good buy-able Sci-Fi games. GW won't be changing the way they make their games anytime soon.
For real though; these threads are reoccurring, absurd, and go nowhere, save for a dark place where emotions get flared, insults get thrown, and everyone ends up looking ridiculous.
If you hate GW's rules enough to snap over it, play different editions.
Like people do with D&D.
If you don't want to do that, play other games. Or don't.
It's super simple.
Like not eating food you dislike, driving cars you think are crap, and owning pets you don't want to take care of. Don't like it, don't do/buy it. Unless you're a masochist. Then...yeah.
washout77 wrote: GW has multiple writers. This brings up the issue that every writer has different ideas so we get varying codex strengths. Also, they may get released at different times but they all come out fairly regularly (with the exception of a few Special SM chapters that seem to have been forgotten).
Now, they could balance them out by having one or two writers who share a vision. BUT the issue there is we would be getting a new codex once every few years (because they will take their sweet time, and accounting that they don't start the new one ASAP after the last one). And a new edition? That's gonna take a longggggg time.
The problem isn't having multiple writers, it's that GW is incredibly lazy about creating new rules and refuses to accept that anyone plays it as anything other than a "beer and pretzels" game with lots of house rules and a focus on the GW (tm) Hobby (tm) and caring more about buying more GW (tm) Products (tm) than the actual game.
For an example of the alternative, WOTC has a large group of designers and they use a different team for each set, but because they have a thorough playtesting process and good standards for how to do things balance from set to set is pretty consistent, and the game feels like a unified product. GW could easily do this, they'd just have to have the initial author write the first codex draft, then refine everything through proper playtesting. The concepts and fluff would all be from one author, but after a consistent playtesting and balancing process all codices would be at roughly the same power level.
At a minimum, use words consistently. Remove From Play vs Remove From Play As A Casualty. Or define them if you're going to use them.
Don't ignore things for multiple editions that are literally just sloppy writing (Seriously - 6th edition vehicles still can't make invul saves) (Also - FNP vs other "unsaved wound" abilities).
Read through YMDC and the long threads - a few extra minutes spent on the rule set would've avoided 99% of them.
The problem isn't having multiple writers, it's that GW is incredibly lazy about creating new rules and refuses to accept that anyone plays it as anything other than a "beer and pretzels" game with lots of house rules and a focus on the GW (tm) Hobby (tm) and caring more about buying more GW (tm) Products (tm) than the actual game.
You mean they have a target demographic that you're not in? And you think this makes them bad?
If I don't like sandwiches I won't go into subway and complain about how crappy their sandwiches are.
Testify wrote: You mean they have a target demographic that you're not in? And you think this makes them bad?
Again, look at MTG. If you're a competitive player, you're the target demographic. Here's the pro tour, sanctioned and supported local tournaments, a complex and balanced metagame, and perfect loophole-free rules. If you're a casual "kitchen table" player, you're the target demographic. Here's special casual-only sets, and plenty of cards in every set. If you like the game but really love the fluff, you're the target demographic. Here's awesome art, novels, and frequent short stories/background articles/etc on the website. The general policy of WOTC is that everyone who could like MTG is the target demographic, and they devote a lot of effort to figuring out what each player archetype likes and giving it to them.
Compare this to GW, where all they care about is one target audience and they make very little effort to expand the game beyond it. It's lazy game design, and the sooner the company dies and gets bought by professionals the better.
Testify wrote: Casual gamers are a far larger market than "hardcore" gamers.
Why is this an either/or thing? You can keep both markets happy, and even if hardcore gamers are a smaller market the sum of both markets is still larger than just the casual gamer market.
Games Workshop have always been about making awesome models with some rules to play battles with. I don't get the issue here.
Because it's lazy, unprofessional game design, and they could make a better product if they bothered to invest the effort required. Which is why I hope that GW dies and gets bought by a better company, so we can have the same awesome models but with awesome rules as well.
At a minimum, use words consistently. Remove From Play vs Remove From Play As A Casualty. Or define them if you're going to use them.
Don't ignore things for multiple editions that are literally just sloppy writing (Seriously - 6th edition vehicles still can't make invul saves) (Also - FNP vs other "unsaved wound" abilities).
Read through YMDC and the long threads - a few extra minutes spent on the rule set would've avoided 99% of them.
So you want a literalist 40k?
21st century digital world eh.
No? I want consistency. For all its other failures Battletech was a pretty solid rules set. Seriously - you're okay with glaring errors like the ones I mentioned consistently being ignored when it'd literally be a 30 minute meeting to decide how they want it to work and a sentence or two of clarification?
You mean they have a target demographic that you're not in? And you think this makes them bad?
If I don't like sandwiches I won't go into subway and complain about how crappy their sandwiches are.
As a casual player I would benefit from a consistent rules set. This isn't a casual vs hardcore thing. You're going to say that you've never paused a casual game to discuss a rule?
3- Obvious lack of important rules like what actually are "small" and "large" terrain pieces.
Use your initiative.
.
or in other words: "here's a car! but you need to build the engine yourself!" Here is the problem testift. "use your initiative". yes, i can do it. it takes 2 minutes to discuss with my opponent what's what. fine. no worries. but to be fair, is it necessary? I find if i'm doing that, im doing the job the games developer should have done in the first place. effectively, its a half finished product, and i, and other players have to self-police it, and finish their bloody job. its lazy design. the guys at PP define everything in their game down to what "voluntary" movement is, as opposed to forced movement. it makes everything clear and consistent.
rigeld2 wrote:
People keep saying that when it's been demonstrated that they make rules that don't have any existing models - and wait literally years before making those models.
If models came first, that would not be the case.
because they place their emphasis on producing and selling models, and *the hobby*, as opposed to producing rules. hence they're a "model company first". they might not have everything at launch, but it is their intention to produce those models.
Testify wrote:
There are a lot of people on dakka who insist that 40k's rules are a pile of crap. Seems weird that 40k is so popular really
debateable really. i play in 2 gaming groups. in one there is far more interest in bloodbowl than 40k, and non-gw games easily make up 50% of whats played. the other has an equal split in its player base between flames of war, warmachine/hordes and malifaux. and im not just talking about bob and mike turning up. 40k used to be the only game in town, but in the last 3 years, other companies have made their own space.
Here's a huge shocker; GW doesn't give a flying rat's fart about writing a 'competitive tournament' style rules set like Privateer Press does.
GW themselves have said for years and years that their games are ment to be 'beer and preztals games between friends'.
They tried to make a comprehensive competitive rules set in 4th, and it sucked hard core. Remember how the game turned into nothing but 'Nidzilla or SW's or Flying Circus Eldar with a smattering of 3.5 CSM's? Because that was really fun.
If you want a super ballsbusting hardcore competitive rules set, then go play Warmahordes and be happy. The majority of 40k players aren't tourny players, but somehow, the vocal minority insist that their way is the right way and GW are dumb@$$es for thinking otherwise...
i wouldnt consider 4th a competitive rules set. it was like any other edition, and pushed certain things at the expense of others. its true that GeeDub want to push the beer and pretzels games between friends, but bear in mind, clear, consise and well written rules is not necessarily the same as a hardcore competitive rules set, nor will it necessarily lead to ine.
Testify wrote:
Probably because it's incredible obscure? I don't think I've ever met anyone in the UK who's heard of it.
quite a few of us have actually.its really got quite a big and dynamic (and continually growing) player base. you should get out more Like i've said, plenty gaming groups have quit 40k altogether. plenty others have other games getting a lot of table time. there is a huge world of wargaming out there beyond 2 friends at a house, and the GW store.
Honestly - why does GW produce a poor quality rules set? because they're not interested in making a better one. Its not the designers - trust me, they have a very talented team. its just the culture in Gee Dub prevents them from doing good stuff. take anyone who has left GeeDub - Andy Chambers, Alessio, those guys at Mantic. they all produced good stuff afterwards. Its just not in GWs interest to make good rules. lets say they make the perfect rules set. now there is no more need for new editions. and its as simple as that; they're more interested in changing the meta, and pushing different aspects of the game in each edition, than they are in improving it.
^^^BINGO!^^^ We have a winner! The last couple of editions have been deliberate lateral moves, not improvements. GW doesn't deny it; it's a mystery so many gamers do.
GW has flat-out said in WD Editorials that they're about you buying and collecting their products first and foremost. Rules and setting are secondary so they put less effort into them.
xxvaderxx wrote: 1- Balance issues all over the place. Done on porpoise to boost sales mostly i know.
Heard of the term "perfect imbalance"? "metagame"? "lead disadvantage"? these same concept are why the "best" and "op" units/armies, are in fact often the least successful in a real competitive environment. especially in a game like 40K where the precise cost/effect of everything is open information and possible to calculate just how powerful each thing is.
Thats why even things like my stealth suits, who are deemed horrible by calculations, tend to wrech face. how often do you see something that is actually prepared for them on the other side of the field?
Thats why my broadsides, who are an incredible AT unit, tend not to do well, people KNOW they are coming, they KNOW what they do, and they KNOW they need an answer to that.
Sometimes stuff are strong because they are weak. gaming is weird like that.
True that they dont pull this off perfectly, but thats a side-effect of the need to keep age-old rulesets in the game without a real ability to update them constantly (and don't use FAQ for an answer, many would not stand for the need to check an FAQ before any freaking game to make sure their army didn't change costs/abilities/whatever. especially when some people buy a spesific model list for their armies, do you think one will be happy to discover his army that he spend lots of money on and time to build and paint is suddenly 10% or even 2% higher in points? heck no. but being left behind while new stuff comes out that makes your still as legal army not function as good? fine with me.
xxvaderxx wrote: 2- Rules that don't add up or have consistency issues.
Do share, I have personally never encountered some situation where we could not agree on what is supposed to be the rules, even if we did not think that the rule made sense.
xxvaderxx wrote: 3- Obvious lack of important rules like what actually are "small" and "large" terrain pieces.
Does it matter? as long the scale you set for "small" and "large" is identical at every single game, nothing changed. plus-considering most terrain pieces are custom-made, and not everything is nice and square but often in odd shapes-how CAN you rule it? by volume? like hell I would sit and calculate the volume of each random ruin/pillar/forest/whatever we got lying around in the FLGS (we got enough to populate 10 tables at once, at maximum density, and have spares. seriously there are at least 50 building-scale pieces and 300 that are tank-size or smaller around. plus a few that are about titan sized.)
xxvaderxx wrote: 4- Painful rules to apply while gaming like removing guys from the front when it applies to a 20+ piled in unit.
How is that painful? seems easier then opening a jar of mayo to me.
And the rule of simplification always applies-when in doubt, dice it.
Peregrine wrote:
Why is this an either/or thing? You can keep both markets happy, and even if hardcore gamers are a smaller market the sum of both markets is still larger than just the casual gamer market.
Not really. Most casual gamers would be put off by a ruleset that catered towards hardcore gamers. You can't have Company of Heroes *and* The Operational Art of War in the same game.
Peregrine wrote:
Because it's lazy, unprofessional game design, and they could make a better product if they bothered to invest the effort required. Which is why I hope that GW dies and gets bought by a better company, so we can have the same awesome models but with awesome rules as well.
In your humble opinion. There are many problems with GW, but the ruleset, which is generally considered their best yet, isn't one of them.
rigeld2 wrote:
No? I want consistency. For all its other failures Battletech was a pretty solid rules set. Seriously - you're okay with glaring errors like the ones I mentioned consistently being ignored when it'd literally be a 30 minute meeting to decide how they want it to work and a sentence or two of clarification?
Yes but the major issues have been rectified. They don't need to fix tiny semantic things that say, allow you to outflank in your opponent's turn, because only people on the internet care about that gak.
Peregrine wrote:
As a casual player I would benefit from a consistent rules set. This isn't a casual vs hardcore thing. You're going to say that you've never paused a casual game to discuss a rule?
Of course I have, but 99% of the the time it's because none of us could be arsed to print off the FAQs. Compared to inconsistancies in computer games, which are about 100 times easier to fix, there aren't that many.
Peregrine wrote:
Why is this an either/or thing? You can keep both markets happy, and even if hardcore gamers are a smaller market the sum of both markets is still larger than just the casual gamer market.
Not really. Most casual gamers would be put off by a ruleset that catered towards hardcore gamers. You can't have Company of Heroes *and* The Operational Art of War in the same game.
How would casual gamers be put off by a clear and consice ruleset that isn't ambiguous? That doesn't make any sense!
Peregrine wrote:
Why is this an either/or thing? You can keep both markets happy, and even if hardcore gamers are a smaller market the sum of both markets is still larger than just the casual gamer market.
Not really. Most casual gamers would be put off by a ruleset that catered towards hardcore gamers. You can't have Company of Heroes *and* The Operational Art of War in the same game.
How would casual gamers be put off by a clear and consice ruleset that isn't ambiguous? That doesn't make any sense!
Asking for a "clear and consise" ruleset is one thing. It is entirely subjective and pointless to ask for it. The rules will be as clear and consise as they make them. Personally I find them pretty unambiguous.
Hvaing played all editions of WFB and 40K I do think the game keeps moving in the right direction in terms of the rules.
I like alot of 8th Ed WFB over 7th - just need to get the one roll magic wins element under control.............so you can actually have a game............
6th Ed 40K - again I like most of the changes - prefer that high WS could actually hit low WS on better than 3+ but hey............
It would in my mind help if they actually released a general codex update as a seperate book - charge £30 - make it pretty and update all the Codexes in one shiny book when the rules came out rather than waiting years fro "your" codex to get proper rules.................
I wouldn't be playing 40K if I didn't like the rules.
Maybe they're not for hardcore tournament players. Good. I play 40K for fun to have a laugh with mates. And I love that every game something weird and unpredicted can happen. GW cannot predict every possible event in such a large game.
As for balance. I hear the term 'power creep' used a lot. A better one would be marketing. I've been gaming for 25 years, it's nothing new. The only thing new is the internet giving everyone the chance to whine at a larger audience.
Testify wrote:Asking for a "clear and consise" ruleset is one thing. It is entirely subjective and pointless to ask for it. The rules will be as clear and consise as they make them. Personally I find them pretty unambiguous.
I have to disagree heavily on this. Check the YMDC forums if you don't agree, and I believe (unless you have blinders on in addition to rose colored glasses) you will realize you have made a mistake with this statement.
Mr Morden wrote:prefer that high WS could actually hit low WS on better than 3+ but hey............
This has always bugged me. Oh, you are fighting against WS 3, and you have WS4? You hit on a 3+ You are fighting against WS 3 and you have WS 10, basically you are a god in CC? You hit on a 3+.
Mr Morden wrote:It would in my mind help if they actually released a general codex update as a seperate book - charge £30 - make it pretty and update all the Codexes in one shiny book when the rules came out rather than waiting years fro "your" codex to get proper rules................
I can't see this happening for two major reasons
1. model sales. New codexes get released in conjunction with new waves of models, and as GW themselves have pointed out many times - their goal is to sell models.
2. codex sales. With the new format, they are charging $50 per codex. For people that run multiple armies, if there was only one book, they would lose possibly hundreds of dollars in profit.
And the reason I am glad they don't do this? I hate having to carry around giant books. How large do you think a book would be encompassing every codex? You think the BYB is large? Try lugging around a 1500 page monster. (newest codex release is over 100 pages, I believe it is safe to assume this is the new direction they will be taking)
Yes and no - a new shiny book ecompasing general update for all armies and some nice artwork should likely run to about the same page count as a Codex (say 6-7 pages per faction) - this comes out when you release the rules, then you release the new codexes with new stuff - win win. I do run multiple armies which is why its so annoying that updates are breathtakingly long waits..........
true, the new codex is massively overpirced IMO.
the 3+ WS is just stupid - it worse when you think about a WS10 trying to hit a WS1 on a 3+ and missing with most or all rolls. Yes I have seen and done this..........its extremely annoying - one missed is possible but all of the attacks - - stupid. Double your opponents WS should be 2+, more than that and you get a re-roll.
rigeld2 wrote:
No? I want consistency. For all its other failures Battletech was a pretty solid rules set. Seriously - you're okay with glaring errors like the ones I mentioned consistently being ignored when it'd literally be a 30 minute meeting to decide how they want it to work and a sentence or two of clarification?
Yes but the major issues have been rectified. They don't need to fix tiny semantic things that say, allow you to outflank in your opponent's turn, because only people on the internet care about that gak.
Yeah, things like the Night Scythe interaction with Crash and Burn, FNP vs other unsaved wound mechanics, and vehicles not being able to take invul saves is "tiny semantic things" that "only people on the Internet care about".
What major issues were rectified? Seriously, I'd like to know what you're referring to. Fr every "fix" they've had they've opened up at least one new problem because they aren't consistent with wording. Ignoring that doesn't make it go away, and trying to straw man me doesn't make you correct. (Note that I've never brought up anything to do with outflanking in your opponents turn).
xxvaderxx wrote:1- Balance issues all over the place.
2- Rules that don't add up or have consistency issues.
These are matters of mere opinion, though. All you're saying is that GW doesn't agree with your idea of what balance should be, not that GW isn't doing balance correctly.
Plus, you can either have a rules edition that is carefully balanced, or you can have rules edition that adds new stuff, but you can not have both, especially not at the scale GW is doing things.
xxvaderxx wrote:3- Obvious lack of important rules like what actually are "small" and "large" terrain pieces.
4- Painful rules to apply while gaming like removing guys from the front when it applies to a 20+ piled in unit.
You know, you could always start playing 4th ed with your friends. Both of these were "fixed" back then.
This post is literally flabbergasting considering your epic thread on how you cannot defeat power units without Vendettas.
To put it another way, my best opponents have been moving up to really difficult to kill units, and I'm having a really hard time coping
[...]
If it winds up that literally the only answer is vendettas then I'm going to quit guard until we get a new codex, as being forced to take a single unit in the codex to have any chance of winning sounds like the kind of game I don't want to play.
Trondheim wrote: because they are a model firm first, gaming firm second
People keep saying that when it's been demonstrated that they make rules that don't have any existing models - and wait literally years before making those models.
If models came first, that would not be the case.
They come right out and say that's exactly what they are in their report to shareholders. A model company. The fact that they don't immediately have models but have rules wasn't an issue as it was for future expansion, until others started filling the gaps and threatening their copyright.
Testify wrote: See my above post, which was ignored in all the *hilarity* ensueing a joke about dolphins.
There are a lot of people on dakka who insist that 40k's rules are a pile of crap. Seems weird that 40k is so popular really
Racing is one of the least successful football clubs in recent history in my area, immensely popular thou, popularity is not directly related to quality.
Or alternatively, you've just revealed your arrogance in equating your personal subjective taste with objectivity.
Testify wrote: Not really. Most casual gamers would be put off by a ruleset that catered towards hardcore gamers. You can't have Company of Heroes *and* The Operational Art of War in the same game.
Nonsense. MTG caters towards both at the same time, and both groups love it.
In your humble opinion. There are many problems with GW, but the ruleset, which is generally considered their best yet, isn't one of them.
That just means it's the least garbage, mostly because they finally bothered to release FAQs on something remotely resembling a decent schedule. The core rules still have fundamental issues and GW is still guilty of lazy game design.
Ugavine wrote: IMaybe they're not for hardcore tournament players. Good. I play 40K for fun to have a laugh with mates. And I love that every game something weird and unpredicted can happen. GW cannot predict every possible event in such a large game.
Nonsense. MTG is a FAR more complicated game (simply because it has so many more "units"), and WOTC has predicted every conceivable situation that can occur in the game and given explicit rules to handle it so that the only way you ever solve a rule dispute is by reading the rulebook. And if you somehow manage to create a situation that doesn't yet have an explicit ruling it will be addressed in the next rule update.
And guess what: casual players still love the game.
Nonsense. MTG is a FAR more complicated game (simply because it has so many more "units"), and WOTC has predicted every conceivable situation that can occur in the game and given explicit rules to handle it so that the only way you ever solve a rule dispute is by reading the rulebook. And if you somehow manage to create a situation that doesn't yet have an explicit ruling it will be addressed in the next rule update.
Mainly because they ban sets they've previously released from a certain timeline being used. Seeing as we still have black templars in play.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Mainly because they ban sets they've previously released from a certain timeline being used. Seeing as we still have black templars in play.
Not true.
1) They only ban all but the most recent sets in one tournament format. The game still supports other formats with a range of legal sets, including an "everything legal" format where only a very small number of cards from the earliest days of the game are banned, and only because they aren't compatible with the modern rules (for example, cards that add to ante, from the first year or two before everyone stopped playing for ante).
2) They don't use format rotation as an excuse, and every possible scenario involving those old cards (with those very few exceptions) is covered by the rules to support formats which allow more than just the newest stuff. In fact, the rules for the game spend pages of effort on making explicit rules to support a handful of "problem" cards from earlier sets, before WOTC settled on the modern rules and got better at making cards that don't create rule nightmares.
And of course "GW has old books" is a huge part of their lazy game design problem. If they were professionals they'd update everything to the current rules all at once, but instead we get laughably unprofessional behavior and putting short-term profits ahead of quality work.
Nonsense. MTG caters towards both at the same time, and both groups love it.
So does Halo.
And Starcraft 2.
But they're (MTG, Halo, and SC2) hugely different from 40k. Price, units (or their equivalents), rule distribution, and individual rule-balancing, randomness, and the presence of an extensive set of game-wide rules all make balancing 40k a totally different feat.
Peregrine wrote:
Why is this an either/or thing? You can keep both markets happy, and even if hardcore gamers are a smaller market the sum of both markets is still larger than just the casual gamer market.
Not really. Most casual gamers would be put off by a ruleset that catered towards hardcore gamers. You can't have Company of Heroes *and* The Operational Art of War in the same game.
How would casual gamers be put off by a clear and consice ruleset that isn't ambiguous? That doesn't make any sense!
Asking for a "clear and consise" ruleset is one thing. It is entirely subjective and pointless to ask for it. The rules will be as clear and consise as they make them. Personally I find them pretty unambiguous.
You don't seem to understand us at all Testify. How on earth would "casual" (and I hate that term as much as competitive) be put off by a ruleset that is well written and leaves no room for abuse or confusion? Why would a "casual" (again, only using it because people insist on using it) be turned away by a ruleset that strives to balance all codexes equally, so that if I show up with my IG and you showed up with Tau, we would know that odds are it's a fair fight. Why would a "casual" player not want a ruleset where when they look up a rule, it's simple and to the point, covering any possible oddities, instead of a vaguely written rule that can lead up to a ten minute debate, with the only "solution" is to roll off (and just because your group is cool, doesn't mean everyone has that luxury. I've had friendly pickup games derailed by rules arguments) WHY ON EARTH would "casual" gamers not want that? A simply written, concise, and well balanced game system? By making the game balanced and "competitive" (I.E. in that all the books and most to all playstyles have a decent shot of winning) you allow people to have more fun in the game. A person who wanted to take a Tau army with minimal suits wouldn't be curbstomped every match. An IG player wouldn't have to take vendettas and vets if he wanted to win. Etc. etc. By making the game balanced and giving it a more fine tuned ruleset, you make it more enjoyable and fun for everybody.
Most of the people that are answering could care less for a "hardcore" and needlessly complex ruleset (we have that now ) we're saying that we want a game where they actually take the time to proofread their rules and codexes and not rush things. I hate showing up to a pickup game, and having to have several lists written up. One if someone is looking to play a friendly game, one if a guy wants to practice for a tourney, and another for in case some guy has the cheese of the month. It shouldn't be where people are getting chewed out just because of what codex they picked due to outrageously varied power levels (GK and Necron players get a lot of this this) or even when a player just takes a certain unit (vendettas, paladins, Nob Bikers, etc.) The fact that this sentiment exists at all says a lot for how GW has poorly handled it. Obviously some whining is to be expected, but when you can justifiably prove some armies are more powerful and others, and that units like the Vendetta exist, the system needs to be fixed.
Would you play chess if half the pieces had dodgy rules that were difficult to understand and the Black side was able to take 20% more pieces than you? Of course not. This is what people are feeling with 40k, and it's why they want a more balanced ruleset. If you go to play chess, it's purely determined by skill. You and I could goof around, and have a great time, or, we could play it as seriously as we wanted, and go to a world championship. The rules lend themselves well to both styles of play, and everything in between. Just because chess has rules that allow for tip top competitive play, doesn't prevent kids in gradeschool from playing it and enjoying it as well.
TheCaptain wrote: But they're (MTG, Halo, and SC2) hugely different from 40k. Price, units (or their equivalents), rule distribution, and individual rule-balancing, randomness, and the presence of an extensive set of game-wide rules all make balancing 40k a totally different feat.
It's different, but it's not impossible. The problem is that GW doesn't even try, and then blames the players for "taking it too seriously".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrMoustaffa wrote: By making the game balanced and "competitive" (I.E. in that all the books and most to all playstyles have a decent shot of winning) you allow people to have more fun in the game. A person who wanted to take a Tau army with minimal suits wouldn't be curbstomped every match. An IG player wouldn't have to take vendettas and vets if he wanted to win. Etc. etc. By making the game balanced and giving it a more fine tuned ruleset, you make it more enjoyable and fun for everybody.
Yeah, that's the funny thing about game balance. As much as people try to say it's just about letting TFGWAAC players WAAC, it's really the casual players who benefit the most from a balanced game. Competitive players will just happily win with the best options whatever GW prints, while casual players are screwed if they try to bring anything other than the most powerful lists.
The problem is that GW doesn't even try, and then blames the players for "taking it too seriously".
But if their stance is "beer and pretzels", then that's that, isn't it?
People can go ahead and take it seriously, but that's not their (GW's) aim. They shouldn't be held accountable for the community's choice.
Because I love analogies and comparisons;
Tic-tac-toe. Ridiculously unbalanced. Feel free to run Tic-tac-toe tournaments, but it's going to be unbalanced, because it wasn't intended to be a serious competition.
TheCaptain wrote: But if their stance is "beer and pretzels", then that's that, isn't it?
People can go ahead and take it seriously, but that's not their (GW's) aim. They shouldn't be held accountable for the community's choice.
The point is that good game designers are capable of creating games that are equally enjoyable for both competitive and casual players, and that both groups benefit from the things that make competitive players happy (good balance, clear rules). GWcould make 40k a better game and make everyone happy, but instead they use "beer and pretzels" as an excuse for laughably unprofessional game design and write off entire player archetypes because they're too lazy to do their job right.
Which, like I said, is why I hope GW dies and the IP goes to a better company that understands how to research player archetypes and ensure that everyone is happy.
The problem is that GW doesn't even try, and then blames the players for "taking it too seriously".
But if their stance is "beer and pretzels", then that's that, isn't it?
People can go ahead and take it seriously, but that's not their (GW's) aim. They shouldn't be held accountable for the community's choice.
Because I love analogies and comparisons;
Tic-tac-toe. Ridiculously unbalanced. Feel free to run Tic-tac-toe tournaments, but it's going to be unbalanced, because it wasn't intended to be a serious competition.
This post has earned you the distinction of leaving my ignore list.
TheCaptain wrote: But if their stance is "beer and pretzels", then that's that, isn't it?
People can go ahead and take it seriously, but that's not their (GW's) aim. They shouldn't be held accountable for the community's choice.
The point is that good game designers are capable of creating games that are equally enjoyable for both competitive and casual players, and that both groups benefit from the things that make competitive players happy (good balance, clear rules). GWcould make 40k a better game and make everyone happy, but instead they use "beer and pretzels" as an excuse for laughably unprofessional game design and write off entire player archetypes because they're too lazy to do their job right.
Dude. No. GW have a target market and it's not you, get over it.
Judging from your posts it seems that while you have a decent tactical mind, you clearly don't enjoy playing 40k very much. I'd suggest finding other people to play with?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote:
Yeah, things like the Night Scythe interaction with Crash and Burn, FNP vs other unsaved wound mechanics, and vehicles not being able to take invul saves is "tiny semantic things" that "only people on the Internet care about".
Yes actually. YMMV.
If you choose to take a literalist approach to an implicitly not literalist ruleset, don't be surprised when your approach fails.
rigeld2 wrote:
What major issues were rectified? Seriously, I'd like to know what you're referring to. Fr every "fix" they've had they've opened up at least one new problem because they aren't consistent with wording. Ignoring that doesn't make it go away, and trying to straw man me doesn't make you correct. (Note that I've never brought up anything to do with outflanking in your opponents turn).
Sure I'm going to go through every single edition of every FAQ for every codex and point out things that GW have fixed. If you don't like the FAQs, don't play with them.
MrMoustaffa wrote:
You don't seem to understand us at all Testify. How on earth would "casual" (and I hate that term as much as competitive) be put off by a ruleset that is well written and leaves no room for abuse or confusion?
By virtue of it being unreadable. Ever read a fandex? Or hell, ever *tried* to read a fandex?
MrMoustaffa wrote:
Why would a "casual" (again, only using it because people insist on using it) be turned away by a ruleset that strives to balance all codexes equally, so that if I show up with my IG and you showed up with Tau, we would know that odds are it's a fair fight. Why would a "casual" player not want a ruleset where when they look up a rule, it's simple and to the point, covering any possible oddities, instead of a vaguely written rule that can lead up to a ten minute debate, with the only "solution" is to roll off (and just because your group is cool, doesn't mean everyone has that luxury. I've had friendly pickup games derailed by rules arguments) WHY ON EARTH would "casual" gamers not want that? A simply written, concise, and well balanced game system? By making the game balanced and "competitive" (I.E. in that all the books and most to all playstyles have a decent shot of winning) you allow people to have more fun in the game. A person who wanted to take a Tau army with minimal suits wouldn't be curbstomped every match. An IG player wouldn't have to take vendettas and vets if he wanted to win. Etc. etc. By making the game balanced and giving it a more fine tuned ruleset, you make it more enjoyable and fun for everybody.
I have nothing against internal balance. Don't expect me to defend Nork Deddog or Vendetta's gross under-costing.
MrMoustaffa wrote:
Most of the people that are answering could care less for a "hardcore" and needlessly complex ruleset (we have that now ) we're saying that we want a game where they actually take the time to proofread their rules and codexes and not rush things. I hate showing up to a pickup game, and having to have several lists written up. One if someone is looking to play a friendly game, one if a guy wants to practice for a tourney, and another for in case some guy has the cheese of the month. It shouldn't be where people are getting chewed out just because of what codex they picked due to outrageously varied power levels (GK and Necron players get a lot of this this) or even when a player just takes a certain unit (vendettas, paladins, Nob Bikers, etc.) The fact that this sentiment exists at all says a lot for how GW has poorly handled it. Obviously some whining is to be expected, but when you can justifiably prove some armies are more powerful and others, and that units like the Vendetta exist, the system needs to be fixed.
Again, you're playing at a competative or semi-competative environment. 40k isn't designed for that. None of my friends and I play cheese/netlists, and our games are always good fun. It seems that people who try to play competatively are the ones who don't enjoy 40k.
MrMoustaffa wrote:
Would you play chess if half the pieces had dodgy rules that were difficult to understand and the Black side was able to take 20% more pieces than you? Of course not. This is what people are feeling with 40k, and it's why they want a more balanced ruleset. If you go to play chess, it's purely determined by skill. You and I could goof around, and have a great time, or, we could play it as seriously as we wanted, and go to a world championship. The rules lend themselves well to both styles of play, and everything in between. Just because chess has rules that allow for tip top competitive play, doesn't prevent kids in gradeschool from playing it and enjoying it as well.
Chess also has 0 randomness. Good luck creating a game system that is both completely balanced and allows for randomness while remaining both playable and easy to learn for young adolescents.
Testify wrote: Dude. No. GW have a target market and it's not you, get over it.
Again, the whole point is that it's bad game design to declare that you have a "target market" and ignore all other markets because you're too lazy to create a better game with broader appeal. Other games manage to be extremely popular and successful with both casual AND competitive players, so why should we excuse GW's failure to do so as well?
But really, the difference is simple:
WOTC asks "who wants to play MTG", researches what each group of players likes about the game, and ensures that everyone gets what they want out of it.
GW declares their "target market" and pretends that everyone else doesn't exist.
Can you seriously say that GW's plan is better?
Judging from your posts it seems that while you have a decent tactical mind, you clearly don't enjoy playing 40k very much. I'd suggest finding other people to play with?
I enjoy 40k, despite its flaws. However, I'm not going to excuse GW's failures just because they succeeded in some areas, especially when 40k would be a much better game if they did their jobs right.
If you choose to take a literalist approach to an implicitly not literalist ruleset, don't be surprised when your approach fails.
How exactly is "don't be literalist" a better way of doing things than just having rules that aren't ambiguous?
By virtue of it being unreadable. Ever read a fandex? Or hell, ever *tried* to read a fandex?
Yeah, because MTG is "unreadable" for casual players, which is why none of them play it.
Oh wait, casual players love MTG even though there are absolutely no ambiguous rules or room for dispute.
Again, you're playing at a competative or semi-competative environment. 40k isn't designed for that. None of my friends and I play cheese/netlists, and our games are always good fun. It seems that people who try to play competatively are the ones who don't enjoy 40k.
And that's why 40k is an example of lazy game design. A well-designed game would be enjoyable for competitive players while still being just as enjoyable for casual players.
Chess also has 0 randomness. Good luck creating a game system that is both completely balanced and allows for randomness while remaining both playable and easy to learn for young adolescents.
Ever hear of this game called MTG? Very well balanced, incorporates a strong random element, and playable and easy to learn for new players.
TheCaptain wrote: But they're (MTG, Halo, and SC2) hugely different from 40k. Price, units (or their equivalents), rule distribution, and individual rule-balancing, randomness, and the presence of an extensive set of game-wide rules all make balancing 40k a totally different feat.
It's different, but it's not impossible. The problem is that GW doesn't even try.
I find it hard to believe they didn't try to balance the rules.
Yeah, because MTG is "unreadable" for casual players, which is why none of them play it.
Oh wait, casual players love MTG even though there are absolutely no ambiguous rules or room for dispute.
Not where we game - its all about who can spend the most omoney on the I win you loose cards - I quite playing after the fiasco with the afinity / artefact lands that was broken from turn 1 of any game they were in - yeah that was playtested and balanced. That and the obvious continuing powercreep.............
That and the ultra complicated stacking system meant I gave up on - not played since............40K is not perfect but at least I still enjoy it
xxvaderxx wrote: Srry to burst your bubble, Warmahordes has a much higher unit count than WH40K and 2 different rules systems and actually manage to strike a much better balance than GW does.
If Warmahordes is so much better, go play it.
Seriously, negative attitudes don't help the game or the community of 40k gamers. Yes, the game is not perfect, but it is what it is. Noone is making you play this hobby.
Peregrine wrote:
Why is this an either/or thing? You can keep both markets happy, and even if hardcore gamers are a smaller market the sum of both markets is still larger than just the casual gamer market.
Not really. Most casual gamers would be put off by a ruleset that catered towards hardcore gamers. You can't have Company of Heroes *and* The Operational Art of War in the same game.
the assumption that clear anc consise rules sets are for hardcore gamers is ridiculous if you ask me. clear and consise is just that - clear and consise, and can be used by both casual, and hardcore players in equal measure. grassroots soccer leagues, and premiership divisions all play from the same rulebook.
Testify wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Because it's lazy, unprofessional game design, and they could make a better product if they bothered to invest the effort required. Which is why I hope that GW dies and gets bought by a better company, so we can have the same awesome models but with awesome rules as well.
In your humble opinion. There are many problems with GW, but the ruleset, which is generally considered their best yet, isn't one of them.
your humble opinion. "their best yet" means little when their rules sets are genrally scoffed at by a large portion of gamers. GW rules, and GW lack of internal/external balance drove me from the game. every new edition breaks as many things as it fixes, and basically just changes whats dodgy. neither fifth nor sixth have been steps forward - they've been steps sideways. Fair enough, its what GW wants, but please, dont insult our intelligense by saying that they're somehow "better".
Testify wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
No? I want consistency. For all its other failures Battletech was a pretty solid rules set. Seriously - you're okay with glaring errors like the ones I mentioned consistently being ignored when it'd literally be a 30 minute meeting to decide how they want it to work and a sentence or two of clarification?
Yes but the major issues have been rectified. They don't need to fix tiny semantic things that say, allow you to outflank in your opponent's turn, because only people on the internet care about that gak.
they've broken as many things as they've fixed if you ask me. they overbalanced vehicles to the point where a lot of people will not take them, and re-broke the game with flyers and the necessity of buying fortifications. also, a lot of the transition FAQs did not address a lot of the problems - i saw two guys arguing for 15 minutes as to whether what dante had was a power axe, or a power weapon by the rules. it was laughable. GW fixes merely end up in other things being broken.
Testify wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
As a casual player I would benefit from a consistent rules set. This isn't a casual vs hardcore thing. You're going to say that you've never paused a casual game to discuss a rule?
Of course I have, but 99% of the the time it's because none of us could be arsed to print off the FAQs. Compared to inconsistancies in computer games, which are about 100 times easier to fix, there aren't that many.
see above. compared to the rules set that companies like Privateer Press and Corvus Beli put out, GW are leagues behind. PP had a 6-page FAQ for 11 factions upon release of their Warmachine/Hordes Mk2 game. GWFAQs are laughable by comparison.
Testify wrote:
If you choose to take a literalist approach to an implicitly not literalist ruleset, don't be surprised when your approach fails.
so basically asking for rules to say what they mean is a bad idea. shame really, as other companies manage perfectly fine with this approach. "rules as intended", "it implies that..." and vague, loosely worded rules are nothing more than excuses for releasing half finished producsts. I work in a lab. i have to write down all my reagents, times, calculations and signatures on everything. im not kidding. i wouldnt get away with "yeah, i did something like that, i think". If i dont write things down literally, i lose my job and the company gets shut down. writing down precisely what you mean is the only proper way of doing things.
Testify wrote:
Sure I'm going to go through every single edition of every FAQ for every codex and point out things that GW have fixed. If you don't like the FAQs, don't play with them.
i've seen FAQs going back four editions that didnt fix anything. how many posts do you see online with someone pointing out how the FAQ didnt fix something? I've seen lots. Again, i'll point to other companies who get it mostly right every time. Check PP's FAQs for example.
Testify wrote:
MrMoustaffa wrote:
You don't seem to understand us at all Testify. How on earth would "casual" (and I hate that term as much as competitive) be put off by a ruleset that is well written and leaves no room for abuse or confusion?
By virtue of it being unreadable. Ever read a fandex? Or hell, ever *tried* to read a fandex? .
well written ruleset that leaves no room for abuse or confusion is "unreadable". right, you just lost your credibility. do yourself a favour. read the warmachine/hordes and Infinity rulebooks. clear consise, and very readable with no room for error. If anything, "grey" and vague rules are the ones that are more open to abuse than clear and consise ones as they leave room for interpretation.
Testify wrote:
MrMoustaffa wrote:
Most of the people that are answering could care less for a "hardcore" and needlessly complex ruleset (we have that now ) we're saying that we want a game where they actually take the time to proofread their rules and codexes and not rush things. I hate showing up to a pickup game, and having to have several lists written up. One if someone is looking to play a friendly game, one if a guy wants to practice for a tourney, and another for in case some guy has the cheese of the month. It shouldn't be where people are getting chewed out just because of what codex they picked due to outrageously varied power levels (GK and Necron players get a lot of this this) or even when a player just takes a certain unit (vendettas, paladins, Nob Bikers, etc.) The fact that this sentiment exists at all says a lot for how GW has poorly handled it. Obviously some whining is to be expected, but when you can justifiably prove some armies are more powerful and others, and that units like the Vendetta exist, the system needs to be fixed.
Again, you're playing at a competative or semi-competative environment. 40k isn't designed for that. None of my friends and I play cheese/netlists, and our games are always good fun. It seems that people who try to play competatively are the ones who don't enjoy 40k.
So?
i've played warmachine/hordes seriously, and for a laugh. i've done simple, quick and "easy ride" demo games for Infinity that were very casual in scope, and nature. and yet i still had fun. there is a time and a place for both casual games, and fun games, and having clear, consise rules does not prevent either approach. 40k is a beer and pretzels game, but that is still no excuse for vague, poorly worded, bloated and badly conceived and implemented rulesets.
Testify wrote:
MrMoustaffa wrote:
Would you play chess if half the pieces had dodgy rules that were difficult to understand and the Black side was able to take 20% more pieces than you? Of course not. This is what people are feeling with 40k, and it's why they want a more balanced ruleset. If you go to play chess, it's purely determined by skill. You and I could goof around, and have a great time, or, we could play it as seriously as we wanted, and go to a world championship. The rules lend themselves well to both styles of play, and everything in between. Just because chess has rules that allow for tip top competitive play, doesn't prevent kids in gradeschool from playing it and enjoying it as well.
Chess also has 0 randomness. Good luck creating a game system that is both completely balanced and allows for randomness while remaining both playable and easy to learn for young adolescents.
Again, Corvus Beli and Privateer Press have both done extremely good jobs at designing and implementing balanced games. you should go and check them out.
rigeld2 wrote:
Yeah, things like the Night Scythe interaction with Crash and Burn, FNP vs other unsaved wound mechanics, and vehicles not being able to take invul saves is "tiny semantic things" that "only people on the Internet care about".
Yes actually. YMMV.
If you choose to take a literalist approach to an implicitly not literalist ruleset, don't be surprised when your approach fails.
Yeah, making assumptions and 4+ing rules is a much more acceptable way to play.
How would an unambiguous rule set be bad for anyone?
rigeld2 wrote:
What major issues were rectified? Seriously, I'd like to know what you're referring to. Fr every "fix" they've had they've opened up at least one new problem because they aren't consistent with wording. Ignoring that doesn't make it go away, and trying to straw man me doesn't make you correct. (Note that I've never brought up anything to do with outflanking in your opponents turn).
Sure I'm going to go through every single edition of every FAQ for every codex and point out things that GW have fixed. If you don't like the FAQs, don't play with them.
That's the right way to participate in a discussion!
You said that the "major issues have been rectified". Stating something as fact without being able to support it isn't a good way to make your point.
You made the claim. Prove it.
MrMoustaffa wrote:
You don't seem to understand us at all Testify. How on earth would "casual" (and I hate that term as much as competitive) be put off by a ruleset that is well written and leaves no room for abuse or confusion?
By virtue of it being unreadable. Ever read a fandex? Or hell, ever *tried* to read a fandex?
What does a poorly written codex have to do with crappily written rules?
Again, you're playing at a competative or semi-competative environment. 40k isn't designed for that. None of my friends and I play cheese/netlists, and our games are always good fun. It seems that people who try to play competatively are the ones who don't enjoy 40k.
I don't play competitively. I enjoy 40k. I think the rules are written in a horribly unprofessional manner for people who are paid to be game designers.
MrMoustaffa wrote:
Would you play chess if half the pieces had dodgy rules that were difficult to understand and the Black side was able to take 20% more pieces than you? Of course not. This is what people are feeling with 40k, and it's why they want a more balanced ruleset. If you go to play chess, it's purely determined by skill. You and I could goof around, and have a great time, or, we could play it as seriously as we wanted, and go to a world championship. The rules lend themselves well to both styles of play, and everything in between. Just because chess has rules that allow for tip top competitive play, doesn't prevent kids in gradeschool from playing it and enjoying it as well.
Chess also has 0 randomness. Good luck creating a game system that is both completely balanced and allows for randomness while remaining both playable and easy to learn for young adolescents.
You do understand the difference between balance and a well written rule set, right?
Alright well it's clear neither side is backing down at this point.
I'll sum up my feelings in a TL;DR : If I'm going to pay over a 100 fething bucks for a game system's rules, then it better be the most concisely written and well edited rulebook around. If they're wanting us to pay premium price, then it better damn well be premium product.
Everything after this is me explaining for a final time my view on this. After this post I'm out. This thread is going nowhere sadly.
If I'm having to constantly fix or clarify the rules with my group thanks to "houserules", then the designers didn't do their friggin job, pure and simple. If someone sold you a brand new car and told you "yeah, we put an engine in, but we didn't tune it up and half the hoses aren't connected. Remember, we're the best car company in the world!", you would be furious. GW is selling you a car that is half put together, the steering column doesn't have a wheel ("Don't worry, a good set of pliers and you won't even know that wheel is gone!") and all the gauges just spin wildly while you're driving. That should be a reason to be upset more than any other.
You've said for yourself that your group has had to clarify rules within the group to make it playable. I know it's not a problem for you, but you need to realize not everyone is as lucky as you. Not all of us have a tightknit group that we always play with. We have to play strangers who may have a different interpretation than ours, or their group decided the rule was intended another way. What do we do then? Roll off? Because I can guarantee you, nobody wins there. The "winner" feels like a douche for forcing the other person to play his way and the loser feels wronged because he thought the rule should be the other way. There's usually no compromise, and often times that decision could mean the difference between who wins and loses. It leads to a lot of unnecessary frustration and arguments that shouldn't be there to begin with, and can turn a fun game into a nightmare that both players just want to be over. If GW took more time to proof read the rules and make sure they had a tight ruleset, this wouldn't happen. The fact that they had to release FAQ's WITHIN A MONTH of the book coming out to alter entire rules entries (the whole Look out Sir! being completely rewritten for example) is proof of this.
All we want is a game where when I open my book and you open yours, we can both look at a rule and go "ok, that makes sense, we do this." and be back to playing within a minute or two. We're all sick of hunting through paragraphs of needless extra writing that clarifies nothing. We're sick of watching people exploit tiny little loopholes, because yes, you can totally do that according to the rules. We don't want to have to have a meeting with our playerbase to fix all the broken and badly written rules in a book. We just want a game where we can show up, and 9/10 times have a fair and roughly evenly matched game, with minimal rulebook checking and confusion.
If I'm having to constantly fix or clarify the rules with my group thanks to "houserules", then the designers didn't do their friggin job, pure and simple. If someone sold you a brand new car and told you "yeah, we put an engine in, but we didn't tune it up and half the hoses aren't connected. Remember, we're the best car company in the world!", you would be furious. GW is selling you a car that is half put together, the steering column doesn't have a wheel ("Don't worry, a good set of pliers and you won't even know that wheel is gone!") and all the gauges just spin wildly while you're driving. That should be a reason to be upset more than any other.
You do realise that you're legally entitled to a refund right? If you really believe *that* strongly that the ruleset is that bad (despite, as I've said, being better than any of the rules that preceded it), you can ask for your money back.
If I'm having to constantly fix or clarify the rules with my group thanks to "houserules", then the designers didn't do their friggin job, pure and simple. If someone sold you a brand new car and told you "yeah, we put an engine in, but we didn't tune it up and half the hoses aren't connected. Remember, we're the best car company in the world!", you would be furious. GW is selling you a car that is half put together, the steering column doesn't have a wheel ("Don't worry, a good set of pliers and you won't even know that wheel is gone!") and all the gauges just spin wildly while you're driving. That should be a reason to be upset more than any other.
You do realise that you're legally entitled to a refund right? If you really believe *that* strongly that the ruleset is that bad (despite, as I've said, being better than any of the rules that preceded it), you can ask for your money back.
if only. My store doesnt accept refunds because I didnt like it.
And I stil like the game a bit, it just infuriates me to see just how good the game could be if they just put more efort into it. Occasionally I have an awesome game, but they're outnumbered by the ones that fel like a chore.
And to be honest, part of that post is just because I needed a good rant to get out of my system. I'm feeling better now.
A balanced, well written ruleset and codieces would benefit everyone, I'd say so called casual players even more than tourney ones as more units would become viable and there would be less extreme builds so fielding what you like even if it's a gunline of Pyrovores would not mean sth close to auto loosing. GW fails on rules front and it has nothing to do with their target etc but a lot to do with lack of quality managment, kind of bad for a supposed premium brand. Their game still has its sparks of brilliance but it's natural to expect much more after 6th editions and at those luxury prices.
TheCaptain wrote: I find it hard to believe they didn't try to balance the rules.
GW has admitted that they don't playtest (at least not in the ways that actually catch problems) so no, they don't try very hard to balance the rules. Just speculating about what "should" be balanced isn't enough.
Mr Morden wrote: Not where we game - its all about who can spend the most omoney on the I win you loose cards -
Try getting better at the game? Many of the strongest cards are commons and uncommons, and unless you're playing in competitive tournaments you can be very successful with a cheap deck (and certainly a much cheaper deck than any 40k army). The only problem is that new or less-skilled players focus on "bomb" rares that are actually terrible in competitive play.
I quite playing after the fiasco with the afinity / artefact lands that was broken from turn 1 of any game they were in - yeah that was playtested and balanced.
Of course it wasn't balanced, but things like that are going to happen occasionally when you have a really complex game. Even a thorough playtesting system like WOTC uses can't catch everything absolutely 100% of the time. The question though, is what do you do once you make the mistake.
If you're WOTC you ban the problem cards after seeing indisputable evidence that they were a mistake.
If you're GW you ignore the problem entirely and hope that your target audience won't exploit it too badly.
See a problem here yet?
That and the obvious continuing powercreep.............
You mean the obvious downward trend in power levels? Seriously, play a deck using old cards against a deck using modern cards. You'll be lucky if your modern deck gets more than a single turn.
Balanced rules/Codices means more viable units....which means proportionately more variety, hence more fun for the average user and a much broader set of tactics and list builds to play with.
Concise and clear rules means less rule disputes/learning time, and more time spent playing.
Sounds like if you want fun, the way to do it is to write a concise, clear rulebook with balanced codices.
TheCaptain wrote: I find it hard to believe they didn't try to balance the rules.
GW has admitted that they don't playtest (at least not in the ways that actually catch problems) so no, they don't try very hard to balance the rules. Just speculating about what "should" be balanced isn't enough.
Mr Morden wrote: Not where we game - its all about who can spend the most omoney on the I win you loose cards -
Try getting better at the game? Many of the strongest cards are commons and uncommons, and unless you're playing in competitive tournaments you can be very successful with a cheap deck (and certainly a much cheaper deck than any 40k army). The only problem is that new or less-skilled players focus on "bomb" rares that are actually terrible in competitive play.
I quite playing after the fiasco with the afinity / artefact lands that was broken from turn 1 of any game they were in - yeah that was playtested and balanced.
Of course it wasn't balanced, but things like that are going to happen occasionally when you have a really complex game. Even a thorough playtesting system like WOTC uses can't catch everything absolutely 100% of the time. The question though, is what do you do once you make the mistake.
If you're WOTC you ban the problem cards after seeing indisputable evidence that they were a mistake.
If you're GW you ignore the problem entirely and hope that your target audience won't exploit it too badly.
See a problem here yet?
That and the obvious continuing powercreep.............
You mean the obvious downward trend in power levels? Seriously, play a deck using old cards against a deck using modern cards. You'll be lucky if your modern deck gets more than a single turn.
That and the ultra complicated stacking system
Err, what?
Well we have totally different views on MTG thats clear same as 40K.
Afinity should never have been released in any game that had undergone any form of playtesting - to say they sorted it out is laughable - it was obviously broken from the very first game we played - but no it was allowed to carry on for ages......... be a bit like GW putting out a Codex where tanks were cheaper than infantry and if you had two tanks you get a third free and then being suprised there were any issues......... Oh and yeah WOTC banned cards - after people had spent a fortune on them to make winning decks. Of course that works well for WOTC as people then have to buy all new power cards...........strange how that works.
GW does often try to fix problems with FAQs - like all games - check out all the various tabletop games and find the errata and FAQs - they ALL have them. Now GW does not always get it right on indeed in a timely manner...............
Downward power sprials, what nonsense - you are seriously contending that my cards - Legends, Antiquities, Ice Age and Revised are in any way a match for the massively powerful new abilities and costings or cards - not according to all the people who still play it here. And all the shiny rares are rubbish - yeah right.............thats must be why all the rares are sold at 10p each - oh wait no.......... I tried playing the older cards back in the day - new ones are just on the whole better....
The stacking system - or how magic works in terms of what trumps what - I personally find it annoying, complicated and off putting.
I have a question for you all. No matter how "bad" the ruleset is and how "evil" GW is for making money, you all (or most of you) still play the game, yes?
Oh, and the rulebook isn't $100 for rules, it's $75 for a giant hardback, full color book where only a small portion is rules. I personally quite like my background fluff and pretty pictures.
Asking GW to have a "perfectly balanced" rule system is silly.
A) "Perfectly balanced" is subjective. Take the flying bakery or guard aircav for example. You can say it's balanced because it's countered by things like the ADL (aka skyfire) but the Tyranids would like to have a word with you, and I don't think the Tau are too happy either. You can say they aren't very good at holding objectives (maybe aircav is, I've never seen it), but there isn't ALWAYS objectives. Who's right about whether it's balanced or not? The guy with the flyers, or the guy without? (That's rhetorical before someone jumps down my throat about how to beat flyers or how OP flyers are.)
B) It's too big. There's simply too many rules from too many editions, and it's insane to think that GW will simply declare everything from an older edition/codex obsolete whenever a new one comes out. FAQ the points costs and rules you say? You're basically asking them rewrite everything but the fluff because if you change unit X, suddenly unit Y is better/worse. Change unit Y and its all fixed right? No wait, unit Z is really bad/good now so we better change it too! Repeat ad infinitum. Units XYZ don't even have to be in the same codex by the way, since we're talking overall game balance not just internal codex.
C) Noone seems to think "GW is a model company not a rules company" is a good argument, I call them silly. GW does what they think makes them the most money. This means selling models. This turns out to be releasing a book (which means new models) every once in awhile so people can keep going OOH SHINY. This results in lots of codicies written for different rules. See point B. They could release every codex in one giant wave with new editions, but the gap in between editions would be massive, resulting in more people leaving from lack of new content and less people coming in because they see something new. That means less money, which means unhappy shareholders, which means GW isn't going to go down that road.
TL;DR A balanced ruleset for 40K is a pipedream. If you want to pick and choose rules go DM a D&D campaign, but don't come crying to me when you realize its hard as hell.
DarkCorsair wrote: I have a question for you all. No matter how "bad" the ruleset is and how "evil" GW is for making money, you all (or most of you) still play the game, yes?
Well, I end up playing rigeld2hammer, but yes. Because instead of being able to use the rules as they're printed, I have to make up house rules left and right.
Oh, and the rulebook isn't $100 for rules, it's $75 for a giant hardback, full color book where only a small portion is rules. I personally quite like my background fluff and pretty pictures.
It's ~25-30% rules. That's not really a "small portion".
And look - another post trying to equate well written rules with balance! There's a difference. Balance discussions are for another thread.
And MrMorden - your understanding of M:TG is flawed. There are a handful of solid to powerful dares, but there's at least 2:1 ratio of cheap/not good rates to good ones. And there are many cards in the Legends/Ice Age/Revised era that are extremely good (and therefore valuable). The dual lands from Revised are better than any other dual lands since then.
Guys lets face it. GW has a target market. They are doing well financially off of that target market.
They aren't going to change how the game they write is written just because of internet complaining and insults. They MAY consider changing if their sales plummet and they need to change to survive as a company. And even then....
washout77 wrote: Guys lets face it. GW has a target market. They are doing well off from that target market.
They aren't going to change how the game they write is written just because of internet complaining and insults. They MAY consider changing if their sales plummet and they need to change to survive as a company. And even then....
A) "Perfectly balanced" is subjective. Take the flying bakery or guard aircav for example. You can say it's balanced because it's countered by things like the ADL (aka skyfire) but the Tyranids would like to have a word with you, and I don't think the Tau are too happy either. You can say they aren't very good at holding objectives (maybe aircav is, I've never seen it), but there isn't ALWAYS objectives. Who's right about whether it's balanced or not? The guy with the flyers, or the guy without? (That's rhetorical before someone jumps down my throat about how to beat flyers or how OP flyers are.)
"balanced" generally means i'm not being punished because i picked a certain faction/build. the fact that each edition favours certain builds at the expense of others shows that there isnt balance. third ed boiled down to either rhino rush, or shoot the rhino rush. fourth was 6man las/plas and skimmerspam. fifth favoured mechhammer to the exclusion of all else, and sixth is all about flyers. Its GWs policy to push certain styles of play in each edition, which is fine to an extent,but it comes at the expense of balance.
B) It's too big. There's simply too many rules from too many editions, and it's insane to think that GW will simply declare everything from an older edition/codex obsolete whenever a new one comes out. FAQ the points costs and rules you say? You're basically asking them rewrite everything but the fluff because if you change unit X, suddenly unit Y is better/worse. Change unit Y and its all fixed right? No wait, unit Z is really bad/good now so we better change it too! Repeat ad infinitum. Units XYZ don't even have to be in the same codex by the way, since we're talking overall game balance not just internal codex.
.
And yet Privateer Press managed to pull this off and produced 2 entirely new Rules sets, and updated 11 factions within the space of a year to be in line with their entirely new rules set (warmachine/hordes Mk2), including a new points system, which had about 6 pages of FAQs between the lot, and to top this off, they managed to pull off an almost perfect game in terms of balance. and on top of this, they were designing their own proprietry roleplaying system on top of this (the iron kingdoms RPG) , as well as producing other games separate to their Warmachine/Hordes/Iron Kingdoms setting like Level 7. and they did all this with a staff count that is a lot smaller than GWs.
C) Noone seems to think "GW is a model company not a rules company" is a good argument, I call them silly. GW does what they think makes them the most money. This means selling models. This turns out to be releasing a book (which means new models) every once in awhile so people can keep going OOH SHINY. This results in lots of codicies written for different rules. See point B. They could release every codex in one giant wave with new editions, but the gap in between editions would be massive, resulting in more people leaving from lack of new content and less people coming in because they see something new. That means less money, which means unhappy shareholders, which means GW isn't going to go down that road.
.
oh really? Privateer Press released 2 rules books, as well as 11 faction books in the space of a year, updated the entire game, required very little in the way of FAQs, and still maintained an excellent level of balance. bear in mind, this is a game which already has hundreds of warlocks, warcasters, warbeasts, warjacks, infantry units and solos, all with their own unique stats and abilities.
the idea that its harder for GW to balance their game is a bit of a joke, when you think about it. besides, about half of the GW factions are variations on a central theme, which is "marines with different bling". privateer press have 2 entirely different rules sets, and 11 entirely different factions (and 2 of those - mercs and minions, can be broken down into 6 sub factions on top of this)
TrickyTaquito wrote: Asking GW to have a "perfectly balanced" rule system is silly.
A) "Perfectly balanced" is subjective. Take the flying bakery or guard aircav for example. You can say it's balanced because it's countered by things like the ADL (aka skyfire) but the Tyranids would like to have a word with you, and I don't think the Tau are too happy either. You can say they aren't very good at holding objectives (maybe aircav is, I've never seen it), but there isn't ALWAYS objectives. Who's right about whether it's balanced or not? The guy with the flyers, or the guy without? (That's rhetorical before someone jumps down my throat about how to beat flyers or how OP flyers are.)
B) It's too big. There's simply too many rules from too many editions, and it's insane to think that GW will simply declare everything from an older edition/codex obsolete whenever a new one comes out. FAQ the points costs and rules you say? You're basically asking them rewrite everything but the fluff because if you change unit X, suddenly unit Y is better/worse. Change unit Y and its all fixed right? No wait, unit Z is really bad/good now so we better change it too! Repeat ad infinitum. Units XYZ don't even have to be in the same codex by the way, since we're talking overall game balance not just internal codex.
TL;DR A balanced ruleset for 40K is a pipedream. If you want to pick and choose rules go DM a D&D campaign, but don't come crying to me when you realize its hard as hell.
Videogame developers routinely create entire new game systems or add new factions to games via expansion packs while continuing to balance them post-release with internet-distributed patches.
And they do a far better job than Games Workshop does. While game developers are going through and finding bugs through millions of lines of code and periodically writing new game engines, Games Workshop has warrant to justify not releasing a paragraph-long update to a FAQ?
Hell, even videogame modders have a better track record for balancing games, and I would suspect the same thing is true for people who make alternative game systems or implement "house rules" for various systems. I'd be willing to bet that there are users on this forum who could create a composite list of suggested improvements to Codexes/ruleset that would considerably improve this game.
Just do give you an idea of what actual, community-driven balance changes can accomplish, here's an example of a changelog for a Dawn of War 2 modification:
Main menu backdrop, character, logo and music changed
Army Painter unit lists expanded
Unit decorators widely updated (misleading icons changed and others tweaked)
Gameplay
Infantry pathfiding values tweaked
HQ aura now grants 50% damage resistance to allied infantry
Fall Back now removes Distort Field effects
Fall Back now removes Assail effects
Fall Back now increases melee skill by 50
Grenades generally do 90% damage to retreating units (instead of 100%)
Barrage_pvp damage against infantry_fire_resist decreased from 1 to 0.3
Inferno_pvp damage against buildings increased from 0.1 to 0.2 and against light/defence/ig_turret increased from 0.2 to 0.4
Manticore_rocket damage against building_light decreased from 1 to 0.5
New maps
(2p) Bay of Grots
(2p) Calderis River
(2p) Catachan Fortress
(2p) Catachan Lowlands
(2p) Fedrid Folly
(2p) High Risks
(2p) Mirage
(2p) Plaza Primarus
(2p) Sector 95
(2p) Small White Walls
(2p) Tallarn Ravine
(2p) Wrazgot’s Leadfoot
(4p) Biffy’s Peril Redux
(4p) Gorkamorka Boondox
(4p) Maiden Forums
(4p) Nids Never Sleep
(4p) Rokk of Waaagh!
(4p) Valhalla
(6p) Armageddon River Crossing
(6p) Fall of Hyades
(6p) Kasyr Lutien
(6p) Return to Golgotha
(6p) Skull Masha Brackens
(6p) Soprony Brood Lairs
(6p) Swamps of Slaughter
(FFA) Rokk of Waaagh!
(FFA) Skull Masha Brackens
Drop Pod now spawns an uncrushable drop pod with 500 health that functions as a reinforcement beacon for non-Terminator Space Marine infantry (drop pods from other call-ins remain crushable but do not grant any Global on death)
For the Emperor! now buffs both ranged and melee damage by 25% but grants no damage resistance
Larraman’s Blessing now revives heroes at their HQ instead of where they fell
Larraman’s Blessing cost decreased from 175 to 125 Zeal
Angels of Death no longer grants invulnerability
Angels of Death now grants 50% damage resistance and full knockback immunity
Angels of Death duration increased from 8 to 15 seconds
Angels of Death cost decreased from 250 to 200 Zeal
Blessing of the Omnissiah duration increased from 20 to 30 seconds
Blessing of the Omnissiah cooldown decreased from 150 to 100 seconds
Blessing of the Omnissiah heal effect increased from 10 to 15
Orbital Bombardment damage type changed from melee_heavy and piercing_pvp to explosive_pvp
Orbital Bombardment targeting radius increased from 15 to 35
Force Commander
New unlocks: rare armor (0), Glory of Matiel (0), common backpack (0), veteran helmet (0), cape (0), epic armor (16), golden backpack (16), Mail of Immortals (16), captain helmet (16), Holy Mantle of Elizur (23), Favored of Bardiel (33), commander armor (46), eagle’s head backpack (46), loincloth (50), Gabriel’s armor (60), golden helmet (60)
New unlocks for Terminator Armor: table-top helmet (0), Crusade Eternal (16), Armor of Azariah (36), commander helmet (46), iron halo (56)
Removed Force Commander Terminator upkeep (3.36 to 0)
Chainsword and Storm Shield no longer grants a health bonus
Chainsword and Storm Shield now increases melee damage by 13.73%
Defend radius increased from 20 to 22
Power Fist special attack no longer does friendly fire
Power Fist cost increased from 150/50 to 200/50
Thunder Hammer has no splash damage
Thunder Hammer special attack damage increased from 20 to 40
Thunder Hammer cost increased from 150/30 to 150/50
Artificer Armor now increases melee skill by 5
Artificer Armor cost increased from 100/20 to 100/25
Armor of Alacrity cost decreased from 120/30 to 110/20
Sprint cooldown increased from 20 to 30 seconds
Iron Halo cost increased from 100/20 to 100/25
Teleport (Teleport Pack) cooldown decreased from 45 to 30 seconds
Teleport (Teleport Pack) range increased from 45 to 55
Terminator Armor cost increased from 150/75 to 200/100
Assault Cannon cost increased from 70/40 to 70/70
Heavy Flamer cost increased from 70/40 to 70/70
Lightning Claws cost increased from 70/40 to 70/70
Apothecary
New unlocks: Armature of Zeal (12), Armor of Victory (24), Immovable (24), improved power armor (45), Golden Mantle (45), Gift of Mars (45), loincloth (55), Laurels of Hadrian (58)
Health increased from 550 to 625
Heal cooldown increased from 25 to 30 seconds
Sanguine Chainsword passive health regeneration removed
Sanguine Chainsword on-hit heal effect increased from 20 to 25
Sanguine Chainsword now equips a bolt pistol that heals for 10 health on hit
Sanguine Chainsword now increases melee charge range from 12 to 23
Full Auto range increased from 30 to 40 (for targeting purposes) and 38 (for the accessory weapon) and targeting conditions tweaked
Full Auto tweaked to not chain-knockback as rapidly anymore
Armor of Purity now increases health regeneration by 0.1
Combat Stimulant Equipment health bonus increased from 100 to 125
Combat Stimulants damage bonus increased from 25% to 40%
Armor of the Apothecarion cost increased from 150/50 to 200/60
Purification Rites cost increased from 100/20 to 120/25
Purification Vials cooldown decreased from 40 to 30 seconds
Purification Vials energy cost decreased from 45 to 35
Purification Vials range increased from 20 to 24
Purification Vials cost decreased from 100/30 to 100/25
Improved Medical Equipment energy regeneration bonus increased from 0.1 to 0.15; also fixed a bug (equipping wargear granted 0.1 but unequipping removed 0.15, leaving a permanent energy regeneration penalty)
Techmarine
New unlocks: Armor of Crusader (14), golden shoulder pad trim (24), Armor of Purity (37), Mail of Zeal (37), Abjuration of Fear (48), Mars pattern helmet (59)
Master-Crafted Bolter cost increased from 100/25 to 100/30
Brothers in Arms radius increased from 10 to 30
Consecrated Bolter damage increased from 60 to 65
Consecrated Bolter replaced with Axe of the Mechanicum (T2)
Overcharge Plasma after-effect duration increased from 6 to 8 seconds, ability fx changed and after-effect fx added
Plasma Gun cost increased from 100/25 to 120/35
Meltagun damage increased from 90 to 100
Meltagun moving accuracy increased from 50% to 100%
Artificer Armor health regeneration bonus decreased from 0.35 to 0.3
Bionics now increases health regeneration by 0.25
Bionics now increases melee damage by 15%
Refractor Field moved from T1 to T2
Refractor Field cost decreased from 125/25 to 110/20
Scout Squad
XP value decreased from 130 to 100
Sergeant XP value decreased from 150 to 120
Global value increased from 7 to 9
Melee skill decreased from 71 to 60
Shotguns now increase melee skill by 11
Explosive Shot damage increased from 1 to 8
Explosive Shot damage to retreating units modifier decreased from 1 to 0
Frag Grenade damage to retreating units modifier decreased from 5 to 4.5
Sniper Rifle cost decreased from 110/35 to 100/35
Advanced Infiltration Training reworked into Elite Training, which grants Infiltrate and increases health regeneration by 0.25 and energy regeneration by 0.15 when out of combat
Tactical Squad
XP value increased from 200 to 230
Sergeant XP value increased from 250 to 280
Global value increased from 15 to 18
Health increased from 330 to 350
Kraken Bolts cooldown decreased from 50 to 40 seconds
Missile Launcher build time decreased from 30 to 15 seconds
Can now upgrade one squad to Sternguard Veterans
Devastator Squad
Global value increased from 9 to 12
Vengeance Rounds cooldown decreased from 45 to 30 seconds
Vengeance Rounds cost adjusted from 50/10 to 75/0
Vengeance Rounds build time decreased from 30 to 10 seconds
Vengeance Rounds damage buff increased from 50% to 75%
Assault Squad
Cost decreased from 500/50 to 450/50
XP value increased from 210 to 240
Sergeant XP value increased from 250 to 280
Global value increased from 17 to 19
Blind Grenades now reduce weapon range by 75% for 20 seconds (10 seconds after the stun effect ends)
Thunder and Lightning cost decreased from 50/30 to 50/25 and build time from 30 to 20 seconds
Devastator Plasma Cannon Squad
Reinforcement time cost decreased from 75% to 60%
Plasma projectile ignore walkable surfaces set to false
Dreadnought
Build time decreased from 50 to 42 seconds
Rotation rate increased from 200 to 225
Special attacks no longer knock back retreating units (but still knock back heavy non-retreating units)
Upgrading with a ranged weapon no longer removes inspiration on melee kill
Assault Cannon damage increased from 90 to 100
Assault Cannon Barrage range increased from 33 to 40
Assault Cannon cost decreased from 100/40 to 100/30
Multi-melta cooldown decreased from 5 to 3.5
Multi-melta cost increased from 80/20 to 100/30
Librarian
New model
Build time increased from 25 to 35 seconds
Smite damage decreased from 25 to 18
Smite cooldown increased from 30 to 45 seconds
Veil of Time speed bonus decreased from 3 to 2
Veil of Time duration decreased from 30 to 20 seconds
Tome of Time cost decreased from 75/25 to 75/20
Force Staff cost increased from 75/30 to 90/30
Predator
Extra Armor cost decreased from 135/40 to 100/30
Extra Armor build time decreased from 30 to 15 seconds
Lascannon splash pattern changed (the pattern was configured for 3 radius even though splash was decreased to 1)
Lascannon cost decreased from 185/35 to 135/35
Lascannon build time decreased from 30 to 20 seconds
Terminator Squad
New helmet
Assault Cannon cost increased from 100/60 to 100/80
Cleansing Flame weapon family changed from flamer_pvp to combi_flamer_ability_pvp (damage type from flame_pvp to flame_aoe_ability_pvp)
Cyclone Missile Barrage damage increased from 50 to 62.5
Cyclone Missile Barrage number of missiles increased from 12 to 14
Cyclone Missile Barrage starting delay increased from 1 to 1.5 seconds
Cyclone Missile Barrage cooldown decreased from 60 to 40 seconds
Venerable Dreadnought
Charge no longer knocks back retreating units
Land Raider Redeemer
Health decreased from 3000 to 2500
Healing aura effect increased from 0.5% to 1%
Heavy Bolter Turret
Missile Launcher Turret cost decreased from 80/40 to 75/0
Missile Launcher Turret build time decreased from 30 to 15 seconds
Missile Launcher Turret range increased from 44 to 50
Missile Launcher Turret reload duration decreased from 6 to 4
Teleport Relay Beacon
Health decreased from 1000 to 750
Cost decreased from 200/30 to 200/20
Population cost decreased from 5 to 3
Healing aura now also grants 15% damage mitigation
Orks
New units
Painboy
Flash Gitz
General changes
HQ Waaagh! generation increased from 0.25 to 0.3 per second
Use Yer Choppas! cost decreased from 100 to 75 Waaagh!
Use Yer Choppas! cooldown increased from 50 to 120 seconds
Use Yer Choppas! damage bonus decreased from 40% to 35%
‘Ard Boyz now grants 25% resistance to all damage instead of 50% to melee damage
More Dakka cost increased from 50 to 75 Waaagh!
More Dakka now gives a 10% change of causing weapon knockback on each hit
Kommandos Iz Da Sneakiest moved from T2 to T3
Call da Boyz! reinforcement duration decreased from 20 to 5 seconds (buffs still last 20 seconds)
Roks damage values changed from 475 to 300, from 400 to 250, from 150 to 175, from 51 to 80 and from 50 to 60 according to size
Warboss
Bang Bang Hammer weapon family changed from power_melee_pvp to melee_pvp
Bang Bang Hammer special attack 02 knockback type changed from ability to weapon
Bang Bang Hammer buff radius increased from 20 to 28
Kustom Shoota damage increased from 40 to 42
Kustom Shoota cost decreased from 120/25 to 120/20
Shoot ‘em Good targeting range increased from 30 to 40 and weapon range from 30 to 38
Big Stomp energy cost decreased from 40 to 0
Spiky Armor cost increased from 120/20 to 130/25
Spiky Armor health bonus increased from 200 to 250
Spiky Armor health regeneration removed
Spiky Armor damage to attackers decreased from 8 to 6
Angry Bits build time increased from 10 to 15 seconds
Now I’m Angry increases health regeneration by 0.75 for 15 seconds again
Boss Pole build time increased from 10 to 15 seconds
Trophy Rack build time increased from 10 to 15 seconds
Mekboy
Deff Gun courage damage increased from 300 to 400
‘Ave A Taste cooldown increased from 45 to 60 seconds
‘Ave A Taste can be targeted on vehicles
‘Ave A Taste heal decreased from 400 to 150
Mega-Rumblah radius decreased from 25 to 20
Mega-Rumblah knockback type changed from ability to weapon
Mega-Rumblah now increases maximum health by 100
Mega-Rumblah cost decreased from 200/60 to 150/50
Proximity Mines initial delay decreased from 20 to 3 seconds
Proximity Mines cooldown decreased from 50 to 30 seconds
Force Field Overcharge knocback type changed from weapon to ability
Force Field Overcharge ranged damage protection increased from 50% to 70%
Turrets built by the Mekboy can now be salvaged for 100/15
Kommando Nob
Health increased from 630 to 670
Default melee damage decreased from 30 to 20
High Explosive Shells damage decreased from 130 to 115
Assashun’s Knife cost decreased from 120/30 to 100/20
Stikkbombz damage to retreating units modifier decreased from 5 to 4.5
Booby Traps cost increased from 100/20 to 120/20
Kaboom! energy cost increased from 30 to 75
Kaboom! no longer damages the Kommando Nob
Boom Time! now stops Kaboom! from knocking back the Kommando Nob
Boom Time! now increases maximum energy by 100
Boom Time! now increases energy regeneration by 0.1
Boom Time! now decreases Plant Booby Trap cooldown by 50%
Boom Time! now makes Stikkbombz do an extra 18 damage
Boom Time! now increases Stunbomb radius from 7 to 15
Boom Time! no longer causes an explosion on Fall Back
Boom Time! cost decreased from 110/25 to 100/20
Improved Camouflage now increases maximum energy by 50
Improved Camouflage now increases energy regeneration by 0.1
Improved Camouflage cost increased from 95/20 to 100/30
Slugga Boyz
Burnas health bonus increased from 10% to 15%
Burnas now grant the Burn Dat House! ability
Can now build Waaagh! Banners
Slugga Nob health increased from 285 to 350
Slugga Nob health bonus increased from 10% to 20%
Slugga Nob no longer grants a speed bonus
Slugga Nob cost decreased from 100/25 to 75/25
Swamp ‘Em cost decreased from 18 to 15 Waaagh!
Swamp ‘Em duration decreased from 10 to 8 seconds
Swamp ‘Em cooldown decreased from 120 to 80 seconds
Swamp ‘Em no longer breaks or protects from suppression
Swamp ‘Em now increases speed by 1 for the duration
Shoota Boyz
Big Shoota damage decreased from 33 to 29
Nob Leader melee damage increased from 8 to 20
Nob Leader no longer has melee charge
Nob Leader now grants a 15% ranged damage bonus to the squad after the Tier 2 upgrade is finished
Lootas
Build time decreased from 11 to 9 (33 to 27) seconds
Deff gun damage increased from 300 to 390
Deff gun rate of fire increased from 10 to 13
Deff gun medium range damage multiplier increased from 1 to 1.4
Deff gun reload frequency increased from 6-8 to 10-12
Stormboyz
Cost decreased from 400/40 to 400/35
Improved Rokkit Packs cost adjusted from 50/20 to 75/0
Stormboy Nob health increased from 285 to 350
Stormboy Nob weapon family changed from power_melee_pvp to melee_heavy
Stormboy Nob Bommaboyz explosion knocback type changed from ability to weapon
Stikkbommaz
Health increased from 150 to 200
Melee skill increased from 70 to 80
Upkeep increased from 5.1 to 10.2
Stikkbomb damage decreased from 67 to 58
Stunbomb vehicle snare effect increased from 2.5 to 3 seconds
Melee damage increased from 17 to 21
Special attack damage increased from 21 to 25
Tankbustas
Rokkit damage increased from 14 to 16
Rokkit Barrage damage decreased from 40 to 30
Rokkit Barrage number of shots increased from 3 to 4
Wartrukk
Cost increased from 180/20 to 220/30
Deff Dread
XP value increased from 250 to 300
Global value increased from 24 to 35
Build time increased from 25 to 35 seconds
Rotation rate increased from 200 to 225
Melee damage increased from 120 to 140
Special attacks no longer knock back retreating units (but still knock back heavy non-retreating units)
Burnaz ‘n Bitz cost decreased from 160/20 to 140/20
Rampage cost decreased from 35 to 25 Waaagh!
Weirdboy
XP value increased from 45 to 250
Upkeep increased from 12.75 to 25.5
Energy gain from the Waaagh!!! ability increased from 100 to 130
Ranged attack projectile now ignores terrain
Warp Vomit no longer lowers the sight radius of targets
Warp Vomit minimum range increased from 10 to 15
Warpath energy cost decreased from 40 to 30
Kommando Squad
Health increased from 225 to 250
Speed increased from 5 to 5.5
Nob Leader speed increased from 5 to 5.5
Shoota damage increased from 29 to 30
Shoota range increased from 25 to 38
Melee damage increased from 8 to 16
Nob Leader melee damage increased from 8 to 20
Nob Leader’s rokkit launcha minimum range increased from 0 to 10
Smoke Bomb range increased from 20 to 25
Burna Bomb damage decreased from 20 to 15
Luv da Dakka duration decreased from 7.5 to 3.5 seconds
Luv da Dakka number of shots decreased from 75 to 35
Luv da Dakka targeting range increased from 30 to 35 and weapon range from 30 to 45
Nob Squad
Frenzy cost increased from 45 to 75 Waaagh!
Frenzy damage bonus decreased from 30% to 20%
Frenzy duration reduced from 10 to 7 seconds
Frenzy cooldown increased from 45 to 60 seconds
‘Uge Hammers cost decreased from 100/60 to 100/50
Nob Leader cost decreased from 150/35 to 100/25
Population cost decreased from 6 to 5
Nob Leader population cost decreased from 6 to 5
Looted Tank
Boomgun projectile collision type changed from homing to plasma
Boomgun disable_combat set to false
Battlewagon
New ability: Rollin’ Thunda – targeted charge that damages and knocks back units and stuns any vehicles it hits
Holding one unit is sufficient to activate all weapons and increase speed by 50%
Main cannon damage decreased from 170 to 130
Main cannon horizontal turning speed increased from 40 to 80
Mega Boombshot projectile now ignores terrain
Waaagh! Banner
Can now be constructed by Slugga Boyz
Cost decreased from 75/10 to 75/5
Frazzle ability removed
Population cost decreased from 5 to 0
Limited to 4 per player
Ork Turret
Turrets built by the Mekboy can now be salvaged for 100/15
Shoota courage damage decreased from 400 to 300
Eldar
New units
Dark Reaper Squad
Fire Dragon Squad
General changes
Webway Gate cost decreased from 75 to 50 Psychic Might
Webway Gate sight radius increased from 5 to 25
Distort Field effect is now exclusive and removed on retreat
Crack Shot duration increased from 20 to 25 seconds
Farsight duration increased from 20 to 60 seconds
Eldritch Storm delay decreased by 1 second
Eldritch Storm vehicle stun increased from 10 to 14 seconds
Eldritch Storm bolt damage & knockback radius increased from 5 to 6
Seer Council is now available from the HQ for all heroes
Summon Seer Council cost decreased from 600/0/300 to 500/0/300
Warlock
Can now leap into melee combat
Melee charge cooldown increased from 6 to 10 seconds
Immolator cost increased from 100/25 to 100/30
Merciless Witchblade special attack damage decreased from 60 to 50
Merciless Witchblade special attack no longer affects friendly units
Merciless Witchblade ranged attack cannot chain-knockback as quickly anymore
Witchblade of Kurnous damage increased from 69 to 73
Champion’s Robe now increases health regeneration by 0.1
Psychic Shield now grants immunity to weapon knockback
Cloak of Shadows health bonus increased from 100 to 150
Cloak of Shadows now increases maximum energy by 20
Cloaking Shroud changed from toggled to activated (ability costs 50 energy and lasts for 15 seconds)
Channeling heal effect increased from 10 to 15 per second
Channeling now also increases the target unit’s damage by 15%
Heart of Darkness energy recharge decreased from 80 to 65
Heart of Darkness break points (damage to charge ability) increased from 250 to 300
Warp Spider Exarch
Teleport cooldown increased from 7 to 10 seconds
Heavy Gauge Deathspinner default ranged attack damage increased from 40 to 56
Powerblades cost decreased from 130/45 to 130/30
Powerblades special attack no longer hits allies
Enhanced Warp Jump Generator maximum energy bonus removed
Enhanced Warp Jump Generator now increases energy regeneration by 0.25
Improved Warp Generator health bonus increased from 125 to 200
Phase Shift no longer makes the WSE invulnerable
Phase Shift now makes the WSE take 10% increased damage
Improved Targeters cost decreased from 130/35 to 100/30
Farseer
Guide can be used on vehicles again
Armor of Fortune health regeneration bonus decreased from 0.35 to 0.3
Rune Armor energy regeneration bonus decreased from 0.2 to 0.1
Rune Armor now grants the Psychic Storm ability
Rune Armor moved from T1 to T2
Rune Armor cost increased from 110/30 to 150/30
Time Field speed debuff decreased from 50% to 40%
Armor of Asuryan cost decreased from 200/60 to 150/50
Runes of Reaping energy drain removed
Runes of Reaping no longer increase maximum energy
Runes of Reaping now increase energy regeneration by 0.1
Runes of Reaping now decrease the cooldowns of Fleet of Foot, Guide, Doom, Levitation Field, Fortune, Psychic Storm and Time Field by 25%
Runes of Reaping cost increased from 100/20 to 100/25
Guardian Squad
Squad changed into Dire Avenger Squad (visual change)
Warlock changed into Dire Avenger Exarch (visual change)
Warlock (Exarch) upkeep increased from 3 to 4.15
Cost decreased from 300/0 to 270/0
Battle Equipment renamed to Aspect of Avenger
Battle Equipment (Aspect of Avenger) cost increased from 65/15 to 70/15
Battle Equipment (Aspect of Avenger) now increases damage by 10%
Energy Shield health decreased from 1000 to 750
Energy Shield regeneration decreased from 5 to 2.5
Plasma Grenade damage to retreating units modifier decreased from 5 to 4.5
Howling Banshees
XP value decreased from 100 to 90
Cost decreased from 400/0 to 370/0
Aspect of Banshee cost decreased from 100/25 to 85/20
Rangers
Global value increased from 10 to 13
Build time increased from 21 to 32 seconds
Long rifle range decreased from 65 to 55
Pathfinder Gear now increases weapon range by 10
Kinetic Pulse now also does 15 piercing damage in the 5 radius
Infiltrate energy drain decreased from 1.5 to 1 per second
Shuriken Cannon Weapon Team
Renamed into Guardian Weapon Team
XP value increased from 60 to 90
Can now be upgraded with a brightlance cannon (T2)
Brightlance upgrade grants the Beam Scorch ability
Brightlance Weapon Team
Unit removed and reworked into an upgrade for Shuriken Cannon Weapon Team
As a result, health is decreased from 275 to 225
Warp Spider Squad
Upkeep decreased from 10.2 to 9.56 (Exarch as well)
Deathspinner damage to retreating units modifier decreased from 1 to 0.5
Exarch dual deathspinner damage increased from 35 to 37
Exarch dual deathspinner damage to retreating units modifier decreased from 1 to 0.5
Falcon
Cost increased from 375/95 to 400/95
Acceleration and deceleration increased from 7 to 8
Rotation rate increased from 100 to 200
Speed increased from 6 to 7.5
Energy Field now permanently decreases speed by 1
Wraithlord
Cost increased from 400/100 to 450/100
Special attacks no longer knock back retreating units (but still knock back heavy non-retreating units)
Rotation rate increased from 200 to 225
Brightlance now fires while moving (50% accuracy)
Wraithguard
Health increased from 600 to 667
Wraithguard Warlock now grants +1 speed during Fall Back
Autarch
Health decreased from 750 to 700
Speed decreased from 8 to 7.5
Call-in grenade damage decreased from 180 to 110
Call-in grenade damage to retreating units modifier decreased from 5 to 4.5
Call-in grenades now stun infantry units for 3 seconds
Leap energy cost increased from 30 to 55
Scorpion Shield (passive aura) ranged damage reduction increased from 10% to 15%
D-Cannon Weapon Team
Singularity delay decreased by 1 second
Fire Prism
Build time increased from 40 to 50 seconds
Acceleration and deceleration increased from 7 to 8
Rotation rate increased from 100 to 200
Speed decreased from 6.5 to 6
Explosive Shot damage increased from 70 to 80
Focused Shot damage increased from 160 to 175
Delay and cooldown when switching between Explosive and Focused Shot decreased from 4 to 2 seconds
Avatar
Special attacks no longer knock back retreating units (but still knock back heavy non-retreating units)
Seer Council
Now available from the HQ for all heroes
Build time decreased from 60 to 50 seconds
Base cost decreased from 800/160 to 700/100
Reinforcement cost increased from 50% to 67%
Ranged attack damage increased from 21 to 25
Webway Gate
Warlock-specific ability name and icon changed
WSE-specific ability name and icon changed
Farseer-specific ability name changed
Tyranids
General changes
New global: Infestation (T2) – spawns a capillary tower that grants 25% suppression resistance, 5% damage mitigation and 0.3 Biomass per second (18 per minute)
Synapse backlash knockback type changed from ability to weapon
Basic Synapse damage reduction veterancy scaling increased from 3% to 5% per level (damage mitigation increased from 20/22/25/27% to 20/24/28/31%)
Tyranid structures will now regnerate health slowly
Without Number now spawns a Ripper Swarm at the HQ Without Number cost increased from 50/0/100 to 200/0/100
Without Number cooldown increased from 90 to 240 seconds
Brood Nest cost increased from 75 to 100 Biomass
Brood Nest population cost increased from 4 to 5
Brood Nest now increases the health regeneration of nearby units by 0.25
Stalk cost increased from 35 to 75 Biomass
Stalk now decreases enemy hero damage by 10% for the duration
Stalk now increases the Lictor Alpha’s damage and speed by 25% for the duration
Tyranoform delay decreased by 1 second
Tyranoform main towers’ damage decreased from 300 to 175
Tyranoform now increases the speed of allied Tyranid infantry by 1 for 20 seconds in a radius of 40 from the targeting point
Tyranoform capillary tower synapse ranged damage bonus increased from 15% to 25%
Hive Tyrant
Rotation rate decreased from 600 to 300
Rending Talons cost adjusted from 115/25 to 120/20
Crushing Claw cost increased from 150/50 to 200/50
Venom Cannon damage increased from 55 to 63
Charge cannot knock back retreating units anymore (but still knocks back non-retreating heavy units)
Improved Synapse cost decreased from 120/30 to 120/25
Bonded Exoskeleton cost increased from 150/40 to 185/50
Invulnerability duration increased from 9 to 12 seconds
Bio-Plasma damage increased from 80 to 90
Bio-Plasma orb speed increased
Psychic Scream cooldown decreased from 50 to 40 seconds
Psychic Scream cost decreased from 115/25 to 100/20
Ravener Alpha
Health decreased from 720 to 650
Tunnel build time increased from 10 to 12 seconds
Ravener Alpha will now appear at the exit (far end) after using Tunnel
Acid Splatter damage increased from 60 to 75 and splash damage from 15 to 20
Acid Splatter cost increased from 120/20 to 135/30
Corrosive Devourer cost decreased from 150/50 to 140/40
Strengthened Sinew no longer grants Fleet of Claw
Strengthened Sinew now increases speed by 1.5
Strengthened Sinew moved from T1 to T2
Strengthened Sinew cost adjusted from 100/25 to 110/20
Regenerate cost decreased from 150/40 to 120/30
Regenerate no longer has a chance of reviving the RA after death
Regenerate now increases health regeneration by 0.3
Toxic Miasma cost decreased from 130/30 to 100/25
Toxic Miasma moved from T2 to T1
Toxic Miasma energy drain decreased from 4 to 3
Toxic Miasma damage increased from 7.5 to 10
Burrow knockback type changed from ability to weapon
Burrow Trap initial delay increased from 0 to 3 seconds
Burrow Trap build time decreased from 6 to 3 seconds
Burrow Trap cooldown decreased from 30 to 5 seconds
Synapse Aura (Damage) radius increased from 15 to 25
Hive Node health decreased from 750 to 500
Hive Node Spore Cloud cooldown reduced from 60 to 40 seconds
Hive Node Spore Cloud radius increased from 20 to 25
Lictor Alpha
Health increased from 630 to 670
Sight radius increased from 38 to 45
Camouflage revert_max decreased from 8 to 6
Flesh Hooks behavior reverted from 3.19.1 to 3.14.2 version
Corrosive Claws damage increase debuff decreased from 25% to 20%
Scything Talons damage increased from 51 to 65
Scything Talons now grant the Scythe ability
Scything Talons cost increased from 100/20 to 120/30
Toxic Miasma damage over time increased from 5 x 2 to 4.5 x 3
Toxic Cysts health bonus increased from 100 to 125
Toxic Burst now increases the Lictor Alpha’s health regeneration by 0.5 for the duration
Adrenal Glands energy bonus decreased from 100 to 50
Adrenal Glands energy regeneration bonus increased from 0.1 to 0.2
Adrenal Glands now increase health regeneration by 0.1
Menacing Visage moved from T2 to T3
Hormagaunt Brood
Cost decreased from 300/0 to 270/0
Start with 8 melee charge range
Adrenal Glands increase charge range to 12
Jump settings modified
Termagant Brood
No changes
Warrior Brood
Health decreased from 360 to 350
Default damage increased from 18 to 21
Adrenal Glands damage increased from 20.6 to 23
Adrenal Glands cost increased from 100/20 to 100/25
Adrenal Glands increase reinforcement cost by 15/3
Warriors can now be re-upgraded with Adrenal Glands despite having the Barbed Strangler upgrade (still cannot purchase BS after committing to AG)
Ravener Brood
Cost increased from 350/40 to 400/40
Build time increased from 24 to 30 seconds
Speed decreased from 7.5 to 6.5
Burrow now breaks suppression and grants suppression immunity and 90% ranged damage resistance until the jump is complete
Enhanced Muscle Coil now increases speed by 1
Enhanced Muscle Coil cost increased from to 50/20 to 60/25
Enhanced Muscle Coil moved from T1 to T2
Devourer moved from T2 to T1
Devourer cost decreased from 100/30 to 60/25
Spore Mines
Build time decreased from 15 to 8 seconds
Ripper Swarm
Base cost adjusted from 20/3 to 26/0 per model
Can now reinforce (13/0)
Venom Brood
Melee charge removed
Cost increased from 300/0 to 350/15
Ranged Synapse cost adjusted from 100/30 to 50/40
Zoanthrope
Speed decreased from 5 to 4.5
Rotation rate increased from 600 to 800
Health increased from 250 to 333
Damage decreased from 75 to 65
Cooldown increased from 0 to 1
Wind up decreased from 2 to 1
Healing Synapse radius increased from 12 to 22
Healing Synapse health regeneration multiplier decreased from 4.5/11.25/28.125/70.3125 to 3.5/5.25/7.875/11.8125 (level 1/2/3/4)
Warp Field efficiency decreased from 3.33 to 2 damage per energy
Genestealer Brood
Cost adjusted from 425/55 to 450/50
Build time decreased from 36 to 30 seconds
Adrenal Rush cooldown decreased from 60 to 40 seconds
Tyrant Guard
Population cost decreased from 15 to 12
Build time increased from 30 to 45 seconds
Speed decreased from 4 to 3.5
Damage increased from 80 to 95
Special attack area type changed from point to line
Lictor
Capped to a maximum of 1 per player
Cost increased from 400/50 to 400/75
Build time increased from 20 to 30 seconds
Health increased from 1000 to 1250
Carnifex
Special attacks no longer knock back retreating units (but still knock back heavy non-retreating units)
Cost decreased from 600/160 to 600/150
Build time increased from 30 to 50 seconds
Thornback cost decreased from 200/50 to 150/50
Charge cannot knock back retreating units (but still knocks back heavy non-retreating units)
Barbed Strangler cooldown decreased from 4 to 3 and reload duration from 5 to 4
Barbed Strangler cost increased from 90/50 to 100/50
Venom Cannon damage increased from 74 to 85
Venom Cannon reload frequency increased from 2 to 3
Venom Cannon reload duration increased from 2 to 3
Venom Cannon cost increased from 100/50 to 150/50
Bio-Plasma damage increased from 100 to 120
Bio-Plasma orb speed increased
Swarmlord
Cost increased from 800/180 to 800/200
Chaos Space Marines
New units
Chaos Raptors
Chaos Terminators
Land Raider Phobos
General changes
Malingnant Blindness cost decreased from 125 to 100 Favor
Bloodlust melee damage bonus decreased from 5% to 2%
Bloodlust now increases ranged damage by 1% on hit
Bloodlust cost increased from 175 to 200 Favor
Blood Sacrifice cost decreased from 200 to 175 Favor
Plague of Undeath cost increased from 175 to 200 Favor
Plague of Undeath duration increased from 20 to 25 seconds
Touch of Nurgle can now be targeted on allied Chaos units
Touch of Nurgle explosions of Heretics do 37.5 damage while other units explode for 75 damage; heal effect is 75 and radius is 10 for all models
Touch of Nurgle explosions prevent other models within 5 radius from exploding until a 3 second cooldown has expired
Noxious Cloud speed decreased from 4.5 to 4
Noxious Cloud duration decreased from 22 to 16 seconds
Noxious Cloud self energy drain rate increased by 37.5% (from 0.45 to 0.61875 every 0.1 seconds)
Dark Flames damage type changed from flame_aoe_ability_pvp to flame_pvp
Dark Flames moved from T1 to T2
Mass Warp reworked into Warp; teleports one unit to the Sorcerer for 100 Favor
Daemonic Summoning cost decreased from 250 to 200 Favor
New T3 global: Summon Chaos Terminators
Empyreal Abyss delay increased by 1 second
Empyreal Abyss hooks cannot pull in retreating units
Chaos Lord
New unlock: unique chest piece (54)
Rotation rate decreased from 600 to 400
Melee charge range decreased from 12 to 10.5
Combi-Flamer cost decreased from 120/30 to 100/30
Blood Maul damage type changed from power melee to melee
Blood Maul special attack damage increased from 40 to 50
Sweeping Doom now causes a 5 second stun effect
Blood Maul cost increased from 150/35 to 150/50
Harness of Rage health regeneration bonus increased from 0.1 to 0.25
Harness of Rage now increases melee damage by 10%
Harness of Rage cost increased from 100/25 to 125/25
Let the Galaxy Burn fireballs decreased from 5 to 4
Drain Life duration reduced from 6 to 3 seconds
Drain Life damage increased from 10 to 20 dps (total damage remains 60 as duration is reduced)
Drain Life heal increased from 20 to 50 hp/s (total heal increased from 120 to 150 as duration is reduced)
Daemonic Visage now passively reduces weapon damage of non-building/vehicle enemies by 15% in radius 25
Daemonic Visage cost increased from 100/30 to 125/35
Plague Champion
Health increased from 650 to 680
Default bolter damage increased from 5 to 8 and damage over time from 0.75 to 0.9
Bilious Discharge targeting range decreased from 40 to 30 and weapon range from 45 to 35
Plague Sword cost decreased from 150/30 to 135/30
Fetid Armor health bonus increased from 100 to 150
Armor of Pestilence speed penalty decreased from 1 to 0.5
Armor of Pestilence no longer causes an explosion on death
Armor of Pestilence now grants the Aura of Decay ability, charged by taking damage
Icon of Nurgle radius increased from 15 to 22
Icon of Nurgle damage frequency decreased from 1.5 to 2.5 seconds
Chaos Sorcerer
Doombolts collision type changed from homing to plasma
Consume now also heals for 40 health
Coruscating Flame duration decreased from 10 to 7 seconds
Coruscating Flame damage type changed from flame_aoe_ability_pvp to flame_pvp
Coruscating Flame damage decreased from 3 to 2 per second
Coruscating Flame now only damages enemy units
Rod of Warpfire default ranged attack damage increased from 25 to 50
Chains of Torment (wargear) health bonus increased from 100 to 150
Chains of Torment (wargear) now increases health regeneration by 0.1
Daemon Armor health bonus increased from 100 to 150
Daemon Armor now increases maximum energy by 40
Daemon Armor now increases energy regeneration by 0.15
Daemonic Shield now grants suppression immunity and breaks suppression
Curse of Tzeentch duration increased from 10 to 15 seconds
Curse of Tzeentch damage decreased from 35 to 25
Chaos Heretics
Cost decreased from 260/0 to 230/0
Health decreased from 80 to 75
Global value increased from 3 to 4
Aspiring Champion squad health buff increased from 15% to 20%
Aspiring Champion cost adjusted from 95/30 to 100/25
Nurgle Worship health regeneration bonus decreased from 0.5 to 0.35
Daemon health regeneration bonus of all Worship types decreased from 1.2 to 1.0
Toggle delay of all Worship types reduced from 3 to 2 seconds
Aspiring Champion now has a melee charge
Chaos Space Marines
Upgrading to Mark of Khorne now changes the squad’s appearance
Upgrading to Mark of Tzeentch now changes the squad’s appearance
Aspiring Champion equips a new bolt pistol, damage increased from 7 to 22
Aspiring Champion cost increased from 80/15 to 80/25
Eternal War cost decreased from 75/20 to 60/15
Mark of Khorne cost incerased from 75/20 to 90/30
Mark of Khorne health bonus increased from 10% to 15%
Chaos Havocs
Lascannon setup duration decreased from 5 to 4 seconds
Lascannon reload duration decreased from 5 to 3.5 seconds
Autocannon damage increased from 50 to 60
Noise Marines
Health decreased from 350 to 333
Rotation rate increased from 300 to 600
Population cost decreased from 5 to 4
Squad now equips one sonic blaster and two bolters
Sonic blaster damage increased from 5 to 15
Sonic blaster range decreased from 27 to 26
Sonic blaster cooldown increased from 0 to 0.3
Bloodcrusher
Charge cooldown increased from 20 to 30 seconds
Charge does not knock back retreating units
Bloodletters
Cost decreased from 440/40 to 400/40 and upkeep from 10.2 to 7.7
Health (HQ Bloodletters only) increased from 250 to 300
Damage type changed from heavy melee to power melee
Damage increased from 38 to 45
Temporary Bloodletter damage type changed to power melee
Temporary Bloodletter damage decreased from 50 to 45
Melee charge changed from range 0-12 charge into range 6-17 automatic teleport, cooldown increased from 6 to 12 seconds
Blood Sacrifice Bloodletters now have a double energy drain rate (additional -5 per second) starting after a 20 second delay
Plague Marines
Speed decreased from 4.5 to 4
Passive slow aura effect decreased from 30% to 20%
Missile launcher snare effect increased from 25% to 40%
Death explosion healing effect no longer affects Plague Marines
Death explosion damage decreased from 80 to 50
Cost adjusted from 500/40 to 450/50
Chaos Dreadnought
Build time decreased from 50 to 40 seconds
Rotation rate increased from 200 to 225
Special attacks no longer knock back retreating units (but still knock back heavy non-retreating units)
Autocannon damage increased from 50 to 60
Missile launcher minimum range decreased from 15 to 5
Missile launcher friendly fire removed
Frenzied Barrage damage increased from 10 to 20
Blood Rage duration decreased from 30 to 15 seconds
Blood Rage cooldown decreased from 40 to 30 seconds
Mark of Khorne cost decreased from 100/45 to 100/30
Mark of Tzeentch cost increased from 80/20 to 100/30
Chaos Predator
Mark of Khorne damage bonus increased from 25% to 75% (autocannon damage lowered to compensate; only changes bolter damage)
Mark of Khorne cost decreased from 150/35 to 100/30
Mark of Nurgle now grants 40% resistance to melee damage
Mark of Nurgle now grants autocannon shells that infect infantry
Mark of Nurgle cost decreased from 150/50 to 100/40
Lascannon splash pattern changed (was set for 3 radius despite splash being 1)
Great Unclean One
Cost increased from 700/180 to 800/200
Now has a Nurgle decorator
Now has a passive aura causing 5 piercing damage every 1.5 second in radius 15
Vomit now fires considerably faster (animation changed and wind-up decreased)
Vomit damage decreased from 250 to 225
Vomit cooldown increased from 30 to 50 seconds
Swarm of Flies knocback type changed from ability to weapon
Heavy Bolter Turret
Lascannon Turret cost decreased from 80/40 to 75/0
Lascannon Turret build time decreased from 30 to 15 seconds
Lascannon Turret wind-up decreased from 2 to 1
Lascannon Turret wind-down decreased from 4.3 to 4
Chaos Shrines
Chaos Shrines cost decreased from 150/20 to 150/15
Amount capped to a maximum of 3 per player
Chaos Shrine of Khorne now increases the damage of friendly units by 10% in a radius of 25
Chaos Shrine of Nurgle healing pulse buffed from 5% to 7%
Chaos Shrine of Nurgle effect radius increased from 20 to 25
Chaos Shrine of Tzeentch now grants 10% damage resistance in a radius of 25
Chaos Shrine of Tzeentch doombolt speed increased
Chaos Shrine of Tzeentch range decreased from 50 to 44
Chaos Shrine of Tzeentch doombolt scatter decreased
Chaos Shrine of Tzeentch doombolt splash radius increased from 3 to 4 with full damage in the entire radius
Chaos Shrine of Tzeentch doombolt friendly fire removed
Imperial Guard
New units
Artillery Spotter Squad
General changes
Imperial Guard Bunker cost decreased from 150/0/5 to 100/0/75
Imperial Guard Bunker population cost decreased from 5 to 3
Medical Bunker heal radius increased from 20 to 30
Medical Bunker cost decreased from 150/50 to 125/30
Medical Bunker build time decreased from 30 to 20 seconds
Repair Bunker cost decreased from 150/50 to 125/30
Repair Bunker build time decreased from 30 to 20 seconds
Hellfury Strike now only affects infantry units
Valkyrie Bane Wolf Drop cost adjusted from 350/50/175 to 350/40/200
Basilisk Creeping Barrage damage decreased from 40 to 30
Delay between Creeping Barrage shells increased from 1 to 1.5 seconds
Basilisk Creeping Barrage cost decreased from 200 to 175 Command
Heavy Turret cooldown increased from 0 to 30 seconds
Heavy Turret tracking speed increased from 40/15 to 80/30
Heavy Turret Executioner Cannon is now free
Heavy Turret Executioner Cannon maximum range increased from 38 to 48
Heavy Turret Executioner Cannon build time decreased from 30 to 15 seconds
Valkyrie Leman Russ Drop cost decreased from 600/0/275 to 500/0/200
Off-map Basilisk Flare duration increased from 10 to 14 seconds
Off-map Basilisk Flare cooldown decreased from 120 to 100 seconds
Air Dropped Mines initial delay decreased from 20 to 10 seconds
Air Dropped Mines vehicle snare effect increased from 5 to 30 seconds
Multi-las Turret Salvage delay decreased from 10 to 7.5 seconds
Multi-las Turret Salvage return increased from 75/2.5 to 75/5
Inquisitor
New unlocks for the Inquisitor: common armor (0), rare armor (21), epic armor (42)
New accessory for the Inquisitor: Servo Skull (T1, 100/20)
New ability for the Inquisitor: Auspex Scan (reveals an area briefly, requires the Servo Skull accessory)
Hammer of the Witches range increased from 25 to 30
Crippling Volley snare duration decreased from 8 to 6 seconds
Crippling Volley damage removed
Holy Brazier special attack damage increased from 50 to 60
Assail no longer requires the Inquisitor to stand still
Assail now immobilizes and deals damage over time
Purgatus cost increased from 200/35 to 200/50
Purgatus damage decreased from 200 to 170
Rosarius price increased from 100/20 to 120/30
Impenetrable duration decreased from 10 to 7 seconds
Lord General
New unlocks: epic armor (12), medal 1 (24), medal 2 (32), medal 3 (44), hat (48), bear pelt (56), cigar (60)
Grenade Launchers cost adjusted from 130/20 to 90/30
Fire on my target! range buff increased from 35% to 50%
Meltaguns moving accuracy increased from 50% to 100%
Retinue Storm Trooper cost increased from 50 to 60 Requisition
Carapace Armor now increases maximum energy by 20
Flak Jacket cost decreased from 150/35 to 125/30
Incoming! now grants immunity to all types of knockback
Incoming! now has a “Tactical Advance” fx
Back in the Fight! cooldown reduced from 60 to 50 seconds
Stabilisers cost decreased from 150/30 to 125/30
Distribute Medi-pack Kit cooldown increased from 10 to 20 seconds
Distribute Medi-pack Kit energy cost increased from 50 to 60
Refractor Field damage mitigation decreased from 55% to 50%
Commissar Lord
Lead by Example AoE damage buff increased from 10% to 15%
Power Fist cost decreased from 150/50 to 150/40
Carapace Armor now increases health regeneration by 0.25
Carapace Armor now decreases Inspire Courage energy cost by 25 (from 20)
Carapace Armor now grants further benefits to Inspire Courage: a 15% damage bonus and suppression immunity for 15 seconds for the Commissar Lord
Carapace Armor cost decreased from 150/35 to 100/30
Bionic Eye no longer increases maximum energy
Inspire Determination will now heal the target squad to full health
Inspire Determination will now increase target speed by 3.5
Inspire Determination no longer grants knockback immunity
Aura of Discpiline now passively heals allied infantry within radius 20 every 8 seconds; the healing effect is stronger with only few models nearby and gets progressively weaker when there are more
Aura of Discipline cost decreased from 125/35 to 110/20
Stubbornness heal effect decreased from 10 to 7
Guardsman Infantry Squad
Deployable Cover build time decreased from 25 to 10 seconds
Sergeant population cost decreased from 4 to 3
Commissar population cost decreased from 4 to 3
Regeneration in combat increased from 0 to 0.5
Sentinel
Health decreased from 750 to 700
Cost decreased from 350/0 to 300/0
Extra Armor removed
Now starts without Ground Pound
Now has a Ground Pound upgrade, which Unlocks the Ground Pound ability and increases maximum health by 100
Ground Pound stun duration increased from 5 to 7 seconds
Missile Launcher cost decreased from 100/40 to 80/25
Krak Missile reload duration decreased from 6 to 5
Keen sense radius decreased from 15 to 10
XP value increased from 50 to 150
Global value increased from 15 to 22
Heavy Weapon Squad
Regeneration in combat adjusted from 0 or 1 to 0.5
Heavy weapon model population cost increased from 3 to 4
Rifle model population cost decreased from 3 to 2
Sergeant population cost decreased from 3 to 2
Rifle models have their lasguns back
Squad can no longer use Repair if the heavy weapon is set up
Autocannon damage increased from 55 to 60
Catachan Devils
Squad members increased from 5 to 7
Sarge population cost decreased from 3 to 2
Health decreased from 210 to 140
Melee damage decreased from 30 to 20
Shotgun damage decreased from 30 to 20
Reinforce time decreased from 75% to 50%
Cost decreased from 400/40 to 350/40
Grenade launcher man population cost decreased from 2 to 0
XP value decreased from 110 to 100
Regeneration in combat increased from 0 to 0.5
Smoke Grenade cooldown increased from 0 to 20
Smoke Grenade can now be targeted into the FoW Smoke Grenade now only decreases incoming (not outgoing) ranged damage
Improvised Explosives population cost decreased from 2 to 0
Storm Troopers
Sight radius increased from 40 to 50
Assault Kit now grants the Frag Grenade ability
Assault Kit range bonus decreased from 40% to 20%
Anti-Armor Kit cost decreased from 75/25 to 50/25
Melta Bomb range increased from 20 to 36
Regeneration in combat increased from 0 to 0.5
Ogryn Squad
Rotation rate decreased from 500 to 400
XP value increased from 175 to 240
Global value increased from 14 to 16
Regeneration in combat decreased from 1 to 0.5
Domino strength threshold increased from 60 to 100
Use yer ‘ead! knockback frequency decreased from 5 to 4 seconds
Chimera
Cost decreased from 300/70 to 300/65
Build time increased from 45 to 50 seconds
Extra Armor cost decreased from 90/20 to 50/15
Extra Armor build time decreased from 30 to 15 seconds
Manticore
Removed speed increase during “out of control” death
Manticore rocket damage against light buildings (generators) decreased from 1 to 0.5
Bane Wolf
Valkyrie Bane Wolf Drop cost adjusted from 350/50/175 to 350/40/200
Leman Russ
Health decreased from 900 to 700
Now (again) has a defence rating of 100 (grants approx. 35% damage resistance)
Extra Armor removed
Now has the Elite Tank Crew upgrade which permanently increases health by 100 and sight radius by 15
Executioner build time decreased from 30 to 15 seconds
Executioner damage increased from 18 to 25
Vanquisher build time decreased from 30 to 15 seconds
Vanquisher cooldown decreased from 6 to 4.5
Valkyrie Leman Russ Drop cost decreased from 600/0/275 to 500/0/200
Baneblade
Health decreased from 3750 to 3500
Baneblade Cannon ability removed
Baneblade main cannon will now fire automatically like regular weapons
Baneblade main cannon damage decreased from 450 to 150
Baneblade main cannon no longer does knockback
Baneblade main cannon range decreased from 55 to 50
Demolisher Cannon cooldown decreased from 30 to 20 seconds
Demolisher Cannon no longer disables combat
Demolisher Cannon range decreased from 55 to 50
Demolisher Cannon weapon family changed from autocannon_tank_pvp to psychic_pvp
Demolisher Cannon damage decreased from 400 to 300
^ A bunch of modders did all that in their free time and didn't make any money off of it.
I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said, but there is one point that I'd like to make that has been skirted around by some people. The universality (or lack thereof) of the various rules and rules systems. I play 40k, MTG, and WM. Of the three, I've been playing MTG the longest (since '94). I can, and have, gone just about anywhere in the world and the rules of MTG don't change. I have played MTG with someone that doesn't even speak English with entirely non-English cards and we can play MTG just fine. I can't even play the same game of 40k at my FLGS without everyone, or most everyone, having their own opinion and interpretation about how rules work (or don't). There seems to be an issue if I can change tables in the same building and change how the game is played. This is the "problem" I have with the 40k rule set. There is ambiguity in how rules are worded or how they play out. And this is a problem for people that move around several times or travel a lot.
Why should I not be able to play the same game of 40k in Texas that I could play in Timbuktu? That's what I fail to understand about the looseness of 40k's rules. Every time I've had to move to a new area and find a new FLGS to game in, I've had to figure out what "version" of 40k is being played and how. El Paso-hammer is different than Monterey-hammer, which is further different from Sarasota-hammer yet all three use the same source materials; BRB, codexes, and GWFAQs. This is also an issue for people just visiting as well. MTG doesn't have this problem. I can understand GW not wanting to fix this issue, but I fail to understand how people don't see this as an issue in the first place or wouldn't want to resolve this issue with a tighter or better worded rule set. One should be able to play the with the same rules anywhere, whether at a FLGS, their basement, on a kitchen table at a friends, or in a Grad Prix. The rules of the game should not change with a change in location or time zone (MTG "Un" cards notwithstanding). I certainly enjoy playing 40k, but I could enjoy it more and with more people by actually playing it than by taking time to discuss and figure out what the rules actually mean instead of what they say (or should say) in black in white.
I'd be happy with clear rules that use the consistent wording throughout the book instead of casual wording that requires inferences based on what the writers assume you know.
The biggest problem is that there is so much 'if you play it right' that is required to be applied that players who have a disagreement on what the right way is only have a book that doesn't clearly convey what the writer's intent was.
So my apologies if this has already been suggested (I have read most of this thread, but not all of it because as some of you above have mentioned, it isn't really going anywhere), but what if GW took a page from many current multiplayer video games and had a public beta of new and upcoming rules?
Now fully public would be impossible as there are too many out there who would more likely be detrimental to the process than actually helpful, but if GW made people apply for the beta by filling out a questionnaire which included an "explain why you should be a part of this beta in 500 words or less" essay, and take the first X (I have no idea how many people actually test rules for them so I don't have a good number for you) people who sounded like they would legitimately work on the project, they could make some very good rules with very little work on their end (and if the rules are bad, the players would be the ones to blame).
Setting this up would probably be expensive/time consuming, but as soon as they did once (so long as it was successful), all the pieces would be there to do it again with little to no effort on their part. This would allow them to focus on being a modeling company first...
Damnosus wrote: So my apologies if this has already been suggested (I have read most of this thread, but not all of it because as some of you above have mentioned, it isn't really going anywhere), but what if GW took a page from many current multiplayer video games and had a public beta of new and upcoming rules?
IIRC they were asked to do this at a recent Q&A, and they weren't to thrilled with the suggestion.
Damnosus wrote: So my apologies if this has already been suggested (I have read most of this thread, but not all of it because as some of you above have mentioned, it isn't really going anywhere), but what if GW took a page from many current multiplayer video games and had a public beta of new and upcoming rules?
IIRC they were asked to do this at a recent Q&A, and they weren't to thrilled with the suggestion.
Wow really??? That's very unfortunate. Do you think a mass petition would do anything?
Mr Morden wrote: Well we have totally different views on MTG thats clear same as 40K.
You're right. Mine are correct, yours are based on not understanding MTG very well. That's a big difference.
Afinity should never have been released in any game that had undergone any form of playtesting
Again, mistakes happen. For whatever reason the playtesters never assembled the worst of the affinity decks and so it slipped through under the assumption that it was a powerful but not game-breaking mechanic.
The simple fact is that expecting playtesting to be 100% is completely unrealistic. No plausible amount of playtesting is going to catch everything, simply because there are a lot more players than playtesters and they spend a lot more (total) time on trying to find your mistakes and exploit them. The point here is that WOTC does extensive playtesting and usually gets it right, while GW makes mistake after mistake after mistake and openly admits that they don't playtest properly.
Oh and yeah WOTC banned cards - after people had spent a fortune on them to make winning decks.
Yes, as an absolute last resort when it became obvious that the game was completely broken they banned some cards, many of them worthless commons. But here's the difference:
WOTC has the sense and courage to admit their mistakes and make appropriate changes for the good of the game, even if it means upsetting the players who benefited from the lack of balance.
GW does absolutely nothing to fix game balance issues.
See a problem here yet?
Of course that works well for WOTC as people then have to buy all new power cards...........strange how that works.
Sorry, but that's just stupid. WOTC very rarely bans cards at all, and they aren't always the most expensive cards. If you really believe that WOTC uses bans to boost sales you are completely out of touch with reality.
GW does often try to fix problems with FAQs - like all games - check out all the various tabletop games and find the errata and FAQs - they ALL have them. Now GW does not always get it right on indeed in a timely manner...............
GW occasionally fixes ambiguous rules with FAQs, but does a poor job of it.
GW never fixes BALANCE problems. If they screw up and release an unbalanced unit you're stuck with it for years until the next version of that codex comes out.
Downward power sprials, what nonsense - you are seriously contending that my cards - Legends, Antiquities, Ice Age and Revised are in any way a match for the massively powerful new abilities and costings or cards - not according to all the people who still play it here. And all the shiny rares are rubbish - yeah right.............thats must be why all the rares are sold at 10p each - oh wait no.......... I tried playing the older cards back in the day - new ones are just on the whole better....
Sorry, but you're wrong. If you really believe that the most recent cards are more powerful than the oldest ones then you clearly never played competitive MTG. I can think of quite a few old tournament winners that would dominate anything you can put together with a modern set. And if you remove the bans on the most powerful old cards (since if you require old cards to be banned to make the comparison you've conceded that they're more powerful and the modern deck can't handle them) the modern deck is going to lose every game before it gets a second turn.
Anyway, here's a good example of why claiming power creep in MTG is so stupid. Lightning bolt was printed in the very first set, and from day one was considered a powerful card. And guess what: WOTC has never printed "lightning bolt +1" like they would if they were using power creep. And what did WOTC do when they wanted to push the boundaries a bit and do something exciting? Re-print lightning bolt, the card everyone thought was too good to ever come back. And for the entire time that set was legal lightning bolt was a top-tier card. So, how exactly can there be power creep if the very first cards are still just as powerful as when they were first printed.
Damnosus wrote: So my apologies if this has already been suggested (I have read most of this thread, but not all of it because as some of you above have mentioned, it isn't really going anywhere), but what if GW took a page from many current multiplayer video games and had a public beta of new and upcoming rules?
IIRC they were asked to do this at a recent Q&A, and they weren't to thrilled with the suggestion.
Wow really??? That's very unfortunate. Do you think a mass petition would do anything?
Not in the slightest. A well written letter to some of the studio guys would do far better than an online petition, which tends to be ignored more than... something ignored a lot.
That's something a lot of people don't get. Well written rules don't mean it will be different to now. They could release a game even more random than 6th edition, but still have it well written and unambiguous.
-Loki- wrote: That's something a lot of people don't get. Well written rules don't mean it will be different to now. They could release a game even more random than 6th edition, but still have it well written and unambiguous.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call a false dilemma.
I love the fact that so many people think it is GW's wish to ruin their second jobs. Warhammer is not an occupation, its a game. If there is a dilemma, the rulebook actually sets a course for that: a roll-off. Do you guys seriously approach every game of Warhammer, Magic, etc. as a potential argument? If so, you may need a hobby to take some stress off from your weekend job...
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: I love the fact that so many people think it is GW's wish to ruin their second jobs. Warhammer is not an occupation, its a game. If there is a dilemma, the rulebook actually sets a course for that: a roll-off. Do you guys seriously approach every game of Warhammer, Magic, etc. as a potential argument? If so, you may need a hobby to take some stress off from your weekend job...
No, and that's not the point.
The fact that GW seems incapable of writing clear unambiguous rules (consistently anyway) means that I can set out to have fun playing 40k and have it ruined because someone refuses to roll off, or insists on rolling off about one of the few absolutely clear rules. TMIR isn't a saving grace, it's something that should rarely ever get used. Instead, it's about once a game.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: I love the fact that so many people think it is GW's wish to ruin their second jobs. Warhammer is not an occupation, its a game. If there is a dilemma, the rulebook actually sets a course for that: a roll-off. Do you guys seriously approach every game of Warhammer, Magic, etc. as a potential argument? If so, you may need a hobby to take some stress off from your weekend job...
No, and that's not the point.
The fact that GW seems incapable of writing clear unambiguous rules (consistently anyway) means that I can set out to have fun playing 40k and have it ruined because someone refuses to roll off, or insists on rolling off about one of the few absolutely clear rules. TMIR isn't a saving grace, it's something that should rarely ever get used. Instead, it's about once a game.
Then plan on massive price increases as the massive amount of playtesting to release all codexes in one version massively increases the payroll at GW. And remember, its the UK, so the pay is higher there.
listen, get a grip. its a game. if having to compromise or fudge a rule is that stressful to you or your opponents, maybe its not the rules, maybe its you and your opponents. I remember playing a game of Dungeon (look it up) with my nephew and he found a problem with a rule. you know what we did? we fudged it so we could move on with the game. and the Earth did not split in two and the rivers didn't run with blood.
likewise, I was poisoned by a discussion on this page in a rules argument, and then ran into the same situation in a game with a friend. when I made the same quibble that had been made on the thread, he looked like he was going to eat my face off, then he told me to get a grip and stop trying to be Timmy the Power Gamer.
the rules are fine. maybe its the people whose lives seem to depend on the rules that misinterpret the Most Important Rule, you know, to have fun? I'm sure that GW goes out of their way to make rules that seem to make sense when they write them so that they may be disemboweled because of a rule they wrote three years ago for another edition.
I'd really love to have seen what a discussion page woukd have.looked like in the days of 1st edition AD&D... wow... the number a out-of-joint egos would be ridiculous...
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: the rules are fine. maybe its the people whose lives seem to depend on the rules that misinterpret the Most Important Rule, you know, to have fun? I'm sure that GW goes out of their way to make rules that seem to make sense when they write them so that they may be disemboweled because of a rule they wrote three years ago for another edition.
The problem is that the rules are not fine. The fact that they have to have a "if you disgree on the rule then roll-off" rule in the first place is a major key to that fact. Well written rules don't need a hard coded process to deal with rules confusions built into them. It is that simple. Cleanly and clearly written rules make the fun aspect of the game MUCH easier to achieve. I have spent many a day playing colonial games using the In Darkest Africa ruleset. They are one of the simplest rulesets out there, but are clearly written and defined and make the overall experience consistently fun. I also spend plenty of time playing Flames of War which is a combined arms game that includes rules for infantry, vehicles, armor, guns, artillery and aircraft so is pretty complicated in its approach *but* the rules are well written and clear, so again the overall experience consistently is fun.
It just really bugs me that version after version GW keeps refusing to make things clear and concise and instead keep relying on that stupid roll off rule. When you read the new 6th edition book you can see what the authors *probably* meant in certain areas of the books, but you don't *know* until they faq it. If they had just spelled it out as detailed in the faq in the first place there wouldn't need to be a faq, but for some reason GW still thinks that, despite decades of proof otherwise, that ALL players are just going to magically get what they mean when they can't be bothered to spell it out exactly. It is shoddy and they don't want to change it and it isn't surprising that people are tired of it.
Oh and to head off the obligatory "well then don't play and get rid of your stuff" response that comes in these discussions: I already do that. I love GW's minis still and enjoy buying and building them, but I play less and less 40k every month. When I can play multiple large games of Flames of War in the time I could get in one midsized game of 40k because of the rules annoyances I start playing Flames of War more often. It is that simple. The problem is that I really like 40k. I like the background and the stories and the feel, etc, etc. and would really like to see it be better than it is so I want to play it all the time again.
then its probably all a huge conspiracy of laughs that GW has everytime they get an email or a phone call about a rules question, just like TSR back in the day...
listen, you want balance? then play the same army as your opponent. you want consistent rules? play the same army as your opponent. that will be they only way, short of becoming head of development at GW and forcing the release of every codex everytime a new edition comes out, that every matchup will be blanced and the rules will be consistent.
I swear, some of you guys need a hobby, Warhammer is stressing you out...
This 'love it or leave it' attitude really gets old. It's like some sad form of moral superiority that you bravely forge ahead and either manage to deal with sh*t rules or just refuse to even recognize them.
No, others want to have better rules because they DO care about the game, not because they hate it. This is a forum where among other things, ideas of improving the game are bantered back and forth. Sometimes it is just criticism for its own sake, which is hardly constructive. But to prattle on about how people are fools to voice their concerns about lousy game mechanics on a forum designed for such discussions is nothing short of asinine.
I suppose if we tried to cross a lake on a leaky wooden raft with one oar you'd say 'everything is fine quit yer complaining' since that is the currently available gear. No sense patching the leaks, getting more oars or attaching a sail, right?
It isn't like a leaky boat. No one is going to drown if you play the game as is.
A slightly better, although still bad, analogy would be: It is like a car that you don't like all the features for or the design of. There are several other companies that sell cars. Go buy a car from one that has the features and design you like instead of buying this one and constantly complaining about it.
amanita wrote: This 'love it or leave it' attitude really gets old. It's like some sad form of moral superiority that you bravely forge ahead and either manage to deal with sh*t rules or just refuse to even recognize them.
No, others want to have better rules because they DO care about the game, not because they hate it. This is a forum where among other things, ideas of improving the game are bantered back and forth. Sometimes it is just criticism for its own sake, which is hardly constructive. But to prattle on about how people are fools to voice their concerns about lousy game mechanics on a forum designed for such discussions is nothing short of asinine.
This is a whinge thread that is entirely devoted towards slagging off the existing ruleset. No one is saying that you shouldn't be allowed to knock the rules, or specific rules that you think are poor.
But the general statements backed up by no anecdotes whatsoever is no help to anyone. If people actually cited rules that they thought were poorly written and/or stupid, then it would bring in perspective just how small and obscure that particular rule is.
Then plan on massive price increases as the massive amount of playtesting to release all codexes in one version massively increases the payroll at GW. And remember, its the UK, so the pay is higher there.
...
and yet, Privateer Press did exactly that.
And how? They rolled out a worldwise playtesting base for Warmachine/Hordes Mk2 that pretty much involved the entire player base of the game. they constantly updated the beta rules based on player input, and with thousands of players, and tens of thousands of games they got some pretty solid results and a lot of positive feedback from fans towards the company. it also was part of the reason for its explosion in popularity at the time.
Privateer Press are the movers and shakers in this industry. GeeDub could do worse than take a leaf from their book.
the rules are fine. maybe its the people whose lives seem to depend on the rules that misinterpret the Most Important Rule, you know, to have fun? I'm sure that GW goes out of their way to make rules that seem to make sense when they write them so that they may be disemboweled because of a rule they wrote three years ago for another edition.
if the rules are "fine" then why do we have a never ending stream of complaints?
You know, having good, solid, clear consise rules and having fun are not mutually exlusive.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The reason there is such a disconnect between players and GW is that GW is playing a different game than we are. I am of the opinion that GW really believes in the Most Important Rule and just hashes stuff out at the table. They are honestly confused by how worked up people get over issues, I imagine. For them, the rules look great. We just don't always agree.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: And for most people in these fora, having fun and playing Warhammer *are* mutually exclusive.
You keep saying that. You're absolutely wrong, but you keep saying it.
I've cited rules that are poorly worded, and continue to be after multiple editions. I don't stress out about playing, and if an unclear rule comes up at the table, I rarely care - we talk for 30 seconds and move on. That doesn't change the fact that there are quite a few unclear holes in the rules.
I don't want "perfect" balance. I'm not even addressing balance at all. And it wouldn't take gobs of play testing to find the rules that cause the most grief - it would require a different method of play testing. Instead of playing games for fun and assuming the rules are good, play games to test the rules. "But why should they not play for fun? They're people too!" Because they're game designers. Their job is to not have gak quality rules. Games Workshop isn't a unique entity. There are dozens of other companies that have been successful and putting out better quality rule sets. Saying that common play testing is an undue burden is insane - it should be the minimum required before the book goes to printers.
rigeld2 wrote: "But why should they not play for fun? They're people too!" Because they're game designers. Their job is to not have gak quality rules. Games Workshop isn't a unique entity. There are dozens of other companies that have been successful and putting out better quality rule sets. Saying that common play testing is an undue burden is insane - it should be the minimum required before the book goes to printers.
That's not entirely true. Their job is to make a game. Whether its balanced or worded unambigulously is only their goal if their management make it their goal or if they personally make it their goal. While it may be unprofessional to look at it that way, they are still doing their job - they're making a game that is selling.
Testify wrote: But the general statements backed up by no anecdotes whatsoever is no help to anyone. If people actually cited rules that they thought were poorly written and/or stupid, then it would bring in perspective just how small and obscure that particular rule is.
So basically, if anyone provides examples, there will be a comparison to all rules so that the examples can be belittled for bringing up a small and obscure rule?
In practice it is death by papercuts. Rules that don't meet the fluff, including the description of the rule fluff. Word usage that is vague and could be clarified with only a few word changes.
40k may be poorly-balanced. It may not always make sense in context of the fluff. It may not contain the clearest or most logical rules ever written. It may not be the best game for competitive or tournament play ever written.
However.
40k, when played in a friendly setting with a group of rational people who know each other and are willing to construct house rules and house interpretations of the rules, and who are willing to build lists that are fun to play and to play against rather than throwing the most broken combination of things they can find at their foes, works fairly well.
I realize these are rather stringent qualifications to place on any game, but if you can find a friendly setting and agree upon resolutions to issues with the rules, it's actually a very fun game.
Testify wrote: But the general statements backed up by no anecdotes whatsoever is no help to anyone. If people actually cited rules that they thought were poorly written and/or stupid, then it would bring in perspective just how small and obscure that particular rule is.
Night Scythe rules and their interaction with 6th edition Flyer rules.
Those are obscure?
Edit: that's just the first example that came to mind.
rigeld2 wrote: "But why should they not play for fun? They're people too!" Because they're game designers. Their job is to not have gak quality rules. Games Workshop isn't a unique entity. There are dozens of other companies that have been successful and putting out better quality rule sets. Saying that common play testing is an undue burden is insane - it should be the minimum required before the book goes to printers.
That's not entirely true. Their job is to make a game. Whether its balanced or worded unambigulously is only their goal if their management make it their goal or if they personally make it their goal. While it may be unprofessional to look at it that way, they are still doing their job - they're making a game that is selling.
Saying that they're doing their job - albeit in an unprofessional manner - is similar to saying that a cabbie that gets his fares to their destination is doing his job while cursing and insulting his fares the entire way.
Doing your job poorly isn't the same thing as doing your job. If they wrote better rules, 40k would sell more. Ad it wouldn't take that much more effort.
GW rules are a festering pile of gak. i quit playing. It's unfortunate, i wouldnt mind building a new army and playing if the rules were half decent.
the models are good, their paint is good, the hobby aspect is ok (very time consuming but good). its a shame.
in 5th they made vehicles good so everyone would buy those. now they switch to fliers in 6th.
i read alot of posts telling people to "change and adapt" to 6th. which basically means "buy a bunch of new crap, put your old stuff on the shelf to collect dust"
this is not how a good game should be, i wont bother wasting my energy.
even 13+ years ago. back then in 2nd or whatever it was, our games quickly came down to whoever could fire off 12 missles at once from their cyclone missle launcher. all my friends played for awhile then decided that the game and painting sucked and started playing DnD.
i dont think it's ever been a great game, probably never will be.
Doing your job poorly isn't the same thing as doing your job. If they wrote better rules, 40k would sell more. Ad it wouldn't take that much more effort.
Subway should make better sandwiches. If they made better sandwiches, it wouldn't cost them anything, customers would be happy and they'd make more money.
See what I did there? Saying they should make something "better" is pretty much pointless. What, specifically, do you want from the rules, without using any vague wooly terms?
Night Scythe rules and their interaction with 6th edition Flyer rules.
Those are obscure?
Edit: that's just the first example that came to mind.
That's pretty obscure, yes.
Okay there are, let's say, 20 units in each codex. And how many codexes, like 10? That's 200 units.
How many special rules are there? 20? 30? Let's keep it conservative at 20. We already have 4,000 unit/rule interactions.
Now factor in over-lapping rules. Exceptions, codex-specific rules.
Yeah, no. I stand by my statement. Rulesets are insanely complicated, I think people who complain about 40k being flawed or badly written have a poor understanding of systems. Ironic considering they tend to label themselves as "hardcore" gamers.
Doing your job poorly isn't the same thing as doing your job. If they wrote better rules, 40k would sell more. Ad it wouldn't take that much more effort.
Subway should make better sandwiches. If they made better sandwiches, it wouldn't cost them anything, customers would be happy and they'd make more money.
See what I did there? Saying they should make something "better" is pretty much pointless. What, specifically, do you want from the rules, without using any vague wooly terms?
Night Scythe rules and their interaction with 6th edition Flyer rules.
Those are obscure?
Edit: that's just the first example that came to mind.
That's pretty obscure, yes.
Okay there are, let's say, 20 units in each codex. And how many codexes, like 10? That's 200 units.
How many special rules are there? 20? 30? Let's keep it conservative at 20. We already have 4,000 unit/rule interactions.
Now factor in over-lapping rules. Exceptions, codex-specific rules.
Yeah, no. I stand by my statement. Rulesets are insanely complicated, I think people who complain about 40k being flawed or badly written have a poor understanding of systems. Ironic considering they tend to label themselves as "hardcore" gamers.
Seriously - Night Scythe rules are obscure? And how they interact with Flying Transport rules is something that shouldn't have been caught?
No, really - playing test games not for fun but with the objective of testing the rules (you know, actual QA) would've caught that. Or the FNP+other "unsaved wound" interaction.
AnomanderRake wrote: 40k may be poorly-balanced. It may not always make sense in context of the fluff. It may not contain the clearest or most logical rules ever written. It may not be the best game for competitive or tournament play ever written.
However.
40k, when played in a friendly setting with a group of rational people who know each other and are willing to construct house rules and house interpretations of the rules, and who are willing to build lists that are fun to play and to play against rather than throwing the most broken combination of things they can find at their foes, works fairly well.
I realize these are rather stringent qualifications to place on any game, but if you can find a friendly setting and agree upon resolutions to issues with the rules, it's actually a very fun game.
In other words, you are having fun in spite of the rules, rather than because of them.
What you are saying is this: "if you can ignore everything that is bad, and dodgy, and not put together right, its actually pretty OK". Christ, that kind of attitude could be used to make getting the bloody plague sound like a good experience! And i'm sorry, but that kind of attitude from a company will not sell me on anything, whether its a game of toy soldiers, or a car or anything in between.
Testify wrote: How many special rules are there? 20? 30? Let's keep it conservative at 20. We already have 4,000 unit/rule interactions.
There are actually 80 USRs listed in the 6th edition BYB.
This does not change the fact that there are many rules that are poorly written, or written so that they are very ambiguous. No, I will not list examples, that is a waste of time.
If you want to see a list of examples, I will direct your here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/15.page
There are far more examples of rules that are not clear there than I would want to have to list for you.
Okay there are, let's say, 20 units in each codex. And how many codexes, like 10? That's 200 units.
How many special rules are there? 20? 30? Let's keep it conservative at 20. We already have 4,000 unit/rule interactions.
Now factor in over-lapping rules. Exceptions, codex-specific rules.
Yeah, no. I stand by my statement. Rulesets are insanely complicated, I think people who complain about 40k being flawed or badly written have a poor understanding of systems. Ironic considering they tend to label themselves as "hardcore" gamers.
But it doesn't take a massive amount of effort to fix. When I got my Necron codex last year, I almost immediately noticed the poor wording. I hadn't even played a game with the new units and the wording was already hazy enough that I knew it would be difficult to argue heads or tails on. It didn't take play testing or days of study. It took 30 seconds and a little knowledge of the game. And the thing is, the rule has been that way since it was released....even though there has been what? At least one FAQ since then? It's not an unknown issue. It's just one they haven't bothered to fix. There are other issues in other codices as well. Some might require play testing to clarify, others might just require a quick walk down to the office of whoever wrote the rules to see what's up. It's the type of thing that should have gotten caught by an editor, really....but that's another issue entirely.
For the Nightscythe rule, all they have to do is go to Matt Ward and say "Hey, if a nightsythe gets blown up before it's troops disembark, do they take damage even though they are in reserve?" Wait for his response. Add to FAQ (which requires opening the PDF, adding the note with a date of addition, and then reuploading it to the website...I do the same thing at work on a daily basis).
Testify wrote: How many special rules are there? 20? 30? Let's keep it conservative at 20. We already have 4,000 unit/rule interactions.
There are actually 80 USRs listed in the 6th edition BYB.
That gives us 16,000 rule interactions.
Do you not see my point yet?
No one is a saying that there shouldn't be issues. We all know that's impossible. We just ask that we get caught and fixed. There are rules that have been vague or ambiguously written for years without being fixed. Is it too much to ask that the rules for the game we spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on be well written, or at least fixed when errors are found?
Testify wrote: How many special rules are there? 20? 30? Let's keep it conservative at 20. We already have 4,000 unit/rule interactions.
There are actually 80 USRs listed in the 6th edition BYB.
That gives us 16,000 rule interactions.
Do you not see my point yet?
No. The day I bought the book I read through it and found a few rules with poor wording.
That's not even playing games - I've since found far more. And if I sat down to play test the rules, as GW should have done, I'd find all of them before it goes to print.
You're making excuses for them not play testing these rules, many of which have issues that go back through editions. There's literally no excuse for that.
Testify wrote: How many special rules are there? 20? 30? Let's keep it conservative at 20. We already have 4,000 unit/rule interactions.
There are actually 80 USRs listed in the 6th edition BYB.
That gives us 16,000 rule interactions.
Do you not see my point yet?
No. The day I bought the book I read through it and found a few rules with poor wording.
That's not even playing games - I've since found far more. And if I sat down to play test the rules, as GW should have done, I'd find all of them before it goes to print.
You're making excuses for them not play testing these rules, many of which have issues that go back through editions. There's literally no excuse for that.
What you are referring to is called a QA usability test. Codices are essentially just like the manuals I write at work everyday (technical writer). When you finish writing a section/chapter/whatever, you test to be sure everything makes sense. If I'm writing a manual for a radio handset, I take my instructions and follow them to the T (RaW) and make sure the results match the purpose. If my instructions do not do what they were supposed to (ie: through a ambiguity with terminology or what have you), I fix it. Then I hand it off to my lead copy editor. She does the same thing and typically takes it to a non-tech department to get them to do it too. If the directions fail, it lands back on my desk with notes and I fix it, repeating the process as before. Nothing leaves our department for print or publication without 4-5 people testing it out. GW, apparently, doesn't do this. The Nightscythe rule that's come up multiple times in this thread shouldn't have made is past Matt Ward. He should have usability tested it (doesn't actually require playing the game to find the fault) and then rewritten it for clarity. He didn't. As a writer, especially one working in essentially technical communications....which is what writing a rule book is, it's his job to fix that. It hasn't been.
Thus, problems.
(Before anyone attacks me about "Matt Ward....", remember that it is HIS name on the codex. His reputation stands to be tarnished by that mistake. If he values his rep, he'd have caught it. He didn't.)
Testify wrote: How many special rules are there? 20? 30? Let's keep it conservative at 20. We already have 4,000 unit/rule interactions.
There are actually 80 USRs listed in the 6th edition BYB.
That gives us 16,000 rule interactions.
Do you not see my point yet?
I'll keep going back to this. your point falls flat for the simple reason that Privateer Press can do it right. And they did it right with 11 factions (2 of which are technically 6 sub faction), hundreds of warlocks/warcasters, thousands of spells hundreds of warjacks/warbeasts, hundreds of units and solos, most of which have their own unique slew of rules and abilities, which all leads to a mindboggling amount of possible synnergies, combos and interactions. In each expansion of the game, they've added something new to it (cavalry, epic warcasters, battle engines, colossals/gargantuans) so the game is constantly growing and evolving. And yet, they've created a game that in three years has become one of the bywords for "balance" in our little wee hobby.
GeeDub may think they have many reasons for putting out shoddy rules. but "too many interactions" isnt valid.
Testify wrote: How many special rules are there? 20? 30? Let's keep it conservative at 20. We already have 4,000 unit/rule interactions.
There are actually 80 USRs listed in the 6th edition BYB.
That gives us 16,000 rule interactions.
Do you not see my point yet?
Is your point that you are bad at math?
Oh yeah. It's actually 320,000 possible interactions. How lazy of GW not to check every single one of them.
Nerobellum wrote:
No one is a saying that there shouldn't be issues. We all know that's impossible. We just ask that we get caught and fixed. There are rules that have been vague or ambiguously written for years without being fixed. Is it too much to ask that the rules for the game we spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on be well written, or at least fixed when errors are found?
They are fixed, hence FAQs. Holding up nightsythes as an example of GW's laziness screams of beardy pedantry. If people email GW with errors/complaints, they *do* get fixed.
rigeld2 wrote:
No. The day I bought the book I read through it and found a few rules with poor wording.
That's not even playing games - I've since found far more. And if I sat down to play test the rules, as GW should have done, I'd find all of them before it goes to print.
So you alone are better than every single GW writer, and every single proof-reader? Okay mate.
rigeld2 wrote:
You're making excuses for them not play testing these rules, many of which have issues that go back through editions. There's literally no excuse for that.
Now you've just made up something else completely. What are these issues that go back through editions?
Nerobellum wrote:
What you are referring to is called a QA usability test. Codices are essentially just like the manuals I write at work everyday (technical writer). When you finish writing a section/chapter/whatever, you test to be sure everything makes sense. If I'm writing a manual for a radio handset, I take my instructions and follow them to the T (RaW) and make sure the results match the purpose. If my instructions do not do what they were supposed to (ie: through a ambiguity with terminology or what have you), I fix it. Then I hand it off to my lead copy editor. She does the same thing and typically takes it to a non-tech department to get them to do it too. If the directions fail, it lands back on my desk with notes and I fix it, repeating the process as before. Nothing leaves our department for print or publication without 4-5 people testing it out. GW, apparently, doesn't do this. The Nightscythe rule that's come up multiple times in this thread shouldn't have made is past Matt Ward. He should have usability tested it (doesn't actually require playing the game to find the fault) and then rewritten it for clarity. He didn't. As a writer, especially one working in essentially technical communications....which is what writing a rule book is, it's his job to fix that. It hasn't been.
Thus, problems.
(Before anyone attacks me about "Matt Ward....", remember that it is HIS name on the codex. His reputation stands to be tarnished by that mistake. If he values his rep, he'd have caught it. He didn't.)
Are you serious? Are you serious? I have never bought a manual for *anything* that was even slightly readable. I tried flicking through the manual for my dad's car to disable the automatic travel updates from interupting the radio. I gave up after half an hour because it was just impossible to navigate the manual.
Conversely, you want to look up how a rule works in 40k? That's fine, just check it in the glossary.
Deadnight wrote:
I'll keep going back to this. your point falls flat for the simple reason that Privateer Press can do it right. And they did it right with 11 factions (2 of which are technically 6 sub faction), hundreds of warlocks/warcasters, thousands of spells hundreds of warjacks/warbeasts, hundreds of units and solos, most of which have their own unique slew of rules and abilities, which all leads to a mindboggling amount of possible synnergies, combos and interactions. In each expansion of the game, they've added something new to it (cavalry, epic warcasters, battle engines, colossals/gargantuans) so the game is constantly growing and evolving. And yet, they've created a game that in three years has become one of the bywords for "balance" in our little wee hobby.
I've never played (or before I came to dakka, even heard of) privateer press, so I can't comment.
Oh yeah. It's actually 320,000 possible interactions. How lazy of GW not to check every single one of them.
They don't need to check every single one - I don't expect perfection.
They are fixed, hence FAQs. Holding up nightsythes as an example of GW's laziness screams of beardy pedantry. If people email GW with errors/complaints, they *do* get fixed.
Demonstrably false. The FNP vs unsaved wound debacle has been going on since the beginning of 5th and has never been FAQed despite numerous emails.
rigeld2 wrote:No. The day I bought the book I read through it and found a few rules with poor wording.
That's not even playing games - I've since found far more. And if I sat down to play test the rules, as GW should have done, I'd find all of them before it goes to print.
So you alone are better than every single GW writer, and every single proof-reader? Okay mate.
Apparently so. And I'm not alone. If GW cared about putting out a good rules set, they'd QA it.
Now you've just made up something else completely. What are these issues that go back through editions?
You have the Feel No Pain special rule. You suffer a wound that has the Entropic Strike special rule (for example - also Tyranid Boneswords, Force Weapons, and more). You pass your Feel No Pain roll.
Do you lose your armor save?
Are you serious? Are you serious? I have never bought a manual for *anything* that was even slightly readable. I tried flicking through the manual for my dad's car to disable the automatic travel updates from interupting the radio. I gave up after half an hour because it was just impossible to navigate the manual.
Conversely, you want to look up how a rule works in 40k? That's fine, just check it in the glossary.
Can you show me in the rule book how the Night Scythe rule interacts with Crash and Burn? Page numbers would be awesome - hundreds of people have missed it, so your help would be appreciated.
As for your anecdote, I've only ever found technical manuals easy to navigate. Not sure what else to tell you
I've never played (or before I came to dakka, even heard of) privateer press, so I can't comment.
Testify wrote:So you alone are better than every single GW writer, and every single proof-reader? Okay mate.
In the realm of usability testing, I would say yes, I am better at it then GW. I went to college and have a degree as a technical writer. It's my job to do that. If GW wants to pay me a salary to do it for them, I'll do it gladly. I'll even guarantee the conversation we're having now won't be necessary if that be the case.
Testify wrote:
Nerobellum wrote:
What you are referring to is called a QA usability test. Codices are essentially just like the manuals I write at work everyday (technical writer). When you finish writing a section/chapter/whatever, you test to be sure everything makes sense. If I'm writing a manual for a radio handset, I take my instructions and follow them to the T (RaW) and make sure the results match the purpose. If my instructions do not do what they were supposed to (ie: through a ambiguity with terminology or what have you), I fix it. Then I hand it off to my lead copy editor. She does the same thing and typically takes it to a non-tech department to get them to do it too. If the directions fail, it lands back on my desk with notes and I fix it, repeating the process as before. Nothing leaves our department for print or publication without 4-5 people testing it out. GW, apparently, doesn't do this. The Nightscythe rule that's come up multiple times in this thread shouldn't have made is past Matt Ward. He should have usability tested it (doesn't actually require playing the game to find the fault) and then rewritten it for clarity. He didn't. As a writer, especially one working in essentially technical communications....which is what writing a rule book is, it's his job to fix that. It hasn't been.
Thus, problems.
(Before anyone attacks me about "Matt Ward....", remember that it is HIS name on the codex. His reputation stands to be tarnished by that mistake. If he values his rep, he'd have caught it. He didn't.)
Are you serious? Are you serious? I have never bought a manual for *anything* that was even slightly readable. I tried flicking through the manual for my dad's car to disable the automatic travel updates from interupting the radio. I gave up after half an hour because it was just impossible to navigate the manual.
Conversely, you want to look up how a rule works in 40k? That's fine, just check it in the glossary.
If you haven't seen a good manual, then clearly you don't buy or use high end navigation and communications equipment on merchant ships. The manual for your dad's car is a bad manual (though I'd like to know what the make and model is so I can see for myself). They exist. Odds are, the company that made your dad's car either did in house or found the lowest bidder. In my line of work, that doesn't fly. My last publication was the user guide to a $47,000 radio telemetry system for large container ships. The manual itself cost $350 and is not included with the system (but considering the customers are multinational shipping companies like Mearsk and CGM CMA, it's drops in a swimming pool). If my manual isn't clear and concise, a quarter billion worth of ship and cargo could end up dashed on coral reef because the radioman didn't know the frequency tunings require updating at regular 50 nautical mile intervals. However, the fact you even have a manual with the car is incidental. Your dad presumably paid for the car, not the manual. For most people, the manual is not necessary for the successful use of the car. When you spend $75 on the BRB or $20-30 for a codex or $350 on a radio system manual, you are paying for a manual. The money spent ceases to serve it's intended purpose if you can't make sense of it.
rigeld2 wrote: "But why should they not play for fun? They're people too!" Because they're game designers. Their job is to not have gak quality rules. Games Workshop isn't a unique entity. There are dozens of other companies that have been successful and putting out better quality rule sets. Saying that common play testing is an undue burden is insane - it should be the minimum required before the book goes to printers.
That's not entirely true. Their job is to make a game. Whether its balanced or worded unambigulously is only their goal if their management make it their goal or if they personally make it their goal. While it may be unprofessional to look at it that way, they are still doing their job - they're making a game that is selling.
Saying that they're doing their job - albeit in an unprofessional manner - is similar to saying that a cabbie that gets his fares to their destination is doing his job while cursing and insulting his fares the entire way.
Doing your job poorly isn't the same thing as doing your job. If they wrote better rules, 40k would sell more. Ad it wouldn't take that much more effort.
Doing your job poorly is still doing your job. Because they are doing it - poorly. If someone does a poor job at work, they will still get paid to go to work and keep doing it, until managment gets fed up and either tells you to lift your game or go.
The fact that they're not being told to lift their game, and are still putting out the same quality rules as they always have, means managent is perfectly happy with the current staff and the job they're doing. So yeah, they're doing their job by writing a ruleset that sells.
Whether you like their product or not has no bearing whatsoever on them doing their job. It just means you're dissatisfied with their product. I don't eat McDonalds anymore because I'm not satisfied with their product - I'm not going to walk into the back and yell at the person making their 'burgers' that they're not doing their job, because they are. I'm just one unsatisfied customer, and eat elsewhere.
Testify wrote: Oh yeah. It's actually 320,000 possible interactions. How lazy of GW not to check every single one of them.
It IS lazy. Other companies manage to develop games with no possible ambiguity in their rules, even when those games have equal or greater levels of complexity. For example, count up how many interactions there are in even a single MTG set, and then observe that it is impossible to create a situation that isn't explicitly covered by the rules.
Oh my god - it would take a week to even do a simple check on all the rules without even play testing in a game!
You're right Testify, that's absolutely outrageous and were fools for thinking its a good idea.
Not all rules interact with each other, in fact very few special rules directly interact with each other.
Move Through Cover doesn't interact with any of the shooting special rules for example.
That leaves a lot fewer interactions than thousands, tens, or even hundreds of thousands if you just multiply based on the total number. But if there is any kind of standard to how rules are designed then the actual conflicts would be few and far between.
Complexity isn't a big issue if there is consistency in the writing and design, GW's rules are poor because they don't go for consistency because they go for 'fun' and leave it to the players to fix the issues caused by poor wording.
Testify wrote: Assuming 5 seconds for each check, That would take about 6 working days, or 2 working days for 3 guys working flat out.
And that's without multiple rules affecting the same thing.
And yet WOTC manages to create a game with zero ambiguity despite even a single MTG set having more possible interactions.
Have you even read the newest DnD next playtests? It's been going on for an entire YEAR and still isn't anywhere near close to done due to how asinine some things they do with it is.
Not to mention MTG is a bit of a different issue, considering that if they were in charge we'd either have all new sets of codex's for everyone, or everything before 5th edition would be banned from standard play until updated. Not to mention what doesn't sell would simply be cut and never updated.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Have you even read the newest DnD next playtests? It's been going on for an entire YEAR and still isn't anywhere near close to done due to how asinine some things they do with it is.
Nope. I stopped playing D&D when I realized that I don't actually like most of the other players. If the people running the D&D side of the company are screwing things up that's sad, but I'm talking about the MTG side.
(Of course public playtests are a good thing, can you imagine GW ever doing one at all?)
Not to mention MTG is a bit of a different issue, considering that if they were in charge we'd either have all new sets of codex's for everyone, or everything before 5th edition would be banned from standard play until updated. Not to mention what doesn't sell would simply be cut and never updated.
Err, no. First of all, this has nothing to do with the point here, about GW's poor quality rules. The rules for MTG are flawless even if you hate the block rotation mechanic, and all of those old cards (which are still legal in various tournament formats) still work perfectly without any ambiguity or room for rule disputes. So whether or not you like MTG it's simply absurd to suggest that it's not possible for GW to do the same, because other companies are doing it just fine.
And besides that MTG and 40k are not the same game. They have very different goals and there's no reason to believe that WOTC would suddenly impose a rotation mechanic that accomplishes a necessary goal in MTG (and it's not "make more money") on a game like 40k that doesn't have that same goal.
Peregrine wrote: Nope. I stopped playing D&D when I realized that I don't actually like most of the other players. If the people running the D&D side of the company are screwing things up that's sad, but I'm talking about the MTG side.
(Of course public playtests are a good thing, can you imagine GW ever doing one at all?)
And yet you keep clamouring for GW to be bought by WotC. It's equally possible they'll treat it the same way they're treating the DnD side.
Peregrine wrote: Nope. I stopped playing D&D when I realized that I don't actually like most of the other players. If the people running the D&D side of the company are screwing things up that's sad, but I'm talking about the MTG side.
(Of course public playtests are a good thing, can you imagine GW ever doing one at all?)
And yet you keep clamouring for GW to be bought by WotC. It's equally possible they'll treat it the same way they're treating the DnD side.
That's the chance you take. GW's current management is hilariously incompetent, so I'd gladly take the 50/50 gamble on getting professionals like the MTG side of the company to run GW.
Testify wrote: Oh yeah. It's actually 320,000 possible interactions. How lazy of GW not to check every single one of them.
It IS lazy. Other companies manage to develop games with no possible ambiguity in their rules, even when those games have equal or greater levels of complexity. For example, count up how many interactions there are in even a single MTG set, and then observe that it is impossible to create a situation that isn't explicitly covered by the rules.
That's because new cards sets constantly govern new rules. Hence the power creep of any Wizard$ product.
Get real. There is no way on Earth that GW or anyone can preview every single style of matchup ever, short of programming them into a computer and asking Joshua to crank up the W.O.P.R.
1) Every new release is perfectly clear in its rules, with no possible rule disputes.
and
2) All of the old sets are still perfectly clear in their rules, including all interactions with the newest releases.
The simple fact is that WOTC has no problem producing an incredibly complex game with tons of potential interactions without ever allowing rule disputes to occur. Arguing that it's impossible for GW to do the same with 40k, a far simpler game, is just insane.
Hence the power creep of any Wizard$ product.
If you think there's power creep in MTG you clearly don't understand the game and never played against competitive decks/players with old cards.
Get real. There is no way on Earth that GW or anyone can preview every single style of matchup ever, short of programming them into a computer and asking Joshua to crank up the W.O.P.R.
So why is it that other companies release games that are at least as complex as 40k but don't have the same rule problems or terrible balance?
Testify wrote: Oh yeah. It's actually 320,000 possible interactions. How lazy of GW not to check every single one of them.
It IS lazy. Other companies manage to develop games with no possible ambiguity in their rules, even when those games have equal or greater levels of complexity. For example, count up how many interactions there are in even a single MTG set, and then observe that it is impossible to create a situation that isn't explicitly covered by the rules.
That's because new cards sets constantly govern new rules. Hence the power creep of any Wizard$ product.
Get real. There is no way on Earth that GW or anyone can preview every single style of matchup ever, short of programming them into a computer and asking Joshua to crank up the W.O.P.R.
You really need to lighten up.
As we've acknowledged, mistakes happen. Errors can occasionally slip through. The problem is, GW is slow to fixing them (or sometimes just doesn't at all). I like GW. I love playing Warhammer 40k. I'll probably keep playing for a while. But it's not a horrific thing to ask for better follow through on such an expensive product. You act like it's a massive undertaking to just respond to feedback from players in a timely fashion. I can tell you from my own work experience that it's not. If I can get a clearer wiring diagram to 196 ships spread out over 26,000 miles of ocean before lunch on a Tuesday, GW can figure out whether necrons die in reserve and post it to the FAQ within a year.
TrickyTaquito wrote: Asking GW to have a "perfectly balanced" rule system is silly.
Though simpifying the debate to either perfect balance or 40k current status without middleground is even sillier.
TrickyTaquito wrote: Noone seems to think "GW is a model company not a rules company" is a good argument, I call them silly. GW does what they think makes them the most money. This means selling models. This turns out to be releasing a book (which means new models) every once in awhile so people can keep going OOH SHINY. This results in lots of codicies written for different rules. See point B. They could release every codex in one giant wave with new editions, but the gap in between editions would be massive, resulting in more people leaving from lack of new content and less people coming in because they see something new. That means less money, which means unhappy shareholders, which means GW isn't going to go down that road.
Congratulations on your defending of paid and actualy very expensive rules being used for marketing purposes. This is shameless and offending practice, for that price you should expect quality rules and if you say silly then I don't know how to call a guy being aware of such crap buying anything from company pulling it off. btw quality rules would sell models just as good if not better than the mess they write now but it's GW, the toy soldiers predator, the plastic shark, the ripoff tiger. They don't need puny things like quality or decency to rule the jungle that is TT market.
Testify wrote: Oh yeah. It's actually 320,000 possible interactions. How lazy of GW not to check every single one of them.
It IS lazy.
Assuming 5 seconds for each check, That would take about 6 working days, or 2 working days for 3 guys working flat out.
And that's without multiple rules affecting the same thing.
Yep now take it out of perfection land, it takes about a minute to look at Carnifex entry, then at Trygon entry, again at Carnifex with OMG incompetent/ deliberate cashgrab remark and would take a day maybe to fix. After they will fix the obvious in your face imbalances then the discussion about honing balance to perfection, its cost and dimnishing returns may start, until that 40k has abysmal balance and 40k writers are either lazy/ incompetent or deliberatly use rules to sell models.
Given GW doesn't address issues speedily or effectively, would a "community patch" get much traction? Dakka has a substantial 40k population so playtesting shouldn't be a problem.
Using IG as an example, this should get a better variety of units on the board: - Vendetta +20 points. - Rough Rider -2 points - Ratling -2 points - Ogryn -5 points
Then some quick clarifications such as: - Abaddon can join squads that have any chaos mark. - All units with missile launchers can purchase flakk missiles for 10 points.
Just some rough, off the cuff examples. GW is slow addressing flyer concerns - the community can step in with a quick fix that keeps things playable.
Wouldn't need any mechanic changes, you could just modify points generally to ensure that even if GW tries a nerf/buff cycle to sell models the community can still use all (or at least a lot more) models in their codex and not be gimped.
They are fixed, hence FAQs. Holding up nightsythes as an example of GW's laziness screams of beardy pedantry. If people email GW with errors/complaints, they *do* get fixed.
Except they're not.
they might be fixed, eventually. Others have given examples of rules, and interactions that GeeDub never bothered with in their FAQs. Nightscythes is one example, and asking for GeeDub to provide clear, consise interpretations of their rules is certainly not beardy pedantry.
Anyway, other companies do a far better job with regard to their FAQs. Look at Privateer Press and Corvus Beli.
So you alone are better than every single GW writer, and every single proof-reader? Okay mate.
And yet, within days, or even hours of a major new GeeDub release, the playerbase will have already identified a host of problems that flew by all the playtesters, writers, and editors. So yeah, if we're catching things as soon as we've grabbed the codex that are obviously screwy, then it says something about the culture of GeeDub writers and proof readers when they've written, playtested and developed these things over months or years (iirc a new codex development cycle is 18months)
Conversely, you want to look up how a rule works in 40k? That's fine, just check it in the glossary.
And then argue with your friends because the rule is vague and poorly worded. I saw 2 guya argue for 15 minutes over whether Dante's Axe (and its an axe on the figure) was either a "power weapon" or a "power axe". Even if it does work, its crude, and clunky and based on a monolithic example of game design, that in evolutionary terms is a dinosaur.
Again, there is how GeeDub do things and there is how other companies do things. Look at Privateer Press. Look at Corvis Beli. Simple. and elegant.
I've never played (or before I came to dakka, even heard of) privateer press, so I can't comment.
And i'll say this to you then *and i'm saying this in a friendly, joking tone* you should come out from under your rock. Privateer Press, and their games have exploded in popularity here in the UK since they released their Mk2 rules set 2 or 3 years ago. i play in 2 gaming groups in Edinburgh - in one, its evenly split between historicals, malifaux and warmachine.hordes. No GeeDub. at all. In the other, GeeDub games make up 50% of whats played, but a huge proportion of that is bloodbowl. of the rest, warmachine/hordes is a big percentage. and its like this all over the UK and Ireland (personal home country) from my experience. Personally, i would recommend checking them, and other games (malifaux, infinity, flames of war, dropzone commander etc) out if you can. For one simple reason. To see the whole hobby. GeeDub isnt "the hobby". they're a slice of it, and there is so much more wonderful stuff out there.
I personally find when people's sole experience of wargaming comes from GeeDub games, they tend to get a naturally skewed viewpoint. to be fair, its as true of anything where your experience comes from only one point of view. But i made the jump from being a "40k player" a few years ago to being a "wargamer". And its opened my eyes in a big way. All you are doing by playing other games (as well as 40kbtw, its not an either/or equation) is broadening your experience, and expanding your viewpoint. essentially, all you are doing is doing yourself a favour.
they might be fixed, eventually. Others have given examples of rules, and interactions that GeeDub never bothered with in their FAQs. Nightscythes is one example, and asking for GeeDub to provide clear, consise interpretations of their rules is certainly not beardy pedantry.
Nightsythes is the biggest problem you can find with 40k. Sweet Jesus Christ you need a sense of perspective son.
And yet, within days, or even hours of a major new GeeDub release, the playerbase will have already identified a host of problems that flew by all the playtesters, writers, and editors.
Because in a single day the community will play a hundred times more games than the testers could possibly hope to. I followed these forums on the days after 6th release. I was amazed at how little problems there were, given the difficulties of 5th.
So yeah, if we're catching things as soon as we've grabbed the codex that are obviously screwy, then it says something about the culture of GeeDub writers and proof readers when they've written, playtested and developed these things over months or years (iirc a new codex development cycle is 18months)
How many people play GW worldwide? 10,000? 50,000? Okay let's say 50,000. Say 10,000 of these buy the game on the day of release, and play a couple of games each, so 10,000 games in total. In order for GW to have 10,000 tester games, with the finished rules, would take 10,000 times 2.5 hours = 25,000 hours, or 3,125 working days. Congrats you've just pushed back the release of 6th edition 40k by 8 years.
And then argue with your friends because the rule is vague and poorly worded. I saw 2 guya argue for 15 minutes over whether Dante's Axe (and its an axe on the figure) was either a "power weapon" or a "power axe". Even if it does work, its crude, and clunky and based on a monolithic example of game design, that in evolutionary terms is a dinosaur.
You saw two people who took their hobby far too seriously. And the power weapon rules are very clearly written, so whoever was arguing it was a "power weapon" was flat-out wrong.
With all due respect to the discussion and the arguments (and "arguments") people bring up...GW stated that they are not interested in a balanced, competitive ruleset. I agree with Penegrin about WotC likely being better for GW - sure, they'll rip everyone off, but alas, that what GW keeps doing more and more eagerly anyway. On the other side, however, unlike GW, they are interested in a competitive ruleset...and I much, much prefer having such a ruleset than the terrible situation we have right now. I will gladly buy a new codex every 1-2 years compared to...well, every 10 years, given that this codex has actually seen playtesting.
GW will NEVER do any playtesting. GK codex, IG codex, Necron codex - all of these either are an entire mess of blatant overpoweredness (GK) or contain severe and really obvious balance problems (IG, Necrons). All those flaws would be found and complained about by playtesters on the very first day.
GW does not care about balance. Not at all. Get that in your head. If GK would have been balanced, how many GK players would we see now? A whole megaton less. I remembered a huge influx of GK players in our local meta after their codex, that blatantly catered to powergamers, was released. After the new Necron codex was released, we got a lot of new Necron players. New Chaos codex gets released and...1-2 new Chaos players.
GW cares about sales. Overpowered stuff sells really well. The new DA codex is on the horizon. New year, part of the starter box - I expect it to be overpowered. But alas, that's what happened, happens and will always happen. I will gladly accept any competitor taking over GW. For the better or, less likely, worse.
why do all the codexes have to be balanced to work? I really don't hear too many people whining about the ineffetiveness of certain units in Flames of War; or would that be because some armies excel at certain things where others do not? Do you want lots of heavy artillery for Tyranids? or CC-oriented Tau?
as a side note, if so many of you are such experts on game design and mechanics, why don't you try and work for a game company? or, better yet, design your own?
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: why do all the codexes have to be balanced to work? I really don't hear too many people whining about the ineffetiveness of certain units in Flames of War; or would that be because some armies excel at certain things where others do not? Do you want lots of heavy artillery for Tyranids? or CC-oriented Tau?
as a side note, if so many of you are such experts on game design and mechanics, why don't you try and work for a game company? or, better yet, design your own?
If you'd read what he said, this isn't about competitiveness or balance. Balance is something I admit is extraordinarily difficult to manage, especially when you have thousands of possible iterations that can conflict with each other. I helped a friend make NPCs for a Dark Heresy campaign and it became incredibly clear that balancing was going to be an idea, not a goal. What we're talking about is simple "Are the rules clear enough that players don't need to debate them?" It's not about "Do these rules work well together?" It's just simple "Does the wording of what I wrote make sense or does it need to have more information?" The fact we have an entire forum based on debating rules interpretation means that "Yes, there are some clarity issues." I'm looking at a thread right now that's debating whether Kharn can negate the force weapon ID if it had a S8 given that his Blessing of the Blood god says he can't be ID'd by a Force weapon (it doesn't specific if it's the force effect or any weapon with that prefix, regardless of strength). It just requires a quick remark from the writer of the rule to clarify if he intended for Kharn to be immune to ID from force weapons regardless of their innate S or not. It's not a balance issue. It's a clarity issue.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: why do all the codexes have to be balanced to work? I really don't hear too many people whining about the ineffetiveness of certain units in Flames of War; or would that be because some armies excel at certain things where others do not? Do you want lots of heavy artillery for Tyranids? or CC-oriented Tau?
Cite one time I've talked about balance in this thread. Balance has nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with poorly worded rules. Please don't distract from the topic.
as a side note, if so many of you are such experts on game design and mechanics, why don't you try and work for a game company? or, better yet, design your own?
Because its not what I want to do. I actually just got my dream job and its so far away from wargame design it's not funny.
And really - that's the point. I apparently am better at proof reading rules as a hobbyist than someone who is getting paid to do it.
It's like if I somehow painted better than Nuke Arts - it should be embarrassing. (Not that I do - far from it)
Testify wrote: Do you know what a development cycle is, yes? There is not an infinite amount of time to develop games, despite what "the community" think.
And yet somehow other companies manage to create games with ambiguity-free rules and far superior balance despite having only a finite amount of time.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: why do all the codexes have to be balanced to work? I really don't hear too many people whining about the ineffetiveness of certain units in Flames of War; or would that be because some armies excel at certain things where others do not? Do you want lots of heavy artillery for Tyranids? or CC-oriented Tau?
Yeah, because "balance" means "everyone does all of the same things" not "each army has a roughly equal chance of winning".
as a side note, if so many of you are such experts on game design and mechanics, why don't you try and work for a game company? or, better yet, design your own?
Why do you have to be an expert to point out the fact that the things that are "impossible" for GW are being done right now by other companies?
Do you know what a development cycle is, yes? There is not an infinite amount of time to develop games, despite what "the community" think.
actually, i do. I have friends back home in Cork and Dublin who used to test for GW- back when they used external playtesting. I've got a pretty decent understanding of the thought and effort, and discipline that needs to go into the process. In fact, i know some of the names that appear, usually in the "special thanks" sections of the various rulebooks and codices. Game theory, and game design is something that i find quite interesting, if niche and obscure.
you are correct - there is not an infinity time to develop games. typcially 18 months for a codex from what i remember. I do know, however when GW release something, things are cought within days by the community that shouldnt have gone out the door in the first place. some are big, some are small, and regardless, its sloppy design.
And i'll add to this - i dont care what "the community" thinks. But i will look at what other companies can and have done. and im sorry, but if they can do it, then GW have no excuses. you mentioned 320,000 interactions of special rules. there is probably as much, if not more within warmachine/hordes, when you factor in all the spells, feats and special rules that are involved, and yet, despite this, rarely is there an issue. if there is, its fixed within days.
Testify wrote: Maybe there's a problem with your browser
Sigh. they have FAQs (and i never said they didnt). Eventually. And as others have said, the FAQs dont actually fix all the issues people raise and find. I've seen plenty threads along the lines of "when are GW going to update their FAQs" and "Will GWFAQ this issue next time" and "GW missed X in their FAQ". Other companies release FAQs and by comparison, they make what GW does look childish. Such a shame really.
Nightsythes is the biggest problem you can find with 40k. Sweet Jesus Christ you need a sense of perspective son.
Without trying to be narky mate, please read my entire post, and not jump on one word? as i pointed out, the nightscythe is one example. from earlier in this thread. and please, can you drop the "son" comment my good man. I dont know if its intentional or not, but its coming across more than a bit patronising.
being honest about it, (and this really isnt the thread for it), i could write down a lot more general things to the list of "biggest problems with 40k" such as counter intuitive cover, the AP system, the 3-roll system, the "tacked-on" vehicle rules, the lack of decent "reactions" to shooting and enemy movement, emphasis on the special weapon trooper and the guy with the power fist, and the rest of the grunts basically being wound counters, excess emphasis on space marines (look! new space marines! Now with slightly different bling!), childish fluff, rules for rules sake, and a general level of bloat and excess that really is not necessay. I really could go on.
and yes, *perspective*. this is a game about toy soldiers. In ways though, whilst obvious, its also a bit dismissive of the hobby. real life and real life *stuff* is more important, obviously. I work in a lab. i produce things that get put into people. Everything i do. every assay, every reagent, every time gets written down correctly. And it has to be. I simply do not have the leeway to fudge things, or to leave room for any kind of erroneous interpretation of what im doing. THis is simply how i have to behave in a professional environment. things need to be clear and consise. Outside of work too, i have the same attitude. When i go sparring, i dont want a grey, vague, loosely worded set of rules. Or gear made to a variety of standards. for obvious reasons. thats simply asking for trouble. When im in training (cross country running, tough mudder-esque race/challenges etc), i want, and need clear, consise goals and objectives. I need to know that im doing the right things, eating the right foods, and training the right way. i need to make sure my equipment is faultless. i dont want to be running with shoes that will cause damage to my ankles for example. things that are *grey* are unhelpful at best, and downright dangerous as a worst case scenario. So yes, even though its a niche hobby, where we are painting toy soldiers (and yes, im quite happy to laugh about it too, and see the silly side), i expect it to be produced in an effective, efficient and professional manner.
But like i said, this really isnt the thread for this. this is a thread about why GW is dead set on putting out poor quality rules. Which sadly, they do.
Those things that no one plays but are constantly mentioned but I haven't heard of outside of dakka? Yeah I'll check that out mate.
ha. funny.
and you're doing it again. Please, dont be so dismissive. With all due respect, all you're showing here is a shocking level of ignorance of the rest of the hobby (and please dont take this as a personal attack - it is not meant as such in any way). Warmachine/hordes, Malifaux, Infinity, Flames of War etc are not games "no one plays". Up here is Scotland there is a thriving warmachine/hordes community-whether its in edinburgh, glasgow, dundee, perth, st.andrews or elsewhere. and its the same down south. I've seen it literally explode in popularity back home in ireland, especially in cork and dublin. I've seen whole gaming clubs, and university game societies drop 40k entirely for warmachine. I've given the examples here in Edinburgh as well.
With all due respect, (and im not trying to be patronising) but you really need to get out from where you game and check out some other gaming clubs. there is more out there than just GW games. 4, or maybe 5 years ago? No, not really. But now? Yes, im afraid there are other visible, viable games with large, and growing playerbases.
Malifaux (and thats a game i personally am not interested in) - a skirmish game - has gathered a huge following. I've drummed up a lot of interest here around edinburgh with Infinity. its the same with Warmachine/Hordes. In ways, Warmachine/Hordes is now the *other game* in this hobby. its the big *alternative*.
Because in a single day the community will play a hundred times more games than the testers could possibly hope to. I followed these forums on the days after 6th release. I was amazed at how little problems there were, given the difficulties of 5th.
So then why dont GW playtest? Privateer Press did a worldwide beta playtest for warmachine/hordes Mk2. If individual players can read the rulebook, and find faults on their first read, then its not a finished product, despite the books actual polish and physical quality.
How many people play GW worldwide? 10,000? 50,000? Okay let's say 50,000. Say 10,000 of these buy the game on the day of release, and play a couple of games each, so 10,000 games in total. In order for GW to have 10,000 tester games, with the finished rules, would take 10,000 times 2.5 hours = 25,000 hours, or 3,125 working days. Congrats you've just pushed back the release of 6th edition 40k by 8 years.
Would that be a bad thing, if they waited in order to give a clear, consise, well written rules set with no ambiguities? I'd wait.
And look- its not just game time. Think about it. New rulebook. Whats the first thing you do? you grab your codex and read through them both and the same time, to gauge and examine the changes and differences. And yet, even at this *reading the rulebook with my codex beside me* phase, people are catching ambiguities and things that are unclear, vague and poorly worded. What does that say of GW's writing and development culture? (And the sad thing is, GW have great writers. Andy Chambers' now defunct Starship Troopers game had one of the most fantastic set of game mechanics i've come across in my time, for example). THe rumours at the time was what because ST was originally meant to be 4th ed 40k. And GW voting it down was part of the reason he moved on. Apparently. I dont know the truth of it. Regardless, GW has the talent but they simply choose not to use it.
And also, as a sidenote, i will point out Privateer Press did just that amount of playtesting for warmachine/hordes Mk2. and they did it in a couple of months for each game. and then gave the finalised rules out for free, a month or two before the actual rulebooks hit the shelves.
You saw two people who took their hobby far too seriously. And the power weapon rules are very clearly written, so whoever was arguing it was a "power weapon" was flat-out wrong.
Indeed. i was setting up with my mate for a game of warmachine, and we both found the whole thing quite amusing when we wateched two guys in their 40s/50s arguing as to whether the axe was an axe. "It is!" "It isnt!" quite funny. but sad at the same time. thing is - that kind of argument never happens in warmachine/hordes. clear, consise rules with no ambiguity. an axe is an axe. a sword is a sword. you either can do something, or you cant. it works this way. and thats that.
but i will say this - the two lads asked us over for a neutral arbitration on their argument (and my mate had never played 40k - he got into gaming through Flames of War). We agreed. we read the 40k rulebook, and BA codex and from when RAW (ie rules as written) was followed, Dante had a power weapon, not a power axe, as his was a power weapon with a special rule (it was master crafted). the wording in the rulebook was quite awkward on the point, especially where elsewhere you were suggested to take it based on what the weapon looked like. To be honest, myself and my mate had an even bigger laugh at how poorly thought through the whole thing was. It really was a mess.
All weapons should cost the same across the board as well. So a heavy weapon marine pays the same for his heavy weapon whether he is a space puppy, dark angel or imperial fist.
Welcome to the world of trying to write balanced rules.
A good weapon is far more valuable in a unit that is a pain to kill than on an Imperial guardsman. It is a darn sight more valuable on a unit that can move and shoot than a static unit.
Having all weapons cost the same across the board with no regard to the unit, or even army, is going to be as unbalanced as you think the current rules are.
When one stares at a particular piece of work... Model, codex, ruleset, porpoise photo... One begins to see things that are supposed to be there, but aren't... And things that are not supposed to be there, but are...
That's why there are editors, print-setters, and audiences... As a member of the audience, I take great pride in my ability to notice that in The Dark Knight Rises, when Bruce is talking with Lucius, while the camera points at Bruce, his hand is on his cane... But when the camera points at Lucius, the cane top is bare... Does this make the movie less enjoyable? No, Sir, it most certainly does not...
I also find it funny when there are words in the print, that have been so horribly spelled, that they spell a different word... Just spelling something wrong is not funny.
Yes, there are errors. Yes, they release errata. Yes, there are Mary/Gary Sue... Does this make the game less enjoyable... No, Sir, it most certainly does not...
All weapons should cost the same across the board as well. So a heavy weapon marine pays the same for his heavy weapon whether he is a space puppy, dark angel or imperial fist.
Welcome to the world of trying to write balanced rules.
An good weapon is far more valuable in a unit that is a pain to kill than an Imperial guardsman. It is a darn sight more valuable on a unit that can move and shoot than a static unit.
Having all weapons cost the same across the board with no regard to the unit, or even army, is going to be as unbalanced as you think the current rules are.
Exactly, that's why IG get Power weapons for 10 points (Used to be 5) and Marines get them for 15
And @Deadnight, here in Perth Warmahordes has surpassed 40K (alot of 40K players playing warmahordes but not all of them play 40K)in popularity but the gaming groups have kinda fractured recently making it harder to completely confirm it
Well if anything Fantasy´s 8th, one bad edition (thou i personally like it much better than 7 and 6) can send the game down the drain. I think Fantasy illustrates how despite what GW might want to believe and tell you, it is the GAMING aspect which keeps them afloat.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: why do all the codexes have to be balanced to work? I really don't hear too many people whining about the ineffetiveness of certain units in Flames of War; or would that be because some armies excel at certain things where others do not? Do you want lots of heavy artillery for Tyranids? or CC-oriented Tau?
Yeah, because "balance" means "everyone does all of the same things" not "each army has a roughly equal chance of winning".
Ok, if equal chances of winnong is what you're looking for, sorry, it will never really happen ever, with any game system.
Two examples:
Years ago (before it became a submission game rather than a beatdown game), I was playing in a Magic tournament. The winner, whom I played early on, was playing his "infamous" $4/$400 deck. He called it that because the net value of the deck (in 1995) was about 4 bucks, but it had won him 400 dollars worth of cards in antes and tournaments. It was all commons and a couple of uncommons. After winning that tournament, someone who had also played him offered to buy the deck from him. He agreed to sell it to him for $4. The new owner of the deck proceeded to sit down and play several people afterwards and lost every single game.
When I had first started in Warhammer, my two goals were to play at Ard Boyz and to beat my buddy's Ard Boyz army. After frustrating loss after loss, he decided to teach me a lesson. We traded armies. He beat me really bad, even almost tabling me by 4th turn. He was showing me that the army wasn't bad, as it had defeated his seemingly invincible Black Templars with my Dark Angels.
See the common thread? The true balance of a game is not created by the equality of the armies or the rules, but by the players. If someone gets mad because their codex is hard, then there are two options: get better or choose another army. Anymore, everyone thinks its GW's responsibility to make every codex equally competitive. Sorry, its almost impossible. Some are going to be harder than others, its called a challenge for a reason.
Where would the fun be in knowing that because you chose the army that you did that out-of-the-box, it would win everytime? Sounds a bit boring to me...
Oh, wait, did I imply that fun and challenging should be mentioned in terms of gaming?
Yonan wrote: Given GW doesn't address issues speedily or effectively, would a "community patch" get much traction? Dakka has a substantial 40k population so playtesting shouldn't be a problem.
Using IG as an example, this should get a better variety of units on the board:
- Vendetta +20 points.
- Rough Rider -2 points
- Ratling -2 points
- Ogryn -5 points
Then some quick clarifications such as:
- Abaddon can join squads that have any chaos mark.
- All units with missile launchers can purchase flakk missiles for 10 points.
Just some rough, off the cuff examples. GW is slow addressing flyer concerns - the community can step in with a quick fix that keeps things playable.
Wouldn't need any mechanic changes, you could just modify points generally to ensure that even if GW tries a nerf/buff cycle to sell models the community can still use all (or at least a lot more) models in their codex and not be gimped.
id be all up for this - infact - would dakka sanction some realspace for this? a live true set of rules and values for every unit ever made in the grimdark universe would be brill - someone set it up (i dunno how to) and give everyone the post link.... this could be the answer were all been wanting gents...
Yonan wrote: Given GW doesn't address issues speedily or effectively, would a "community patch" get much traction? Dakka has a substantial 40k population so playtesting shouldn't be a problem.
Using IG as an example, this should get a better variety of units on the board:
- Vendetta +20 points.
- Rough Rider -2 points
- Ratling -2 points
- Ogryn -5 points
Then some quick clarifications such as:
- Abaddon can join squads that have any chaos mark.
- All units with missile launchers can purchase flakk missiles for 10 points.
Just some rough, off the cuff examples. GW is slow addressing flyer concerns - the community can step in with a quick fix that keeps things playable.
Wouldn't need any mechanic changes, you could just modify points generally to ensure that even if GW tries a nerf/buff cycle to sell models the community can still use all (or at least a lot more) models in their codex and not be gimped.
And this here highlights the problem with fan dexes, and balancing in general.
You think your rules look pretty good and balanced, and they do, to an extent. But look more closely at what you suggest:
All units can upgrade to flakk missles at 10pts. Thats not balanced. Those flakk missles are much more valuable to a designed heavy weapons team than to a tac squad or Ork shoota squad, so why should they pay the same price? They might be a 10point upgrade to a tac squad, who fires 1 missle each turn, if it has a viable target ect ect; where as a unit like devistators would get much more and effcient use from flakk launcher, and should cost more
id be all up for this - infact - would dakka sanction some realspace for this? a live true set of rules and values for every unit ever made in the grimdark universe would be brill - someone set it up (i dunno how to) and give everyone the post link.... this could be the answer were all been wanting gents...
It would have to be done right of course, but even if you err on the side of caution, it could substantially improve the game imo. As is, Ogryns at 40 ppm, really? 30 is closer to worth taking but I said -5 ppm, not -10 ppm. Makes it more playable, a better place to start without risking a new "this is ridiculously op, at least in this build".
It works for games like Skyrim, Fallout etc - the community organises an unofficial patch to fix problems that the developer misses, doesn't care about or thinks isn't going to improve sales so they don't bother. You can choose to use them or not - your choice. Giving it sponsorship by a large community helps make it common enough to get some traction.
And this here highlights the problem with fan dexes, and balancing in general.
You think your rules look pretty good and balanced, and they do, to an extent. But look more closely at what you suggest:
All units can upgrade to flakk missles at 10pts. Thats not balanced. Those flakk missles are much more valuable to a designed heavy weapons team than to a tac squad or Ork shoota squad, so why should they pay the same price? They might be a 10point upgrade to a tac squad, who fires 1 missle each turn, if it has a viable target ect ect; where as a unit like devistators would get much more and effcient use from flakk launcher, and should cost more
As I said it was an off the cuff remark to give an example. It also hasn't been playtested - at all. Which is why a large community like dakka sponsoring the patch is important.
edit: I think I see what you mean. I meant - the same as the chaos dex - that it was 10 points per model. This is why you need a quick, responsive community patch, so small oversights like that can be addressed straight away ; )
edit 2: Thought I'd mention copyright issues too - since you're just listing an adjustment there should be no problem.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: Ok, if equal chances of winnong is what you're looking for, sorry, it will never really happen ever, with any game system.
Except it does happen in other game systems. The chances of winning might not be perfectly equal, but it's MUCH better balanced than 40k.
The only problem here is that you completely missed the point of what I was saying. It's not about PLAYERS having equal chances of winning, it's about ARMIES having equal chances of winning. IOW, if you have two equally skilled players making their best lists from two different codices each should have a roughly equal chance of winning. Anything else is horrible and unprofessional game design.
Also, I notice that you completely ignored where I pointed out how ridiculous your "balance means Tau get assault units" argument was. I take it that's your concession of defeat on that point?
Anymore, everyone thinks its GW's responsibility to make every codex equally competitive. Sorry, its almost impossible. Some are going to be harder than others, its called a challenge for a reason.
Except other games do that just fine. Stop making excuses for GW, if the balance between codices is off it's game design, not "a challenge with a more difficult army".
Where would the fun be in knowing that because you chose the army that you did that out-of-the-box, it would win everytime? Sounds a bit boring to me...
Remember the part where the goal is BALANCE, and having the ability to win games just because of what army you chose is a BAD THING?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yonan wrote: It works for games like Skyrim, Fallout etc - the community organises an unofficial patch to fix problems that the developer misses, doesn't care about or thinks isn't going to improve sales so they don't bother. You can choose to use them or not - your choice. Giving it sponsorship by a large community helps make it common enough to get some traction.
It works because those are single-player games, and you don't have to deal with two major problems:
1) Endless nitpicking of every choice by players with a personal interest in having their chosen faction be the best. With a single player game it doesn't matter if, say, archery in Skyrim is 5% better than swords, either you accept that it works that way and don't really care because there's no TFG dominating you with a broken archery character, or you edit the patch to suit your own idea of balance. On the other hand, with a game like 40k there's no realistic chance of getting everyone to agree on anything long enough to write a single coherent "patch".
and
2) Getting critical mass for it. Who cares how many people play a particular Skyrim fan patch, all that matters is whether or not YOU want to play with it. You don't have to find opponents who also like that patch, convince your friends to use it, etc. That's entirely different from a game like 40k where either everyone agrees and decides to use it or the "patch" never becomes anything more than a wishlisting thread on a forum somewhere. And the chances of getting that kind of critical mass player base for a fan "patch" are pretty much nonexistent.
if you have two equally skilled players making their best lists from two different codices each should have a roughly equal chance of winning. Anything else is horrible and unprofessional game design.
Really?
I've played much simpler games where 2 mythically equal players can see one side as being OP and another 2 equal players as both being balanced, or OP the other way round. It depends on what level of 'equal' player you are taljking about? 2 novices may see armies and how to play them very different to 2 top players, and that has a huge effect on whether they have an equal chance of winning.
As you say, their best lists may differ hugely dependinig on the skill level, player A who has only being playing a month may have a best list that is very different to Mr 3 times world champion. So their bests lists may have very different chances of winning against someone else even of equal skill level, because they are not some mythical objectively best list
So when you say players of equal skill, what level of equal skill are you talking?
Given 40k seems pretty much for casual, 'narrative' games and not competition/tourney style players I suspect that their idea of the level of skill they would aim balance at is different to many on dakka who are competitive/tourney players.
I tell ya, Peregrine, you really missed a out half of my post. Either you couldn't respond intelligently or I made too good of a point.
Of course Warmachine, etc. have a "perfectly balanced" system, they wrote them all right at the same time with the same crew. I would love to hear the gnashing and wailing if GW did this. "oh, they suck. not only did I have to buy a codex for the three armies I own, but because my opponent had no idea what was in his ook, this game lasted like 4 hours!"
puree wrote: So when you say players of equal skill, what level of equal skill are you talking?
Any level above "clueless newbies picking random units and rolling dice". It's very simple:
Good games, like MTG, grow in complexity and continue to be balanced as you learn more and your skills improve. New players might have balance problems where one person in a group of newbies figures out a new combo first, but in the long run the better your skills get the more you converge on a balanced game.
Bad games, like 40k, fail as soon as you learn anything. New players might not have immediate balance problems when they're limited to a battleforce each, but the more you learn about the game the more you see the massive balance issues.
And of course let's not pretend that we're dealing with subtle variations in balance choices between target skill levels. GW's "balance" is laughably bad and doesn't work at ANY skill level beyond "newbie still learning the basic rules".
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: Of course Warmachine, etc. have a "perfectly balanced" system, they wrote them all right at the same time with the same crew. I would love to hear the gnashing and wailing if GW did this. "oh, they suck. not only did I have to buy a codex for the three armies I own, but because my opponent had no idea what was in his ook, this game lasted like 4 hours!"
Actually I'd be happy with that outcome. Idiots might whine about it, but any short-term pain of a massive new release to buy and learn would be more than offset by the long-term benefits of finally having a balanced and ambiguity-free rule system.
And of course this doesn't justify GW's failures since the only reason they can't do it without short-term pain is that they've spent years getting into a hole and then doing their best to dig it even deeper. Companies that don't have GW's record of consistent failures have no problems making balanced and ambiguity-free games without having "buy it all now" or "too much to learn" problems.
Any level above "clueless newbies picking random units and rolling dice". It's very simple:
Good games, like MTG, grow in complexity and continue to be balanced as you learn more and your skills improve. New players might have balance problems where one person in a group of newbies figures out a new combo first, but in the long run the better your skills get the more you converge on a balanced game.
Bad games, like 40k, fail as soon as you learn anything. New players might not have immediate balance problems when they're limited to a battleforce each, but the more you learn about the game the more you see the massive balance issues.
And of course let's not pretend that we're dealing with subtle variations in balance choices between target skill levels. GW's "balance" is laughably bad and doesn't work at ANY skill level beyond "newbie still learning the basic rules"..
I can't comment on MTG, not being much into card games.
However, I've played well in excess of a hundred different wargames over the years, and many of them suffer the problem I talk about, it is not simply about a newbie, and it certainly has nothing to do with what figures you happen to have. Many wargames require that you understand certain strengths and weaknesses of each side before you find them balanced, others that you don't understand more subtle strengths/weaknesses to retain balance. Sure when you start you just push units around and win or lose and find one side or another has a major advantage that way. A bit later you undertstand some of the more obvious issues faced by each side and how to handle them but that may just mean that one side or the other is still the clear winner. Later on you start to understand more subtle aspects of the 2 sides, or you gain a better grasp of the maths behind the game, or that victory conditions don't require the style of play you were using before, or that certain opening moves etc lead to certain possibilties later in the game. At that point it may that you find the game balanced, or that having thought the game was balanced you now find it unbalanced again because of your deeper knowledge.
I make no comment on 40k balance, but your idea that any game can be readily balanced for all skill levels is laughable. In a game with so many combinations that is an extremely hard thing to achieve. Star fleet battles, once one oof the biggest tourney games around at events like origins, and a pretty seriously hardcore game, that took years and and a specially cut down set of tourney specific rules and special tourney only ships to get reasonably balanced for tournament players. ASL uses set scenarios with set forces and conditions to achieve balanced games, not a bring your own army and assume it it is balanced to some unkown other force on a random map. Many historical wargames like FOG or DBA have issues with balance once you start fighting non-historical matchups, but that is what happens at tourneys.
It's not hard to see that Carnifex is fething broken internaly and externaly, just fixing such obvious issues would take 40k to a different level of balance. It is impossible and unnecessary to provide perfect or near perfect balance but it is not that hard to provide a much better balance than there is now.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: Do you want lots of heavy artillery for Tyranids? or CC-oriented Tau?
No and it has nothing to do with balance in 40k that is discussed.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: as a side note, if so many of you are such experts on game design and mechanics, why don't you try and work for a game company? or, better yet, design your own?
It doesn't take an expert or game designer to see huge flaws in 40k ruleset and balance, also I for example don't want to write rules, I want to pay and play a good tactical game. What kind of argument is that anyway, this is all simple feedback that any company that does quality managment would thank for, no need to send people to work for game companies just because they dare to point out mistakes and suggest solutions.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: as a side note, if so many of you are such experts on game design and mechanics, why don't you try and work for a game company? or, better yet, design your own?
It doesn't take an expert or game designer to see huge flaws in 40k ruleset and balance, also I for example don't want to write rules, I want to pay and play a good tactical game. What kind of argument is that anyway, this is all simple feedback that any company that does quality managment would thank for, no need to send people to work for game companies just because they dare to point out mistakes and suggest solutions.
Most likely his answer was a choice between that or "sell your models and play chess"
Hell, I'd volunteer 40 hours a week of my time (yes, unpaid) if GW would accept it to get a clearer rules set. If that's what it takes, that's what I'll do. I won't even address balance (directly - clarifying/changing rules might affect balance accidentally) but just attempt to clarify the rules and remove as much ambiguity as possible.
xxvaderxx wrote:1- Balance issues all over the place.
2- Rules that don't add up or have consistency issues.
These are matters of mere opinion, though. All you're saying is that GW doesn't agree with your idea of what balance should be, not that GW isn't doing balance correctly.
Plus, you can either have a rules edition that is carefully balanced, or you can have rules edition that adds new stuff, but you can not have both, especially not at the scale GW is doing things.
xxvaderxx wrote:3- Obvious lack of important rules like what actually are "small" and "large" terrain pieces.
4- Painful rules to apply while gaming like removing guys from the front when it applies to a 20+ piled in unit.
You know, you could always start playing 4th ed with your friends. Both of these were "fixed" back then.
Balance is actually not really about opinion. This is kind of a dumb thing to say.
My favorite example of a poorly written rule is that for multiple editions, the Assault Weapon and Rapid Fire rules state that the ability to charge is based on whether the model is carrying the weapon instead of firing that type of weapon.
AnomanderRake wrote: 40k may be poorly-balanced. It may not always make sense in context of the fluff. It may not contain the clearest or most logical rules ever written. It may not be the best game for competitive or tournament play ever written.
However.
40k, when played in a friendly setting with a group of rational people who know each other and are willing to construct house rules and house interpretations of the rules, and who are willing to build lists that are fun to play and to play against rather than throwing the most broken combination of things they can find at their foes, works fairly well.
I realize these are rather stringent qualifications to place on any game, but if you can find a friendly setting and agree upon resolutions to issues with the rules, it's actually a very fun game.
In other words, you are having fun in spite of the rules, rather than because of them.
What you are saying is this: "if you can ignore everything that is bad, and dodgy, and not put together right, its actually pretty OK". Christ, that kind of attitude could be used to make getting the bloody plague sound like a good experience! And i'm sorry, but that kind of attitude from a company will not sell me on anything, whether its a game of toy soldiers, or a car or anything in between.
It's actually more along the lines of "If you take their rules and tack some fan interpretations on it works pretty well". More like saying "If you take this car and replace a few parts it runs pretty well" than saying "If you take this car and ignore the parts that don't work then it runs pretty well", since ignoring things in the rules has an actual effect on them. Holes in the rules are there because of the release schedule; GW has to keep a relatively even revenue stream, which requires staggering the release of new models and rules, which requires them to adapt to a changing metagame and a changing battlefield in ways that are rather difficult to predict ahead of time. They're a consequence of the business model, which isn't likely to change; taking the parts of 40k that work well (the models, for the most part, and a large portion of the rules) and patching over the parts that don't work (vagueness and inconsistencies in the rules) makes for a quite good game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
snooggums wrote: My favorite example of a poorly written rule is that for multiple editions, the Assault Weapon and Rapid Fire rules state that the ability to charge is based on whether the model is carrying the weapon instead of firing that type of weapon.
Again. It's something you look at, say "That's silly", and reinterpret to mean what would make sense. Having a regular group makes it easier to codify these things and get all players to sign onto the interpretations.
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
And @Deadnight, here in Perth Warmahordes has surpassed 40K (alot of 40K players playing warmahordes but not all of them play 40K)in popularity but the gaming groups have kinda fractured recently making it harder to completely confirm it
I really have to make an effort to head up that way for a few games some time! Where do you guys normally play?
xxvaderxx wrote:1- Balance issues all over the place.
2- Rules that don't add up or have consistency issues.
These are matters of mere opinion, though. All you're saying is that GW doesn't agree with your idea of what balance should be, not that GW isn't doing balance correctly.
Plus, you can either have a rules edition that is carefully balanced, or you can have rules edition that adds new stuff, but you can not have both, especially not at the scale GW is doing things.
I have to disagree here. balance is simple. i shouldnt be punished because i play a certain codex. Take tau in 4th. tyanids in 5th. daemons v grey knights. Even beyond that, i shouldnt be punished because i want to play a certain style of army. And sadly, GW rules sets have encouraged certain playstyles within certain codices to be predominant in each edition, leaving others underpowered and lacking. transports in 4th for example.
I know, for example that if i want to play Imperial Guard, and i ask here, i will get a few responses, but they'll all boil down to "take this build, this build, or this build". If i try that on the Privateer Press boards, and say, i want to play Khador, what should i get, the answer invariably is "red stuff" ie i am not pigeonholed into taken the one or two viable builds, because warmachine is a game, where outside of a few outliers, everything can be built into a game winning strategy. and that my friend, is the hallmark of balance. i'm not punished for taking khador. winning or losing comes down to me, and how i play, not what faction i took.
I also have issues with the statement that you can either have a carefully balanced rules set, or a rules set that adds new stuff, but not both. thats hogwash. and utterly, and completely false. Look at Warmachine/Hordes. (a) a very carefully balanced rules set. and (b) in every expansion of the game, they've added new stuff. cavalry. epic characters. character 'jacks and units. battle engines. and most recently, collossals, and gargantuans. And yet, despite how GW does it, where if you want to do well, you must buy the new shiny!, none of the new stuff in PP games have broken the game. they're new additions, and new alternatives, with new synnergies and combos. they're not replacements. Nor are they dead weight. they're options, just like every thing else.
AnomanderRake wrote:
It's actually more along the lines of "If you take their rules and tack some fan interpretations on it works pretty well". More like saying "If you take this car and replace a few parts it runs pretty well" than saying "If you take this car and ignore the parts that don't work then it runs pretty well", since ignoring things in the rules has an actual effect on them. Holes in the rules are there because of the release schedule; GW has to keep a relatively even revenue stream, which requires staggering the release of new models and rules, which requires them to adapt to a changing metagame and a changing battlefield in ways that are rather difficult to predict ahead of time. They're a consequence of the business model, which isn't likely to change; taking the parts of 40k that work well (the models, for the most part, and a large portion of the rules) and patching over the parts that don't work (vagueness and inconsistencies in the rules) makes for a quite good game.
First up, why is the name Anomander Rake so familiar to me? Its familiar, but i can't remember where i heard it from.
Secondly, i actually agree with you. 40k isnt so bad if you drop some stuff, and add some stuff, and change some stuff. that was never the issue, my good man. however, turning that on its head, i think its a crying shame that that is even necessary to be done. that is, essentially my point. the fact that players have to finish the work the developers didnt bother doing. And i get why they do it. At its heart of pushing "the hobby", GW pushes it as a sandbox- its a user-defined kitchen sink game. whatever you want 40k to be, make it that way. the downside of this is that there is no direction in it, and everything ends up being more than a bit messy. and unessecarily cluttered.
Personally, im of the view that user-defined changes should be there to allow for alternative game modes, essentially. like ignoring "caster-kill" as a win condition in warmachine, or else, the rather excellent "UFC cage-match" rules i saw created for warmachine/hordes a while back. they shouldnt be necessary/needed in order to just make the game playable in the first place.
I remember i read a thread once where a guy was saying how awesome 2nd ed 40k was- how it was such a better game, and how he and his group went back to it instead of the modern game. Which was fair enough, but they have to do all you were suggesting - dropping stuff, changing stuff, modifying stuff, and adding stuff to make i playable. But i remember thinking, surely if they had to make all those changes in the first place, how was it fair to argue that it was a good game in the first place? maybe they ended up turning it into something they enjoyed, but it wasnt that in the first place.
I would also argue that GW deliberately changes the meta game. they're not interested in *fixing whats wrong/broken* with the game. they're only interested in moving the goalposts. I've seen it since third, where GW pushes a different aspect of the game in each edition, to push a certain part of their range at a time. Personally, i'm of the view that they know how their changes are going to effect the battlefield, and they plan accordingly. each edition creates as many issues as it solves.
snooggums wrote: My favorite example of a poorly written rule is that for multiple editions, the Assault Weapon and Rapid Fire rules state that the ability to charge is based on whether the model is carrying the weapon instead of firing that type of weapon.
Again. It's something you look at, say "That's silly", and reinterpret to mean what would make sense. Having a regular group makes it easier to codify these things and get all players to sign onto the interpretations.
Ignoring the poorly written rules means that they aren't poorly written? Yeah, I was able to do that back in high school when I played Palladium Game's Rifts as the Game Master, but even the most well meaning players may read that sentence about Rapid Fire weapons to mean that GW actually meant for the carry to matter over the fire.
Now that I know better, it is clear that either GW doesn't put any effort in or they don't know how to write clear and concise rules. They have said that it is is the former as well.
snooggums wrote: My favorite example of a poorly written rule is that for multiple editions, the Assault Weapon and Rapid Fire rules state that the ability to charge is based on whether the model is carrying the weapon instead of firing that type of weapon.
Not in 6th and I'm pretty sure it said "fired" in 5th as well. Can't remember other than that.
I have never played a game in which each team/army/force etc was totally balanced. Last time I did was a board game we all know... Risk.
If you want to play a stale static game where each team is identical you and your friends can get together and play chess.
I agree that some things can be irratating but as a big tournament player I find that if you cant beat something your not trying hard enough. I am sick of people complaining about prices and rules.
Just go play another game.
Everyone then says well no I love warhammer but blah blah blah. Apparently you just want to whine about it and explain what you think it should be. Thank god some of the people who complain aren't the game designers or this game would die. People want unique, powerful, GAMING models.
This is not real life. It is a hobby and those that dont like it should leave. No hard feelings...
As with all people we all wish that things could be balanced but there is no way to do it. If every army was exacly the same then it would come down to who rolls better. I dont want to just hope my d6 luck is strong today everything I set up my army.
I have yet to run into an army that was unbeatable. Of course I lose to lists all the time too, but then you figure out how to defeat them. I think its more challenging and interesting.
My only complaint is not the over power of some units/armies but the underpower of many. Some units are just so plainly terrible that they are basically unuseable (in a competitive sense). (The leman russ with the auto cannon turret haha)
Sorry for the rant, didn't mean to offend anyone in particular. I have been playing this game since 3rd edition and I have gone through many many price increases. I enjoy the hobby, and becaues of it I worry less about the cost. I am not rich and can't buy anything I want at anytime but it doesn't influence my gaming.
To me I get together with my on friday and/or saturdays and play a fun interactive social game where we can spend time hanging out, talking fluff, and battling over futuristic worlds that have been attacked by evil races of aliens. This is purely for fun. If your main concern is the impact on your wallet then you should move on now lol
And besides that MTG and 40k are not the same game. They have very different goals and there's no reason to believe that WOTC would suddenly impose a rotation mechanic that accomplishes a necessary goal in MTG (and it's not "make more money") on a game like 40k that doesn't have that same goal.
Rotation?
3E Rhino/Transport Rush
4E monstrous creatures
5E transports again and troops, lots of troops
6E fliers
No - there's no rotation, underselling units NEVER get buffed and the new stuff is never imbalanced.... ever... honest...
rigeld2 wrote: So... Yet another rant about balance when the main point of this thread is poor rules quality.
And even then, the incorrect idea that balance means everyone is the same.
Which game has totally unique armies that are 100% balanced? That game should put GW out of business. Dont say warmachine/hoards cause its certainly not true.
Where they not referring to both a mix of balance and poor quality rules? Personally I think they go hand in hand as the bad rules are what effect balance. Explain to me why they are different.
rigeld2 wrote: So... Yet another rant about balance when the main point of this thread is poor rules quality.
And even then, the incorrect idea that balance means everyone is the same.
Which game has totally unique armies that are 100% balanced? That game should put GW out of business. Dont say warmachine/hoards cause its certainly not true.
I'm not aware of one, but again - that's not the point of the thread. You can tell by reading the title. You're also missing the idea of (near) perfect imbalance. GW isn't anywhere near that.
Where they not referring to both a mix of balance and poor quality rules? Personally I think they go hand in hand as the bad rules are what effect balance. Explain to me why they are different.
What effect on balance does the FNP vs other unsaved wound confusion cause?
What effect on balance does the Night Scythe rules being horribly ambiguous have?
What effect on balance does having clear rules have? If anything a clear rules set will improve balance - or, rather it would help Codex authors to write better balanced books.
rigeld2 wrote: So... Yet another rant about balance when the main point of this thread is poor rules quality.
And even then, the incorrect idea that balance means everyone is the same.
Which game has totally unique armies that are 100% balanced? That game should put GW out of business. Dont say warmachine/hoards cause its certainly not true.
I'm not aware of one, but again - that's not the point of the thread. You can tell by reading the title. You're also missing the idea of (near) perfect imbalance. GW isn't anywhere near that.
Where they not referring to both a mix of balance and poor quality rules? Personally I think they go hand in hand as the bad rules are what effect balance. Explain to me why they are different.
What effect on balance does the FNP vs other unsaved wound confusion cause?
What effect on balance does the Night Scythe rules being horribly ambiguous have?
What effect on balance does having clear rules have? If anything a clear rules set will improve balance - or, rather it would help Codex authors to write better balanced books.
I dont really understand your point. I believe you just agreed with me
The problem the rules have caused are unbalance. You can interpret the title which referres to Poor Quality rules as either meaning the general rules of the game or the indivisual pieces of the games rules (hence armies and their balance).
I would love to see a game where people dont argue and complain about the rules. But thats just not going to happen. People who think they can post on a forum (that is obviously not sponsored or probably even read by GW) need to find a new hobby as this is causing them too much grief. The game does NOT equal the fluff. They do NOT go hand in hand. Although you may want them too they have nothing to do with the rules of the GAME. People may think I am wrong in defending GW. But its a hobby I truly love and dont care if the rules aren't always clear and/or balanced. I play this game becaues I enjoy it. Even its parts that dont always seem right. Sure GW could fix some things, produce army books and/or models faster, etc., but they don't. I can't control it and complaining on a forum isn't gonna make it happen. Write them an email. If you want results STOP SUPPORTING THEM. People complain about the cost for instance and they go buy it anyways. There are probably cheaper games you could play, but I dont know of many that are going to be as big, have as many player, or events etc.
I hope you can get the clear and concise rules you want one day. But if you want them from GW your barking up the wrong tree.
My point is that the rules (as in he rules contained in the BRB) are flawed. Playing around them (like I do) doesn't change the underlying fact that they're flawed. The rules themselves have zero effect on the balance between codexes. What a tighter rule set can do is enable the codex authors to have a consistent rules set to write against - which would result in better balance among codexes.
I play 40k as often as I can (which isn't that often). I've enjoyed literally every game (except one) since I started playing again halfway through 5th. Ill still keep playing the game through 6th more than likely.
None of that changes the fact that GW writes poor rules. And they could do better with relatively minimal effort. They just choose not to.
rigeld2 wrote: None of that changes the fact that GW writes poor rules. And they could do better with relatively minimal effort. They just choose not to.
I may not agree with rigeld2 on everything, but I agree here. The disagreement is probably from the intent side of the equation, but that's fine.
GW could do a better job making a balanced, clear, concise ruleset. For one reason or another, they choose not to. I believe that this is due to a misunderstanding between them and the player base (ignorance of what the players want and thinking everyone plays the same game they do) whereas others believe that it is intentional (intentional imbalance to sell certain units).
pretre wrote: GW could do a better job making a balanced, clear, concise ruleset. For one reason or another, they choose not to. I believe that this is due to a misunderstanding between them and the player base (ignorance of what the players want and thinking everyone plays the same game they do) whereas others believe that it is intentional (intentional imbalance to sell certain units).
I agree with you there (Are we sure the world didn't end on the 21st?) - their stance on things like the Internet shows that they're just ignorant (willfully or not) about what the players would like to see improve. Which is sad overall.
Yeah, I was talking about this the other day with someone.
My theory is ... with the exception of maybe one or two people at GW (prob Kirby) most of them are just stuck into the 'this is the best job EVA!' mode and putting out cool stuff so they can play more games and have a bunch of fun. It really never sinks in that there are other people who might disagree with the way they do it.
pretre wrote: GW could do a better job making a balanced, clear, concise ruleset. For one reason or another, they choose not to. I believe that this is due to a misunderstanding between them and the player base (ignorance of what the players want and thinking everyone plays the same game they do) whereas others believe that it is intentional (intentional imbalance to sell certain units).
I agree with you there (Are we sure the world didn't end on the 21st?) - their stance on things like the Internet shows that they're just ignorant (willfully or not) about what the players would like to see improve. Which is sad overall.
TBH though, players ask for Cult Terminators in the CSM Codex and don't get it. Players whine. Players ask for Inner Circle Knights in the DA book and DO get it. Players whine.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: TBH though, players ask for Cult Terminators in the CSM Codex and don't get it. Players whine. Players ask for Inner Circle Knights in the DA book and DO get it. Players whine.
Yeah, I don't think that those things have any causal relationship. GW just puts what they like in each codex. Players could whine for anything and it would have a coin flips chance of making it in.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: TBH though, players ask for Cult Terminators in the CSM Codex and don't get it. Players whine. Players ask for Inner Circle Knights in the DA book and DO get it. Players whine.
Yeah, I don't think that those things have any causal relationship. GW just puts what they like in each codex. Players could whine for anything and it would have a coin flips chance of making it in.
I dont think the players opinions will ever influence what GW puts in a codex. I agree it would be nice but when the players start making the rules and choices its not controlled by GW anymore and hence they lose control.
What I always thought was GW needs a community liason, someone who actually reads the forums and comments and or helps with rules questions.
Or even better may be their own forums where responses can be fast and accurate.
rigeld2 wrote: So... Yet another rant about balance when the main point of this thread is poor rules quality.
And even then, the incorrect idea that balance means everyone is the same.
Which game has totally unique armies that are 100% balanced? That game should put GW out of business. Dont say warmachine/hoards cause its certainly not true.
Starcraft,
Asymmetric balance is possible. If you look at win rates between the three races in Brood War they went through shifts, but the game never changed during quite a long period, and everyone came out reasonably even.
There's also something to be said for constructive feedback. Going "WAAAAH WAAAAH WAAAAH BAD RULES WAAAAAH" is dumb, but saying something like, "I don't like how this rule is ambiguously worded and I feel like they should have fixed this or at least FAQ'd it" is pretty reasonable to me. Likewise, going "WAAAH WAAAH WAAAAH PLAY ANOTHER GAME WAAAH" is dumb, but saying something like, "I realize there's some flaws, but it works well enough to have a good time and I don't think it should bother you that much" is pretty reasonable too.
Asymmetric balance is possible. If you look at win rates between the three races in Brood War they went through shifts, but the game never changed during quite a long period, and everyone came out reasonably even.
Reasonably even = 100% balanced?
Also, I imagine video games with controlled variables are a lot different than tabletop games.
100% balance is nonexistent. Even chess has imbalance depending on starting color. I guess if we all want to play CoinFlip the Game (tm), we will find balance there. (Although I heard nickels are seriously OP!!!)
Asymmetric balance is possible. If you look at win rates between the three races in Brood War they went through shifts, but the game never changed during quite a long period, and everyone came out reasonably even.
Reasonably even = 100% balanced?
Also, I imagine video games with controlled variables are a lot different than tabletop games.
100% balance is nonexistent. Even chess has imbalance depending on starting color. I guess if we all want to play CoinFlip the Game (tm), we will find balance there. (Although I heard nickels are seriously OP!!!)
You beat me to it! I totally agree video games are not a comparison. Name a game in the same genre of warhammer that is balanced 100%. It's not possible.
I didn't go waah wash quit but if people are going to post about how bad the game is then I personally feel they need a different hobby. Constructive critics are great but unfortunately its rare they have a biased opinion less than anyone else.
Asymmetric balance is possible. If you look at win rates between the three races in Brood War they went through shifts, but the game never changed during quite a long period, and everyone came out reasonably even.
Reasonably even = 100% balanced?
Also, I imagine video games with controlled variables are a lot different than tabletop games.
If you're setting a goal of '100% balanced', that's a pretty impossible feat. How do you define that, anyway, when you have to account for player skill?
To me, that's about as close to '100% balanced' as you can get, particularly considering the game went through zero physical changes through that period, and hadn't since 2001. There was one balancing factor, to be fair, and that was the maps that may favor one race over another, and those did change over time by the community and the tournaments that used them.
The only thing 40k has that Starcraft doesn't in terms of variables is random chance (aside from the high ground thing). When you get down to it, video games are really just fancy tabletop games of one sort or another.
Asymmetric balance is possible. If you look at win rates between the three races in Brood War they went through shifts, but the game never changed during quite a long period, and everyone came out reasonably even.
Reasonably even = 100% balanced?
Also, I imagine video games with controlled variables are a lot different than tabletop games.
100% balance is nonexistent. Even chess has imbalance depending on starting color. I guess if we all want to play CoinFlip the Game (tm), we will find balance there. (Although I heard nickels are seriously OP!!!)
You beat me to it! I totally agree video games are not a comparison. Name a game in the same genre of warhammer that is balanced 100%. It's not possible.
I didn't go waah wash quit but if people are going to post about how bad the game is then I personally feel they need a different hobby. Constructive critics are great but unfortunately its rare they have a biased opinion less than anyone else.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with you entirely. People that just whine grate me too. I'm just trying to avoid both sides going off the deep end here.
I'm all for the 'happy medium' someone else mentioned, but I'm less concerned about balance and more concerned about a clear ruleset, personally.
I will totally disagree that video games can't be a comparison. Both video games and tabletop games use a set of rules and allow players to play by those rules. It's just different mediums.
Evertras wrote: If you're setting a goal of '100% balanced', that's a pretty impossible feat. How do you define that, anyway, when you have to account for player skill?
I didn't set the goal, the guy you responded to with 'Starcraft' did.
To me, that's about as close to '100% balanced' as you can get, particularly considering the game went through zero physical changes through that period, and hadn't since 2001.
I'd have to see the data and not the graphs, but it does not appear that balanced. Terrans, for example, under performed the other races since 2008 with a less than 50% win rate. Either way, we don't really need to talk about Starcraft, since it isn't a tabletop wargame.
The only thing 40k has that Starcraft doesn't in terms of variables is random chance (aside from the high ground thing). When you get down to it, video games are really just fancy tabletop games of one sort or another.
Except they don't have Random Chance, a major factor in tabletop wargames, they don't have physical measurement, modelling etc so on. It really isn't the same thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Evertras wrote: I will totally disagree that video games can't be a comparison. Both video games and tabletop games use a set of rules and allow players to play by those rules. It's just different mediums.
Under that loose set of guidelines, Poker, Golf, Basketball, Paintball, Pickup sticks, Jenga and Parcheesi are all valid comparisons to 40k.
To be fair, even as someone who generally wouldn't defend GW's rules practices, there's a lot more variables in a 40k game, especially human variables, that are controlled or eliminated simply by virtue of being a virtual environment in Starcraft, and GW doesn't have access to the game information and results of hundreds of millions of games played.
A lot of the rules in the BRB are ambiguous... And judging by the statements in the BRB about it being a narrative, I think that they did it on porpoise (hehehehe). It's like the first rule in the D&D books --- These are Guidelines, to help you play a game. Nowhere does it say, hard, fast, set in stone... Would it be nice if all of the rules were finely, and clearly detailed down to the finite minutia of different situations that might arise during play? Sure... However, as a fan of Amarillo Design Burea; I've seen what those books look like... (Star Fleet Battles, for the unwashed Star Wars masses)...
You buy the basic game, the "Captain's" edition... Little detail, vague situational instructions, few options... Then you buy the "Admiral's" edition... Which is not a complete game, on it's own, but must be colated with the Captain's edition... The Admiral's edition adds clarity to some rules, expands on just about every rule, and about doubles the options of the Captain's edition alone... Then, if you want aircraft carriers, you buy a module; which further clarifies, expands and colates... If you want PF's, you buy another module... If you want etc, etc...
Soon, you have 4x 5"-D-Ring binders full of pages of colated material... That reads like a tech-manual for a Los Angelos class nuclear submarine... I know, I was on one... And yet, in the course of a given game, you will still run into "what does this really mean!?!" scenarios...
I believe, that they write what will get people playing... Then give out random FAQ, errata, etc. info pages, to clarify what is significant...
It's not the initial writing that is bad... It's the thumbing their noses at questions that they think have obvious answers if you just take the time to READ THE BOOK... That's how God does it, why shouldn't GW? READ THE BOOK... All of the answers are there... They may be ambiguous, they may be sketchy... But how many times have YOU sat around, whiling away the hours with good friends, talking about clear-cut, concise rules to a game? I don't believe that I ever have. You don't see a lot of forum/blogs about Risk, or Monopoly... Does this mean that they should write vague rules on purpose? No... But I don't think that there is nearly the problem that so many bemoan...
Would I do it differently? Probably not... I am not a game designer, though... So I would do it the way that I have seen others do it...
Could THEY do it differently? Yes, but the price goes up (ie: more money sunk into the Star Fleet Battles books/modules than into any given 40k army that I have, with the exception of my Orkz).
So we are left with, price, or clarity... I vote price.
I didn't set the goal, the guy you responded to with 'Starcraft' did.
Fair enough, but I suppose that was more a general statement than intended to be directed at you. I totally agree that no game is 100% balanced, but getting close to it with asymmetric abilities isn't impossible.
I'd have to see the data and not the graphs, but it does not appear that balanced. Terrans, for example, under performed the other races since 2008 with a less than 50% win rate. Either way, we don't really need to talk about Starcraft, since it isn't a tabletop wargame.
Keep in mind this is a graph from 40-60% win rate. 'Underperforming' here is losing 2-3 games out of 100 more than the other two races. Zerg vs Protoss is actually a little more worrisome to me (youch, 40% dips!), but that's corrected itself over time. All these fluctuations are from map tweaks and players themselves. Strategies are figured out, counters are created, and the cycle continues.
Except they don't have Random Chance, a major factor in tabletop wargames, they don't have physical measurement, modelling etc so on. It really isn't the same thing.
Distance and ranges in Starcraft are pretty important, as well as 'model' size. This is starting to get into semantics, though, and yes, it's not the same thing at all. But if we're talking about specific rule differences (of which there are many), that's getting away from the point that asymmetric balance is possible within a strictly defined ruleset.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Evertras wrote: I will totally disagree that video games can't be a comparison. Both video games and tabletop games use a set of rules and allow players to play by those rules. It's just different mediums.
Under that loose set of guidelines, Poker, Golf, Basketball, Paintball, Pickup sticks, Jenga and Parcheesi are all valid comparisons to 40k.
If we're talking about asymmetric balance, yes, they are. The ones you named don't really have to worry about that, though.
I'll drop the vidya games comparison regardless, even if I think it's still valid. I certainly can't make an argument for a more balanced tabletop game, so I'll let this rest in general.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: To be fair, even as someone who generally wouldn't defend GW's rules practices, there's a lot more variables in a 40k game, especially human variables, that are controlled or eliminated simply by virtue of being a virtual environment in Starcraft, and GW doesn't have access to the game information and results of hundreds of millions of games played.
Also totally true. Starcraft and video games in general have the unique ability to automatically track absolutely tons of data of all kinds. I'll still stand by the theory that asymmetric balance in any game is possible and cite Starcraft as an example, but I will happily admit it's WAY harder for a tabletop game to achieve it.
Also to play devil's advocate with myself, there's way more armies in 40k than there are in Starcraft, which makes things exponentially harder. I really don't even dislike GW for any imbalances I perceive, for the record. Just arguing theory at this point.
If we're going to talk about problems with balance, I think a bigger problem, and one that GW stands more to gain by correcting, is the complete lack of internal balance. I don't understand why they would put out rules that entirely discourage people from playing with certain entries in a codex, and hence not buying their models (ie their primary stated reason for making this game). So while we're demanding that people shouldn't auto-win by playing the new army of the month, let's also demand that people shouldn't auto-lose for bringing Ogryn, or Shining Spears, or Flash Gitz.
MandalorynOranj wrote: If we're going to talk about problems with balance, I think a bigger problem, and one that GW stands more to gain by correcting, is the complete lack of internal balance. I don't understand why they would put out rules that entirely discourage people from playing with certain entries in a codex, and hence not buying their models (ie their primary stated reason for making this game). So while we're demanding that people shouldn't auto-win by playing the new army of the month, let's also demand that people shouldn't auto-lose for bringing Ogryn, or Shining Spears, or Flash Gitz.
Point right here, cant think of many of the current...well not big dogs, but the "underdogs" (PP, Wyrd, SG etc), in comparison to GW anyway, that have this problem in the way GW do. Maybe the occasional unit outshined by another, but nothing as bad on such a scale (though im not entirely sure with PP as i dont play)
Icelord wrote: You beat me to it! I totally agree video games are not a comparison. Name a game in the same genre of warhammer that is balanced 100%. It's not possible.
That's a ridiculous strawman. Nobody expects literal 100% balance where there isn't even the slightest advantage to any army/unit/etc. What we DO expect is a reasonable level of balance comparable to other games like MTG or Warmachine, where it might not be 100% but there's a much wider range of "top-tier" options and a much smaller difference in power between the top tier and the second best.
Icelord wrote: Which game has totally unique armies that are 100% balanced? That game should put GW out of business. Dont say warmachine/hoards cause its certainly not true.
Again, a strawman. Nobody is demanding literal 100% balance combined with armies that have absolutely nothing in common. But saying that nobody else has reached that perfect ideal level doesn't in any way lessen the criticism of GW, since other companies DO make games that do a much better job of it.
Skipphag da Devoura wrote: Would it be nice if all of the rules were finely, and clearly detailed down to the finite minutia of different situations that might arise during play? Sure... However, as a fan of Amarillo Design Burea; I've seen what those books look like... (Star Fleet Battles, for the unwashed Star Wars masses)...
TBH that's a problem specific to SFB. Consider MTG instead: there's a simplified set of starter rules to walk you through your first games, a standard rulebook like 40k's (or most other games), and a SFB-style phone-book-sized set of precisely written tournament rules. However, most people use the standard rulebook which is good enough to cover most situations and probably never even read the tournament rules. The tournament rules exist just so that every single obscure interaction has an explicit answer, so that when there is a dispute over the rules (especially in a tournament with thousands of dollars in cash prizes at stake) all the players/judges have to do is consult the tournament rules and find the answer.
So, the point here is that it's possible to have flawless ambiguity-free rules without creating a massive and frustrating barrier to entry for new players.
MandalorynOranj wrote: If we're going to talk about problems with balance, I think a bigger problem, and one that GW stands more to gain by correcting, is the complete lack of internal balance. I don't understand why they would put out rules that entirely discourage people from playing with certain entries in a codex, and hence not buying their models (ie their primary stated reason for making this game). So while we're demanding that people shouldn't auto-win by playing the new army of the month, let's also demand that people shouldn't auto-lose for bringing Ogryn, or Shining Spears, or Flash Gitz.
To be fair, GW has been getting a lot better at this. Look at the new Codex: Chaos Space Marines or its "pseudo-6e" predecessors, Codex: Necrons and Codex: Grey Knights. These Codexes, while not perfect (Mutilators, Triarch Prætorians, Assassins besides the Vindicare (and debatably Callidus)) are much more internally balanced than past releases have been.
pretre wrote: GW could do a better job making a balanced, clear, concise ruleset. For one reason or another, they choose not to. I believe that this is due to a misunderstanding between them and the player base (ignorance of what the players want and thinking everyone plays the same game they do) whereas others believe that it is intentional (intentional imbalance to sell certain units).
It's probably a bit of both actually.
They're too busy 'forging a narrative' with their new randomcinematic tables and charts, all the while focusing on 'selling toys to kids'.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: why do all the codexes have to be balanced to work? I really don't hear too many people whining about the ineffetiveness of certain units in Flames of War; or would that be because some armies excel at certain things where others do not? Do you want lots of heavy artillery for Tyranids? or CC-oriented Tau?
as a side note, if so many of you are such experts on game design and mechanics, why don't you try and work for a game company? or, better yet, design your own?
Strawmans and ad hominems. You are a truly a master debater
MandalorynOranj wrote: If we're going to talk about problems with balance, I think a bigger problem, and one that GW stands more to gain by correcting, is the complete lack of internal balance. I don't understand why they would put out rules that entirely discourage people from playing with certain entries in a codex, and hence not buying their models (ie their primary stated reason for making this game). So while we're demanding that people shouldn't auto-win by playing the new army of the month, let's also demand that people shouldn't auto-lose for bringing Ogryn, or Shining Spears, or Flash Gitz.
To be fair, GW has been getting a lot better at this. Look at the new Codex: Chaos Space Marines or its "pseudo-6e" predecessors, Codex: Necrons and Codex: Grey Knights. These Codexes, while not perfect (Mutilators, Triarch Prætorians, Assassins besides the Vindicare (and debatably Callidus)) are much more internally balanced than past releases have been.
Chaos Space Marine internally balanced? Are you serious? You picked the worst one for that because on all accounts there's quite a number of "Dud" choices compared to others, lack of options, lack of decent pricing, lack of well thought out things..
Heck, even between the basic armory and unit choices it has issues. A Mark of Slaanesh for a Lord is the same as a Mark of Nurgle, a chainaxe for a lord is far more expensive compared to a unit, a pair of LC will be far more on a Lord with TDA then standard terminators, and that's simply the beginning of the issues.
Silly question, but isn't this very reason why things like the INATFAQ were created? Now with the apparent discontinuing lack of updating of the INATFAQ, and each TO/event using its own FAQ, wouldn't this become more of an issue as people go from event to event? I suppose it has always been like that though. Haven't those of us previously using the INATFAQ essentially been playing Dakka-hammer 40k anyway? Although I enjoy some of the discussions that go on in the YMDC forums, and the answers provided therein, I'd ultimately like it to be for those forums to not be needed in their current capacity. Rules discussions obviously have a place, but I can go into a MTG rules forum and ask a complicated question about the rules and get a singular, if not complicated, answer with rules quotes and everything. Some even simple questions in 40k lack a true RAW answer all because of GW's poor quality rule set. Instead, we are often left to debate and argue back and forth about what the rules really say or mean due to poor wording on GW's part. Much of the bickering and arguing back and forth that occurs both on and offline could be stopped by having a nice and tight clear rule set. I would gladly begrudgingly pay more or wait longer for GW to do so, but the point being is that I would pay more or wait longer to make this happen as a customer. Should I have to? No. But if we are to vote with our wallets, why not let GW know that this is what at least some of the player base wants? Which actually gives me an idea for a poll...
/rant
MandalorynOranj wrote: If we're going to talk about problems with balance, I think a bigger problem, and one that GW stands more to gain by correcting, is the complete lack of internal balance. I don't understand why they would put out rules that entirely discourage people from playing with certain entries in a codex, and hence not buying their models (ie their primary stated reason for making this game). So while we're demanding that people shouldn't auto-win by playing the new army of the month, let's also demand that people shouldn't auto-lose for bringing Ogryn, or Shining Spears, or Flash Gitz.
To be fair, GW has been getting a lot better at this. Look at the new Codex: Chaos Space Marines or its "pseudo-6e" predecessors, Codex: Necrons and Codex: Grey Knights. These Codexes, while not perfect (Mutilators, Triarch Prætorians, Assassins besides the Vindicare (and debatably Callidus)) are much more internally balanced than past releases have been.
Chaos Space Marine internally balanced? Are you serious? You picked the worst one for that because on all accounts there's quite a number of "Dud" choices compared to others, lack of options, lack of decent pricing, lack of well thought out things..
Heck, even between the basic armory and unit choices it has issues. A Mark of Slaanesh for a Lord is the same as a Mark of Nurgle, a chainaxe for a lord is far more expensive compared to a unit, a pair of LC will be far more on a Lord with TDA then standard terminators, and that's simply the beginning of the issues.
Ok, while I hate to seemingly argue against my own point, those are some pretty bad examples. A pair of LC's should cost more for a lord than a regular termie, as he's going to be able to get more mileage from them due to his higher number of attacks, WS, and initiative. The examples Kingsley pointed out showed the point I was trying to make, and he's right, there are becoming less and less entire units that will never (read: extremely rarely) touch table, but there are still enough to constitute (in my eyes) a problem.
A pair of LC's should cost more for a lord than a regular termie, as he's going to be able to get more mileage from them due to his higher number of attacks, WS, and initiative.
I don't mind that, I do mind when somehow it becomes an equivalent 3X more. I could have picked some better examples however.
and he's right, there are becoming less and less entire units that will never (read: extremely rarely) touch table, but there are still enough to constitute (in my eyes) a problem.
The problem with chaos is that there's a lack of "Options" that will never reach the table rather than full units, would one ever take the Mark of Tzeentch on Anything? Mark of Slaanesh on Obliterators or Maulers?
Most issues I have is that rather like the previous codex, the Mark of Nurgle seems to have won out of the four gods once again for a few reasons.
1: The lack of assault transports for assault units such as Berzerkers and Melee Noise Marines
2: The lack of options for reserve based gameplay, with exceptions being down to an iffy D3 infiltrate or an outflanking slaanesh lord on a steed
3: The lack of options for a deepstrike based gameplay, with the key being horribly laughable for its use, and Warp talons not having grenades.
Will some work with this? Sure, but like the previous codex it will be shunted in with one specific build because that one's the best with all others being mediocre choices.
I would like to say too things, the first is that the discussion on balance should probably be moved to a different thread, as it is derailing the OP (who intended to discuss the quality of the written rules). I do have things to say on the topic of balance, but will not do so here.
Second, since there are several ambiguities in both the codices and the BRB, would you all support a community-driven 'grand FAQ', which covers all rules ambiguities that have not been ruled on by GW, in both the BRB and the codices (eventually expanding to Forge World and Expansions). Note that this will not change the 'balance' of the game (ie, anybody complaining about X being under-priced will be ignored) but merely addressing rules issues, such as whether Abbadon can join marked units or vehicles like drop pods which are immobilized after arriving on the battlefield loose a hull point as soon as they show up (I remember that one was kicking around YMDC for a while).
ZebioLizard2 wrote: The problem with chaos is that there's a lack of "Options" that will never reach the table rather than full units, would one ever take the Mark of Tzeentch on Anything? Mark of Slaanesh on Obliterators or Maulers?
The Mark of Tzeentch is desirable on any unit that plans to stand on a Skyshield Landing Pad (3++ ahoy!), as well as obviously useful for Terminators, Obliterators/Mutilators (if plasma is more common in your local meta than melta OR if there are enough Demolisher Cannons, railguns, melee walkers, etc. that T5 doesn't provide sufficient protection against Instant Death), and Warp Talons.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: 1: The lack of assault transports for assault units such as Berzerkers and Melee Noise Marines
Land Raiders are still in the game.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: 2: The lack of options for reserve based gameplay, with exceptions being down to an iffy D3 infiltrate or an outflanking slaanesh lord on a steed
Not all Codexes have these options-- most don't, really. The existing options seem fine given how niche this role is. The Steed of Slaanesh lord in particular seems quite powerful.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: 3: The lack of options for a deepstrike based gameplay, with the key being horribly laughable for its use, and Warp talons not having grenades.
This seems unfortunate, but it's not like Deep Strike is totally invalid in the new book-- Obliterators and Terminators are quite threatening when Deep Striking and Raptors, while not efficient in this role, can still use it to some effect.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Will some work with this? Sure, but like the previous codex it will be shunted in with one specific build because that one's the best with all others being mediocre choices.
I'm not so sure. I think the new Chaos Marines have a large amount of interesting options, competitive choices in nearly all slots, especially Fast Attack (Spawn, Bikes, Raptors, Heldrake) and Heavy Support (Predators, Vindicators, Havocs, Obliterators, Forgefiends, Maulerfiends), and have good synergy with various options as either an Allied or Primary detachment. All in all I would be very happy to see my own primary army (Codex: Space Marines) get a new book along the lines of Codex: Chaos Space Marines-- not that we need one soon, of course!
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: why do all the codexes have to be balanced to work? I really don't hear too many people whining about the ineffetiveness of certain units in Flames of War; or would that be because some armies excel at certain things where others do not? Do you want lots of heavy artillery for Tyranids? or CC-oriented Tau?
as a side note, if so many of you are such experts on game design and mechanics, why don't you try and work for a game company? or, better yet, design your own?
Strawmans and ad hominems. You are a truly a master debater
I have been known to handle myself rather well.
I know it wasn't my post you're talking about, I just wanted to make a pun. : D
The rules themselves have zero effect on the balance between codexes.
Patently wrong. If I change a rule in the rule book - say jink saves, or hull points, or assault rules then I will have had a noticeable affect on balance between codices. Just look at the point made about Eldar, they went from uber mass unkillable skimmers to not, and it was the rules in the BRB that was largely responsible for that.
I believe that this is due to a misunderstanding between them and the player base (ignorance of what the players want and thinking everyone plays the same game they do)
Hardly. I expect GW are well aware that different people want different things. It is probably more a case of posters here thinking that the rules should be written for them because they think everyone should play as they do.
It really never sinks in that there are other people who might disagree with the way they do it.
I doubt it, they are producing the product they want to produce. They are probably more than well aware that there are people on sites like Dakka who disgree with what they do.
There was one balancing factor, to be fair, and that was the maps that may favor one race over another, and those did change over time by the community and the tournaments that used them.
That is a factor in a lot of games of this nature. Play ASL on some random map with a random matchup and one side or another is likely to be favored, play FOG or DBA with certain terrain and one side or another will favored depending on who has the better troops for that terrain. Play Federation Commander and map size or terrain affect who has the advantage.
Play 40k with different scenarios and terrain, and amries won't handle them all evenly, some they will be advantages in, others at a disadvantage.
I imagine video games with controlled variables are a lot different than tabletop games.
Some video games maybe, not all. But even so why does that affect the comparison, it is just showing another way of handling the game to try and maintain some semblance of balance. If you want better balance in 40k then maybe it is those sorts of solutions you are actually needing. Set army lists are one way of making it easier to achieve. Or set terrain layouts etc.
Either way, we don't really need to talk about Starcraft, since it isn't a tabletop wargame.
How does that make it different? It is a 'wargame' with multiple sides fighting over multiple 'boards'. How far to go balancing games is an issue faced by all games designers, be they computer or table top or board. There isn't much difference in practise on a conceptual level between something like Starcraft and 40k when it comes to getting balance. 40k is just vastly harder due to the sheer number of armies. Harder again with random maps and victory conditions.
Terrans, for example, under performed the other races since 2008 with a less than 50% win rate.
Not according to that graph. But what do you consider balanced then? Most of the time each side was within a few % of 50. That is pretty darn close, and starcraft is considered fairly well balanced by most who play it. However even there (according to the graphs) the individual matchups show imbalances. Yet this is a game that has just 3 sides and far less variability than 40k. For most of that period Proboss > Terran, Terran > Zerf, Zerg > Proboss.
I totally agree that no game is 100% balanced, but getting close to it with asymmetric abilities isn't impossible.
what do you consider close. The overall win rate within a few % of 50? and does it matter that specific matchups may be clearly skewed?
a standard rulebook like 40k's (or most other games), and a SFB-style phone-book-sized set of precisely written tournament rules. However, most people use the standard rulebook which is good enough to cover most situations and probably never even read the tournament rules. The tournament rules exist just so that every single obscure interaction has an explicit answer, so that when there is a dispute over the rules (especially in a tournament with thousands of dollars in cash prizes at stake) all the players/judges have to do is consult the tournament rules and find the answer.
In the case of SFB the tourney rules are actually a cut down set of rules, leaving out whole portions of the standard rules (e.g. electronic warfare as I remember). At least that in part, is to make it easier to balance, the SFB tourney also has small number of special ships (aka units) that have been especially designed for tourney balance. You can't just turn up with any of the normal ships. The tourney players of that game recognised that close balance was not something they were going to get from the standard game and hence produced what is almost a seperate game for the purpose of tourney style balance.
Nobody expects literal 100% balance where there isn't even the slightest advantage to any army/unit/etc.
Reading posters above about the starcraft being out by a few % and therefore not balanced, I'm not so sure about that.
I would like to say too things, the first is that the discussion on balance should probably be moved to a different thread, as it is derailing the OP (who intended to discuss the quality of the written rules). I do have things to say on the topic of balance, but will not do so here.
Balance is his number 1 point actually
"1- Balance issues all over the place. Done on porpoise to boost sales mostly i know. "
The rules themselves have zero effect on the balance between codexes.
Patently wrong. If I change a rule in the rule book - say jink saves, or hull points, or assault rules then I will have had a noticeable affect on balance between codices. Just look at the point made about Eldar, they went from uber mass unkillable skimmers to not, and it was the rules in the BRB that was largely responsible for that.
Way to take my point out of context. In context I'm referring to the ambiguity of the rules. If you clarify rules, balance won't change.
I believe that this is due to a misunderstanding between them and the player base (ignorance of what the players want and thinking everyone plays the same game they do)
Hardly. I expect GW are well aware that different people want different things. It is probably more a case of posters here thinking that the rules should be written for them because they think everyone should play as they do.
No, you're under the mistaken impression that clearly written rules would not benefit a casual player whatsoever.
The rules themselves have zero effect on the balance between codexes.
Patently wrong. If I change a rule in the rule book - say jink saves, or hull points, or assault rules then I will have had a noticeable affect on balance between codices. Just look at the point made about Eldar, they went from uber mass unkillable skimmers to not, and it was the rules in the BRB that was largely responsible for that.
Way to take my point out of context. In context I'm referring to the ambiguity of the rules. If you clarify rules, balance won't change.
Yes, better 'clarified' rules may help (or it may not, the writers may well know what the rules mean). But in a thread about 'poor quality rules', where the first point made by the OP is balance, then I'm assuming the context of anyone saying the rules are flawed/poor quality or words to the affect includes rules that affect balance as well. The rules clearly affect balance between codices.
Ceratinly I don't dispute that 'clearer' rules would be nice.
I believe that this is due to a misunderstanding between them and the player base (ignorance of what the players want and thinking everyone plays the same game they do)
Hardly. I expect GW are well aware that different people want different things. It is probably more a case of posters here thinking that the rules should be written for them because they think everyone should play as they do.
No, you're under the mistaken impression that clearly written rules would not benefit a casual player whatsoever.
I'm saying nothing of the kind. I'm saying that there are a lot of players who probably do not all have the same idea of the what they want. Claiming that GW are ignorant of what the players want and they think all want to play the same game that GW produce is just wrong. Not producing what someone wants is not the same as being ignorant of what the others want. Producing the game they want to play is a perfectly reasonable approach, and doesn't mean you think everyone wants that.
I believe that this is due to a misunderstanding between them and the player base (ignorance of what the players want and thinking everyone plays the same game they do)
Hardly. I expect GW are well aware that different people want different things. It is probably more a case of posters here thinking that the rules should be written for them because they think everyone should play as they do.
Care to elaborate? Not sure what you mean but clear and balanced ruleset benefits everyone bar tfgs maybe whoever they are.
There was one balancing factor, to be fair, and that was the maps that may favor one race over another, and those did change over time by the community and the tournaments that used them.
That is a factor in a lot of games of this nature. Play ASL on some random map with a random matchup and one side or another is likely to be favored, play FOG or DBA with certain terrain and one side or another will favored depending on who has the better troops for that terrain. Play Federation Commander and map size or terrain affect who has the advantage.
Play 40k with different scenarios and terrain, and amries won't handle them all evenly, some they will be advantages in, others at a disadvantage.
Yep despite the fact that I consider balance in 40k close to abysmal with how you have to avoid units, it is still better that many people think - example is Tyranids who gain a lot of power if you follow BRB rules about terrain (that was in 5th for me, I haven't play enouth games in 6th to be certain but I guess that is still the case, d3 pieces for 2'x2' is a lot). Actualy when we went overboard with terrain, I was unbeatable for some time with lists that most people would laugh at here.
I totally agree that no game is 100% balanced, but getting close to it with asymmetric abilities isn't impossible.
what do you consider close. The overall win rate within a few % of 50? and does it matter that specific matchups may be clearly skewed?
Not a question for me though I'd like to answer. It's not about balanced matchups as there should be better and worse lists etc. It's just about internal and external balance for units, no clearly abusable combos (either do not create them or faq them out), anti spam rule maybe (like 2nd unit of the same type is 10% more expensive) so assuming 2 properly built lists (without glaring errors) the skewed matchup is unlikely to happen. You can't avoid that ofc in a game with multiple different armies but you can do better than GW now.
puree wrote: Yes, better 'clarified' rules may help (or it may not, the writers may well know what the rules mean). But in a thread about 'poor quality rules', where the first point made by the OP is balance, then I'm assuming the context of anyone saying the rules are flawed/poor quality or words to the affect includes rules that affect balance as well. The rules clearly affect balance between codices.
Ceratinly I don't dispute that 'clearer' rules would be nice.
Instead of assuming, reading the thread would be good. That would get you the required context.
And the writers knowing what they mean is meaningless. In fact, it exacerbates the problem. The writers mean one thing, but write another. Then when it comes down to codex time, they re-read the rules involved and possibly come to a different interpretation.
I'm saying nothing of the kind. I'm saying that there are a lot of players who probably do not all have the same idea of the what they want. Claiming that GW are ignorant of what the players want and they think all want to play the same game that GW produce is just wrong. Not producing what someone wants is not the same as being ignorant of what the others want. Producing the game they want to play is a perfectly reasonable approach, and doesn't mean you think everyone wants that.
Producing the game they want to play is fine. Writing ambiguous, shoddy rules for the game they want to play is being ignorant about the fact that their rules are ambiguous. If they don't know that, it's because they're purposely not investigating.
Instead of assuming, reading the thread would be good. That would get you the required context.
Odd, for someone who is saying I was assuming to much you are very quick to assume too much as well.
I did read the enitre thread, indeed only a few posts before yours I was respondong to other peoples post about balance. Balance has been a significant part of the context of the thread since the OP noted is as the very first point.
The writers mean one thing, but write another. Then when it comes down to codex time, they re-read the rules involved and possibly come to a different interpretation.
Instead of assuming, reading the thread would be good. That would get you the required context.
Odd, for someone who is saying I was assuming to much you are very quick to assume too much as well.
I did read the enitre thread, indeed only a few posts before yours I was respondong to other peoples post about balance. Balance has been a significant part of the context of the thread since the OP noted is as the very first point.
If you had read my post in context, you would not have assumed incorrectly as you did.
The writers mean one thing, but write another. Then when it comes down to codex time, they re-read the rules involved and possibly come to a different interpretation.
Do They?
Do they what? Write one thing and mean another? Demonstrably yes. Look at all the FAQs that clarify things.
Instead of assuming, reading the thread would be good. That would get you the required context.
Odd, for someone who is saying I was assuming to much you are very quick to assume too much as well.
I did read the enitre thread, indeed only a few posts before yours I was respondong to other peoples post about balance. Balance has been a significant part of the context of the thread since the OP noted is as the very first point.
If you had read my post in context, you would not have assumed incorrectly as you did.
The writers mean one thing, but write another. Then when it comes down to codex time, they re-read the rules involved and possibly come to a different interpretation.
Do They?
Do they what? Write one thing and mean another? Demonstrably yes. Look at all the FAQs that clarify things.
I miss 5th Ed where they would release an FAQ that needed an FAQ or would FAQ unambiguous rules to make them ambiguous.
I've been playing 40k sense 3rd and never had an issue with anything rules wise (except the time my buddy discovered 3.5 Iron Warriors...which was nipped quick). Granted I've never done anything but play the rules at face value. Funny how major balance issues don't show up when you don't worry about you to break the game.
On balance issues and tight rules...they simply don't exist in the gaming world. I've consistently broke every rule set I've come across. From D&D, Rifts and Exalted to 40k and WHFB. Trick is to not make use of any of that knowledge.
BrotherGecko wrote: On balance issues and tight rules...they simply don't exist in the gaming world. I've consistently broke every rule set I've come across. From D&D, Rifts and Exalted to 40k and WHFB. Trick is to not make use of any of that knowledge.
Except we've already named companies that produce games that can't be broken like that.
RIfts was the best example of a horribly written ruleset, the character creation steps were out of order so you had to house rule just to start.
Horribly written rules can be worked around in a setting with a single arbiter, but in a game where two people who have never met might want to play a game the rules should be clear so they can enjoy playing instead of bickering over rules.
I don't think the ruleset in its self is particularly broken. there are a few things that got overlooked that were FAQ'd quite quickly, like challenges and how initiative affecting wargear works in assaults (like whip coils) but on the whole the rules work exactly as i would expect.
The problem is that most (all??) armies have a unit or piece of wargear that breaks the rules, and then that is compounded by the fact that the rule they were intending to break was from a previous edition of the game and that particular rule has changed.
If GW didn't insist on making so many special rules that break all the rules then there would be far less rule conflicts
BrotherGecko wrote: I've been playing 40k sense 3rd and never had an issue with anything rules wise (except the time my buddy discovered 3.5 Iron Warriors...which was nipped quick). Granted I've never done anything but play the rules at face value. Funny how major balance issues don't show up when you don't worry about you to break the game.
So obviously you don't play with/against Night Scythes, don't use Feel No Pain when hit with other "unsaved wound" abilities, or any of the other myriad of rules that simply fail to function "at face value".
Or Abbadon's joining marked squads.
If you mean you house rule what you think is intended then sure - that works. The problem is that its required to make the 40k rules work.
I'm paying for a rules set. Not for a bunch of words that help me make rigeld2-hammer.
On balance issues and tight rules...they simply don't exist in the gaming world. I've consistently broke every rule set I've come across. From D&D, Rifts and Exalted to 40k and WHFB. Trick is to not make use of any of that knowledge.
D&D is deliberately loose, Rifts is known for horrible rules writing, 40k and WHFB are what's being discussed here... So yeah.
BrotherGecko wrote: On balance issues and tight rules...they simply don't exist in the gaming world. I've consistently broke every rule set I've come across. From D&D, Rifts and Exalted to 40k and WHFB. Trick is to not make use of any of that knowledge.
rigeld2 wrote: D&D is deliberately loose, Rifts is known for horrible rules writing, 40k and WHFB are what's being discussed here... So yeah.
The other issue with those other systems is that they have an arbitrator, a GM or DM that is going to make that final call on those broken rules. This is not the case with 40k as neither player can claim to be the GM over the other.
BrotherGecko wrote: On balance issues and tight rules...they simply don't exist in the gaming world. I've consistently broke every rule set I've come across. From D&D, Rifts and Exalted to 40k and WHFB. Trick is to not make use of any of that knowledge.
Except we've already named companies that produce games that can't be broken like that.
Get real. Given enough time, any game system can be broken.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
madtankbloke wrote: I don't think the ruleset in its self is particularly broken. there are a few things that got overlooked that were FAQ'd quite quickly, like challenges and how initiative affecting wargear works in assaults (like whip coils) but on the whole the rules work exactly as i would expect.
The problem is that most (all??) armies have a unit or piece of wargear that breaks the rules, and then that is compounded by the fact that the rule they were intending to break was from a previous edition of the game and that particular rule has changed.
If GW didn't insist on making so many special rules that break all the rules then there would be far less rule conflicts
Then Necron players would have no reason to exist...
Listen, if it weren't for all the rules, there would be no point to the game. All the armies would either be identical stats-wise or in their composition.
Quit complaining. This is not a job. If a game stresses you out this much, find a hobby!
So obviously you don't play with/against Night Scythes, don't use Feel No Pain when hit with other "unsaved wound" abilities, or any of the other myriad of rules that simply fail to function "at face value".
Or Abbadon's joining marked squads.
Well that is entirely possible, they only occur under certain circumstances, there are still some armies I've never played with or against.
If you mean you house rule what you think is intended then sure - that works. The problem is that its required to make the 40k rules work.
House implies that there was a disagreement and that some compromise was produced. Many people probably only play with a very small number of regular opponents/friends who don't read rules in different ways, and just play by the rules as they read them, which is exactly how they'd be playing any other rule set.
Coming up with an interpretation (house rule) for something that you don't agree on is actually part of the rules. It is listed as the most important rule.
BrotherGecko wrote: On balance issues and tight rules...they simply don't exist in the gaming world. I've consistently broke every rule set I've come across. From D&D, Rifts and Exalted to 40k and WHFB. Trick is to not make use of any of that knowledge.
Except we've already named companies that produce games that can't be broken like that.
Get real. Given enough time, any game system can be broken.
Perhaps. But the real point is that it takes some considerable effort to break it, and in many cases, not nearly as badly as 40k is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
madtankbloke wrote: I don't think the ruleset in its self is particularly broken. there are a few things that got overlooked that were FAQ'd quite quickly, like challenges and how initiative affecting wargear works in assaults (like whip coils) but on the whole the rules work exactly as i would expect.
The problem is that most (all??) armies have a unit or piece of wargear that breaks the rules, and then that is compounded by the fact that the rule they were intending to break was from a previous edition of the game and that particular rule has changed.
If GW didn't insist on making so many special rules that break all the rules then there would be far less rule conflicts
Then Necron players would have no reason to exist...
Listen, if it weren't for all the rules, there would be no point to the game. All the armies would either be identical stats-wise or in their composition.
The problem is not an abundance of rules, it's that they're poorly written. GW rules are rife with contradictions and specific exceptions that are poorly worded to begin with. Look at something like the Warmahorde rulebooks. Everything is written in a way to get rid of as much contradiction as possible, and is very precise in its wording. I feel that some of Warmahordes' rules are convoluted and needlessly complex (I can say the same thing about 40k, although moreso, and more nonsensically), but there's no denying that it's a very well written ruleset. GW is a giant compared to companies like Privateer Press, they should have the resources to do this right.
Quit complaining. This is not a job. If a game stresses you out this much, find a hobby!
It's only natural for one to express concern for their hobby when they see it moving in a direction that they don't like.
Coming up with an interpretation (house rule) for something that you don't agree on is actually part of the rules. It is listed as the most important rule.
And that rule is a complete cop-out for bad quality control and writing. If GW wrote a decent ruleset, "The Most Important Rule" wouldn't need to be in the book to begin with. It would reveal itself organically through gameplay. "Narrative" and "cinematics" fall in the same boat.
Coming up with an interpretation (house rule) for something that you don't agree on is actually part of the rules. It is listed as the most important rule.
And that rule is a complete cop-out for bad quality control and writing. If GW wrote a decent ruleset, "The Most Important Rule" wouldn't need to be in the book to begin with. It would reveal itself organically through gameplay. "Narrative" and "cinematics" fall in the same boat.
This. If you ever have to fall back on TMIR then the game designers have failed. The more its required, the more they've failed. Go check out YMDC for threads that would simply cease to exist if the writing was even a little more consistent/clear.
Coming up with an interpretation (house rule) for something that you don't agree on is actually part of the rules. It is listed as the most important rule.
And that rule is a complete cop-out for bad quality control and writing. If GW wrote a decent ruleset, "The Most Important Rule" wouldn't need to be in the book to begin with. It would reveal itself organically through gameplay. "Narrative" and "cinematics" fall in the same boat.
This. If you ever have to fall back on TMIR then the game designers have failed. The more its required, the more they've failed. Go check out YMDC for threads that would simply cease to exist if the writing was even a little more consistent/clear.
Excellent points. As it stands, the number of posts/topics of YMDC outnumber those of Tactics. That is pretty sad, really.
Coming up with an interpretation (house rule) for something that you don't agree on is actually part of the rules. It is listed as the most important rule.
And that rule is a complete cop-out for bad quality control and writing. If GW wrote a decent ruleset, "The Most Important Rule" wouldn't need to be in the book to begin with. It would reveal itself organically through gameplay. "Narrative" and "cinematics" fall in the same boat.
This. If you ever have to fall back on TMIR then the game designers have failed. The more its required, the more they've failed. Go check out YMDC for threads that would simply cease to exist if the writing was even a little more consistent/clear.
Excellent points. As it stands, the number of posts/topics of YMDC outnumber those of Tactics. That is pretty sad, really.
two reasons for that:
1. too many posters on YMDC don't want to read the rules, so they post rules questions that can be answered by page numbers.
2. too many posters expect army lists to fall out of the sky like manna from heaven, tactics schmactics. that's too hard.
playing a game like this requires more effort than just buying the parts and showing up.
Coming up with an interpretation (house rule) for something that you don't agree on is actually part of the rules. It is listed as the most important rule.
And that rule is a complete cop-out for bad quality control and writing. If GW wrote a decent ruleset, "The Most Important Rule" wouldn't need to be in the book to begin with. It would reveal itself organically through gameplay. "Narrative" and "cinematics" fall in the same boat.
This. If you ever have to fall back on TMIR then the game designers have failed. The more its required, the more they've failed. Go check out YMDC for threads that would simply cease to exist if the writing was even a little more consistent/clear.
Excellent points. As it stands, the number of posts/topics of YMDC outnumber those of Tactics. That is pretty sad, really.
two reasons for that:
1. too many posters on YMDC don't want to read the rules, so they post rules questions that can be answered by page numbers.
2. too many posters expect army lists to fall out of the sky like manna from heaven, tactics schmactics. that's too hard.
playing a game like this requires more effort than just buying the parts and showing up.
BrotherGecko wrote: On balance issues and tight rules...they simply don't exist in the gaming world. I've consistently broke every rule set I've come across. From D&D, Rifts and Exalted to 40k and WHFB. Trick is to not make use of any of that knowledge.
Except we've already named companies that produce games that can't be broken like that.
Get real. Given enough time, any game system can be broken.
So the quality of it doesn't matter? All are the same then? No need to ever get better? Get real.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: Quit complaining. This is not a job. If a game stresses you out this much, find a hobby!
In response to the posted question, Why is GW dead set on putting out poor rule sets.
IMO.
They are really dead set on putting out rules with little to no game testing!!!
Had they done enough game testing they would have had a far better rules set to start with. When working through a new rules set, one must keep going back to the rules to find answers. If the answers are not in the rules then the rules are broken. By reading through the rules as you go one can quickly find the holes in them. At this point, having found the holes they should be plugged!
I have been looking for how Rapid Fire weapons work now with 6th edition. All other weapons have a notation as to how they work if the model moved. I am not finding that for Rapid Fire weapons... Or perhaps I have not stubbled across that yet. I am sure that if this is covered in the rules... it is not where it should be in the rules set. Now granted I have the small rules book so maybe missing something.
Anyway, this is their 6th offering and the fact that FAQ was so vast so quickly say much.
Testify wrote: Yeah, no. I stand by my statement. Rulesets are insanely complicated, I think people who complain about 40k being flawed or badly written have a poor understanding of systems. Ironic considering they tend to label themselves as "hardcore" gamers.
Wow...talk about ignorance. People who complain about 40k being flawed or badly written don't understand systems? That is pure and utter BS. I have worked in quality assurance and testing and systems analysis over the last 20 years. Difficult and complicated systems are tested and verified and improved in every other industry in the world every day, but it is beyond the abiliites of someone to test a complicated gaming rule system? Hardly. The testing could be done with the proper effort. GW just doesn't want to. Heck GW doesn't even want to listen to its player base to discover and fix issues in a new ruleset or codex after release either. Any complicated system can be documented thoroughly and tested. It can be tested to make sure it does what it is intended to do, but even more importantly to make sure it *doesn't* do what it isn't intended to do.
At the simplest level GW doesn't even learn from its past mistakes. They make the same errors of vagueness and lack of detail every time they come out with a new edition of the rules. That is just lazy. I don't expect GW will ever change, but that doesn't mean I can't *hope* that they could and would change.
Hell the game testing is the fun part of the job. Anyone can slap together a bunch of rules, but until you play a bunch of games and review the rules set, it most likely will be broken.
I much preferred the 5th addition rules and some tweaking and corrections would have been much more welcome than another set of rules that were not reviewed and corrected. In our very first game of we had to look stuff up, like moving when firing Rapid Fire weapons. Could not find it and it was NOT where it should have been. I think mistakes like that would be caught in the first play.
The sad part is I think they just don't care and know that there are more than enough people to blindly buy their stuff and they make a sweet profit. Who knows how many left the hobby, or at least GW, for their business practices.
I think my son and I will continue playing with their great model and make our own house rules from their base rules set of 5th addition. It is bad enough hte models are so expensive but to pay top dollar for a broken rules set, that is just to much.
Tara wrote: Hell the game testing is the fun part of the job.
Good god no. If you're going to do it properly, you have to push every single thing you possibly can to the point of breaking, push it further, and then see what happens and figure out how to fix it. Playtesting--proper playtesting--can be a hellish process.
I think my son and I will continue playing with their great model and make our own house rules from their base rules set of 5th addition. It is bad enough hte models are so expensive but to pay top dollar for a broken rules set, that is just to much.
You could always try other systems and other model companies as well.
Tara wrote: Hell the game testing is the fun part of the job.
Good god no. If you're going to do it properly, you have to push every single thing you possibly can to the point of breaking, push it further, and then see what happens and figure out how to fix it. Playtesting--proper playtesting--can be a hellish process.
Hellish perhaps to those that don't care about what they produce.
You paly a game work through the rules when questions come up, make note of missing or unclear rules. correct, continue.
Yeah if you are trying to break everything it could start to get rough but really, the initial writing must have been flawed. We have house ruled many things that were not clear, noted them on the appropriate page and used that from then on.
It is more a matter of work ethics, getting it right the first time. GW continues to produce..... 6 editions now, and repeat the same mistakes everytime. As I have already noted I liked 5th edition best to date, let us say that most people did. Why not just improve on that rather than revisit most every aspect of the game and leave stuff out and unclear..... AGAIN!
I have writen game rules and yes, they are not as complex as 40K, but we have played for several years now with NO rule changes but merely clarifications. I worked tirelessly reviewing rules vs. charts vs. reference material.... and enjoyed it. Most clarifications simply due to English being a second language to some players.
I believe if they played the game and reviewed their rules, NOT from memory but from writen rules, a very high percentage of questions would be answered before publication. Anything less is just not giving a damn.
Tara wrote: Hellish perhaps to those that don't care about what they produce.
Nope, even when you do care, it's hellish. But you do it anyway, precisely because you do care.
You paly a game work through the rules when questions come up, make note of missing or unclear rules. correct, continue.
Yeah if you are trying to break everything it could start to get rough but really, the initial writing must have been flawed.
But you can't tell what flaws are there until you do push it to the breaking point, in as many ways as possible. A lot of things can look to be near perfect, but it only takes one fatal error to totally break a game, so you need to do your best to find as many as possible, and rectify them, no matter how polished it looks already.
Haha Its not the game part thats the problem for alot of us, play a few other games and youl see. I play most other games like this, its fun none of the rules hassle we get from 
game design, not "a challenge with a more difficult army".
