Inquisitor Kallus wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Its just that casual lists don't min/max armies so flaws that only happen when you bend optimization to breaking point don't exist in casual games, so our game is a bit more balanced for it.

'Press X to doubt'

You personally, perhaps, but I have a hard time believing that all people who play casually don't enjoy stomping face and adhere to some unwritten set of rules.

Then they're not casual players

"No True Scotsman"

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
What is someone gonna do, give a point handicap?

That certainly is an option.

The problem is that it shouldn't NEED to be one.

nou wrote:

 catbarf wrote:


You were arguing that removal of the myriad bespoke codices that differentiate subfactions means sacrificing characterization/feeling/fluff from the subfactions. I argue that this is simply not true; it's just a matter of using broader, simpler effects that achieve the same 'feel' as more complex ones while being dramatically easier to balance. Design for effect.

And yeah, if AK-47 Republic can make Navy SEALs and Somali militia feel radically different despite drawing from the same core army list, I'm going to go ahead and say Drukhari/CWE/Exodites can be the same way. For that matter, do Chaos Marines with ten thousand years of experience and ancient weapons and armor currently play much differently from loyalist Space Marines with ten years of experience? I'd argue that for all the books and supplements layering on special rules, the core mechanics fail to meaningfully differentiate factions through statlines or army organization. It comes down to an avalanche of special rules and stratagems, and still at the end of it all a group of rag-tag Genestealer Cult insurgents and a crack squad of highly-disciplined Cadians still play and feel virtually identical to one another.

Streamlining the game, in the process providing design space for fluffy faction/subfaction rules, can make the game both fun for narrative players and better for competitive play. That's all I've been saying.

I wonder if you were here when very flavourfull 2nd ed was castrated and replaced by uber bland index era, streamlined 3rd. And before bringing out an argument about Index era being temporary - 3rd ed Eldar codex have not brought back any of the former flavour. Had different 3rd ed armies played differently? Well, yes. Were those differences deep enough to allow for interesting narratives and immersive feel of the game? Hell no... The transition between 7th and 8th had similar effect, current layers upon layers of "bespoke rules" are less flavourfull than 7th eds basic level of USRs/unique special rules, but I agree that 7th ed required a lot effort to balance games out, even narratively speaking, so it is no surprise that 8th came almost universally as a relief, for any type of players.

I was around then, and I honestly felt the opposite (to be fair though I was like 17). Although I felt that 3rd edition BRB army lists were bland, it was also way more balanced than any gak in 2nd edition. Just then, like now, it spiraled out of control with more and more and more being added to the mix.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
What is someone gonna do, give a point handicap?

That certainly is an option.

The problem is that it shouldn't NEED to be one.

Yes, I'm sure we all agree on that.

I wonder if you were here when very flavourfull 2nd ed was castrated and replaced by uber bland index era, streamlined 3rd. And before bringing out an argument about Index era being temporary - 3rd ed Eldar codex have not brought back any of the former flavour. Had different 3rd ed armies played differently? Well, yes. Were those differences deep enough to allow for interesting narratives and immersive feel of the game? Hell no... The transition between 7th and 8th had similar effect, current layers upon layers of "bespoke rules" are less flavourfull than 7th eds basic level of USRs/unique special rules, but I agree that 7th ed required a lot effort to balance games out, even narratively speaking, so it is no surprise that 8th came almost universally as a relief, for any type of players.

And sales took off in 3rd edition but I wonder if the exposure and quality of Dawn of War helped that sales bump (it came out roughly around then). Sales have also been good since AoS and 8th dropped. The demand for models has been inelastic with price or balance issues and sales grow each time they dumb it down.

Warmachine got a huge bump early by being a crunchy skirmish level game that touted its balance and I still have yet to see Privateer Press have the means to open their own retail outlets. FWIW I made three Warmahordes armies.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

I wonder if you were here when very flavourfull 2nd ed was castrated and replaced by uber bland index era, streamlined 3rd. And before bringing out an argument about Index era being temporary - 3rd ed Eldar codex have not brought back any of the former flavour. Had different 3rd ed armies played differently? Well, yes. Were those differences deep enough to allow for interesting narratives and immersive feel of the game? Hell no... The transition between 7th and 8th had similar effect, current layers upon layers of "bespoke rules" are less flavourfull than 7th eds basic level of USRs/unique special rules, but I agree that 7th ed required a lot effort to balance games out, even narratively speaking, so it is no surprise that 8th came almost universally as a relief, for any type of players.

And sales took off in 3rd edition but I wonder if the exposure and quality of Dawn of War helped that sales bump (it came out roughly around then). Sales have also been good since AoS and 8th dropped. The demand for models has been inelastic with price or balance issues and sales grow each time they dumb it down.

Warmachine got a huge bump early by being a crunchy skirmish level game that touted its balance and I still have yet to see Privateer Press have the means to open their own retail outlets. FWIW I made three Warmahordes armies.

Having your own retail outlet is BAD. There's a reason barely anyone does it and relies on independent stores. The retail chains are a huge part of why prices are so ridiculous. So even if other companies could do it the wouldn't.

Wayniac wrote:
Having your own retail outlet is BAD. There's a reason barely anyone does it and relies on independent stores. The retail chains are a huge part of why prices are so ridiculous. So even if other companies could do it the wouldn't.

This is a niche hobby and GW does the entire hobby a huge favor by exposing the general public to it regularly.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

I wonder if you were here when very flavourfull 2nd ed was castrated and replaced by uber bland index era, streamlined 3rd. And before bringing out an argument about Index era being temporary - 3rd ed Eldar codex have not brought back any of the former flavour. Had different 3rd ed armies played differently? Well, yes. Were those differences deep enough to allow for interesting narratives and immersive feel of the game? Hell no... The transition between 7th and 8th had similar effect, current layers upon layers of "bespoke rules" are less flavourfull than 7th eds basic level of USRs/unique special rules, but I agree that 7th ed required a lot effort to balance games out, even narratively speaking, so it is no surprise that 8th came almost universally as a relief, for any type of players.

And sales took off in 3rd edition but I wonder if the exposure and quality of Dawn of War helped that sales bump (it came out roughly around then). Sales have also been good since AoS and 8th dropped. The demand for models has been inelastic with price or balance issues and sales grow each time they dumb it down.

Warmachine got a huge bump early by being a crunchy skirmish level game that touted its balance and I still have yet to see Privateer Press have the means to open their own retail outlets. FWIW I made three Warmahordes armies.

But I'm not in any way arguing the oposite - only that the narrative capacity of a system is in direct oposition with blind balance and that cutting down on option and detail does result in blandness.

Wayniac wrote:

nou wrote:

I wonder if you were here when very flavourfull 2nd ed was castrated and replaced by uber bland index era, streamlined 3rd. And before bringing out an argument about Index era being temporary - 3rd ed Eldar codex have not brought back any of the former flavour. Had different 3rd ed armies played differently? Well, yes. Were those differences deep enough to allow for interesting narratives and immersive feel of the game? Hell no... The transition between 7th and 8th had similar effect, current layers upon layers of "bespoke rules" are less flavourfull than 7th eds basic level of USRs/unique special rules, but I agree that 7th ed required a lot effort to balance games out, even narratively speaking, so it is no surprise that 8th came almost universally as a relief, for any type of players.

I was around then, and I honestly felt the opposite (to be fair though I was like 17). Although I felt that 3rd edition BRB army lists were bland, it was also way more balanced than any gak in 2nd edition. Just then, like now, it spiraled out of control with more and more and more being added to the mix.

How people feel about that shift may be affected by what armies they were playing. At that time I had Craftworld Eldar and Dark Angel armies. My Dark Angels fared pretty well. Sure, some options were lost and that was annoying, but mostly it was just streamlining and the overall feel and flavour of the army was mostly still there. And of course the new rules were way more functional, just like 8e core rules are more functional than 7e. However, my poor Eldar! They were utterly butchered. The playstyle was gone, the flavour they had was gone. I dropped the army; the faction loved just didn't exist any more. The Eldar have never recovered from that, They have of course often been very good army, but compared to their 2nd edition incarnation they remain hollow and soulless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:

But I'm not in any way arguing the oposite - only that the narrative capacity of a system is in direct oposition with blind balance and that cutting down on option and detail does result in blandness.

In certain extent that is true, but I really do think they have gone overboard with all sorts of supposedly thematic bonus rules. I really don't think that White Scar and Dark Angel tactical marines need to be super different from each other and have a ton of unique bonus rules and stratagems. Some of that flavour can just exist in our heads.

 Crimson wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

nou wrote:

I wonder if you were here when very flavourfull 2nd ed was castrated and replaced by uber bland index era, streamlined 3rd. And before bringing out an argument about Index era being temporary - 3rd ed Eldar codex have not brought back any of the former flavour. Had different 3rd ed armies played differently? Well, yes. Were those differences deep enough to allow for interesting narratives and immersive feel of the game? Hell no... The transition between 7th and 8th had similar effect, current layers upon layers of "bespoke rules" are less flavourfull than 7th eds basic level of USRs/unique special rules, but I agree that 7th ed required a lot effort to balance games out, even narratively speaking, so it is no surprise that 8th came almost universally as a relief, for any type of players.

I was around then, and I honestly felt the opposite (to be fair though I was like 17). Although I felt that 3rd edition BRB army lists were bland, it was also way more balanced than any gak in 2nd edition. Just then, like now, it spiraled out of control with more and more and more being added to the mix.

How people feel about that shift may be affected by what armies they were playing. At that time I had Craftworld Eldar and Dark Angel armies. My Dark Angels fared pretty well. Sure, some options were lost and that was annoying, but mostly it was just streamlining and the overall feel and flavour of the army was mostly still there. And of course the new rules were way more functional, just like 8e core rules are more functional than 7e. However, my poor Eldar! They were utterly butchered. The playstyle was gone, the flavour they had was gone. I dropped the army; the faction loved just didn't exist any more. The Eldar have never recovered from that, They have of course often been very good army, but compared to their 2nd edition incarnation they remain hollow and soulless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:

But I'm not in any way arguing the oposite - only that the narrative capacity of a system is in direct oposition with blind balance and that cutting down on option and detail does result in blandness.

In certain extent that is true, but I really do think they have gone overboard with all sorts of supposedly thematic bonus rules. I really don't think that White Scar and Dark Angel tactical marines need to be super different from each other and have a ton of unique bonus rules and stratagems. Some of that flavour can just exist in our heads.

This is why consolidation is important. It helps with updates and overall balancing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
What is someone gonna do, give a point handicap?

That certainly is an option.

The problem is that it shouldn't NEED to be one.

Yes, I'm sure we all agree on that.

Tell that to the people here saying they're happy doing GWs job for them.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Tell that to the people here saying they're happy doing GWs job for them.

Well, the options are either to do that or forever be angry about it. The former seems eminently more productive.

nou wrote:
I wonder if you were here when very flavourfull 2nd ed was castrated and replaced by uber bland index era, streamlined 3rd. And before bringing out an argument about Index era being temporary - 3rd ed Eldar codex have not brought back any of the former flavour. Had different 3rd ed armies played differently? Well, yes. Were those differences deep enough to allow for interesting narratives and immersive feel of the game? Hell no... The transition between 7th and 8th had similar effect, current layers upon layers of "bespoke rules" are less flavourfull than 7th eds basic level of USRs/unique special rules, but I agree that 7th ed required a lot effort to balance games out, even narratively speaking, so it is no surprise that 8th came almost universally as a relief, for any type of players.

Yes, I was. Index-era 3rd Ed wasn't bland simply because it simplified the core mechanics, it was bland because it simplified the core mechanics and simultaneously failed to offer any lightweight replacement for the special rules that had been retired, nor sufficient design space to differentiate units. All the armies were defined by a fairly simplistic statline, using a limited set of common weaponry, with a minimum of special rules at either a unit level or army level. Everything used the same FOC, everything had the same (nonexistent) command and control, so there was no differentiating armies above the level of individual units. Of course if you just strip down the rules without adding anything, you're going to lose flavor.

If you look at Epic: Armageddon, released around the same time, E:A gave the armies a lot of flavor through additional depth to the core mechanics. The activation roll, for example, made a horde of Orks dramatically harder to coordinate than an elite strike force of Space Marines, allowing the latter to punch well above their weight. Throw in the differences in composition between Ork and Marine formations, and the morale mechanic, and you get two armies that feel very different on the tabletop despite having similar combat stats and few special rules.

Battlefleet Gothic is another good example and, again, from around that time period. The game has very few special rules for ships or factions- most Imperial and Chaos ships have no special rules at all, and the fleets are differentiated primarily by design philosophies. Chaos ships are faster and have longer-ranged guns, Imperial ships have tougher front armor and prow-mounted torpedoes and nova cannon. This makes them play very differently on the table, as a natural result of their statlines. That's good design.

A system whose basic mechanics are deep enough to provide the design space to differentiate units, coupled with a very limited number of army-wide special abilities, is always going to be easier to design for and easier to balance than a simple game that needs wheelbarrows full of special rules to give it depth, while still being able to capture the feel of its subject matter.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Tell that to the people here saying they're happy doing GWs job for them.

Well, the options are either to do that or forever be angry about it. The former seems eminently more productive.

He's got you there, Slayer. Faced with the choice of doing GW's job for them or just bitching about it and having nothing get done (because GW won't do it) seems like an obvious one. Especially if you remove the third choice (don't play GW games) for all of the usual reasons.

 Crimson wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

nou wrote:

I wonder if you were here when very flavourfull 2nd ed was castrated and replaced by uber bland index era, streamlined 3rd. And before bringing out an argument about Index era being temporary - 3rd ed Eldar codex have not brought back any of the former flavour. Had different 3rd ed armies played differently? Well, yes. Were those differences deep enough to allow for interesting narratives and immersive feel of the game? Hell no... The transition between 7th and 8th had similar effect, current layers upon layers of "bespoke rules" are less flavourfull than 7th eds basic level of USRs/unique special rules, but I agree that 7th ed required a lot effort to balance games out, even narratively speaking, so it is no surprise that 8th came almost universally as a relief, for any type of players.

I was around then, and I honestly felt the opposite (to be fair though I was like 17). Although I felt that 3rd edition BRB army lists were bland, it was also way more balanced than any gak in 2nd edition. Just then, like now, it spiraled out of control with more and more and more being added to the mix.

How people feel about that shift may be affected by what armies they were playing. At that time I had Craftworld Eldar and Dark Angel armies. My Dark Angels fared pretty well. Sure, some options were lost and that was annoying, but mostly it was just streamlining and the overall feel and flavour of the army was mostly still there. And of course the new rules were way more functional, just like 8e core rules are more functional than 7e. However, my poor Eldar! They were utterly butchered. The playstyle was gone, the flavour they had was gone. I dropped the army; the faction loved just didn't exist any more. The Eldar have never recovered from that, They have of course often been very good army, but compared to their 2nd edition incarnation they remain hollow and soulless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:

But I'm not in any way arguing the oposite - only that the narrative capacity of a system is in direct oposition with blind balance and that cutting down on option and detail does result in blandness.

In certain extent that is true, but I really do think they have gone overboard with all sorts of supposedly thematic bonus rules. I really don't think that White Scar and Dark Angel tactical marines need to be super different from each other and have a ton of unique bonus rules and stratagems. Some of that flavour can just exist in our heads.

I played Eldar, losing Harlequins entirely, Avatar going from a terryfiyng demigod to a very true fluff representation of a Worf effect with only a 5++ save, Warlocks and Exarches becoming seargants, etc was simply too much. I stayed only till Codex dropped and did nothing to bring any flavour back.

And of course overdoing layers upon layers of special rules does not necessarily increase narrative capacity. What GW is doing with 8th doesn't exactly work for me either (as I wrote before already).

@catbarf: while you are obviously right, that deeper core rules allow for more differences between faction to come from core rules, I think you confuse differences with narrative character. If one army is fast, one is durable and the other is shooty it does not mean, that the core rules are doing a good job conveying an interesting narrative. And with 40K you are trying to differentiate between couple of fast factions, couple of tanky factions, couple of shooty factions etc... Looking at Eldar subfactions alone, you have four/five fast factions that all should have a very different feel to them. Just look how flavourfull 7th ed Corsairs were, all based mostly in special rules, from unique organization down, through altered psychic phase to wargear options. And with all due respect - I have played Battlefleet Gothic, and while this is a fine game it is tiny in comparison and very limited in narrative scope due to very nature of the game.

Wayniac wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Tell that to the people here saying they're happy doing GWs job for them.

Well, the options are either to do that or forever be angry about it. The former seems eminently more productive.

He's got you there, Slayer. Faced with the choice of doing GW's job for them or just bitching about it and having nothing get done (because GW won't do it) seems like an obvious one. Especially if you remove the third choice (don't play GW games) for all of the usual reasons.

He did not get me there, because that's choosing not to fight back. You do NOT have to lay back and accept it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

He did not get me there, because that's choosing not to fight back. You do NOT have to lay back and accept it.

So what exactly does this fight entail and when should we be expecting to see the results?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Tell that to the people here saying they're happy doing GWs job for them.

Well, the options are either to do that or forever be angry about it. The former seems eminently more productive.

He's got you there, Slayer. Faced with the choice of doing GW's job for them or just bitching about it and having nothing get done (because GW won't do it) seems like an obvious one. Especially if you remove the third choice (don't play GW games) for all of the usual reasons.

He did not get me there, because that's choosing not to fight back. You do NOT have to lay back and accept it.

And I agree, but what is the alternative? There are in effect only 3 options:

1) Houserule/adjust the rules yourself ("do GW's job for them")
2) Keep pointing out the rules are bad and hope GW does something to fix it, only to yell more when they don't
3) Play a different game

I suppose there's option 4: Convince everyone else to not buy and have a repeat of 7th edition, but that's about as likely as GW is to fix all the issues in the game.

So what exactly is the option you would pick?

Why not both?

Why not house rule / comp / etc and hold GW accountable?

Wayniac wrote:

3) Play a different game

Reader, I chose it.

It really is a wonderful place out there, full of interesting games in different scales, and all sorts of compelling licences and fabulous minis.

My only regret is I have to be incredibly strict with myself about the ones I choose, it's futile to sink money, time and effort into something that nobody else wants to play or that simply gets crowded out by preferred options.

I simply restrict myself to games that I will be content to collect and paint or that have an incredibly low bar to pick up, and there's still lots of choice.

Best thing is, you don't have to drop GW/40K, you simply add to your options.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

He did not get me there, because that's choosing not to fight back. You do NOT have to lay back and accept it.

So what exactly does this fight entail and when should we be expecting to see the results?

It entails voting with your wallet, sending them emails expressing displeasure, and ultimately getting other people to do it. Refer to this Onion article for the power of numbers.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theonion.com/how-bad-for-the-environment-can-throwing-away-one-plast-1819571260/amp

 catbarf wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
Serious question:

Those of you saying that Apocalypse should be the "default version"...

Why?

Because it's a better game. I'd like to see GW take their better ruleset and run with it, rather than continue to prop up the bloated mess of the current one.

It would need modification to function well in the 1000-2000pt range, particularly as it fails to model things like special weapons that have historically been important to unit identities, but the core of a better game- an actual C&C mechanic, alternating activation, better implementation of the Stratagem concept, and much faster combat resolution- are all there already.

It's a better game in your opinion for the kinds of things you want out of the game.

So again: why does YOUR favourite version of the game have to be the default one, with everyone else's being the "optional", "spin off" versions? Why is it you can't just play Apocalypse if you like it better?

That is the entitlement I'm talking about.

Nothing in this thread will achieve anything, and I advise you all to save your vitriol, or you'll have nothing to gripe about in 4-6 months when 9th drops.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Inquisitor Kallus wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Its just that casual lists don't min/max armies so flaws that only happen when you bend optimization to breaking point don't exist in casual games, so our game is a bit more balanced for it.

'Press X to doubt'

You personally, perhaps, but I have a hard time believing that all people who play casually don't enjoy stomping face and adhere to some unwritten set of rules.

Then they're not casual players

"No True Scotsman"

"Scotsman keep walking around their Yorkshire hometowns, talking in their northern accents, eating their pork pies…"

"Um… you're not describing Scotsman, those are Englishmen…"

"NO TRUE SCOTSMAN"

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Why not both?

Why not house rule / comp / etc and hold GW accountable?

Give us one possible scenario for the latter affecting their bottom line. A reduction in sales is the only way for them to deviate from their plan and even then you're assuming they'll attribute the lack of sales to competitive balance "at the top tables." [you all have no idea how much I hate that expression] They will attribute the lack of sales to many things and try to remedy the easiest things first (more starter or start collecting sets, reduction of points, sell more narrative campaign books, change the fiction, etc) but the very expensive option of investing in heavy playtesting to consolidate their product line and reduce redundant SKUs will most likely be the last resort short of dropping prices (LOLOLOLOL).

Not pretend I'm a know-it-all but I see an awful lot of people demanding more balance without 1) proposing a way to make it financially expedient for GW to do anything extra or 2) any concrete, specific changes to all of the codices that will please not just the demand for competitive balance but the Timmys who get their parents to buy this stuff.

Newsflash: Marines will always be the most powerful faction because it's the faction that appeals most to the Halo crowd and is therefore the most financially successful product line. I'll give you all one guess as to why the human armies in WHFB were replaced with Sigmar's Space Marines...

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Nothing in this thread will achieve anything, and I advise you all to save your vitriol, or you'll have nothing to gripe about in 4-6 months when 9th drops.

People aren't even taking the most basic middle ground olive branches being offered, like, "Yes, we all agree, points are a good thing, and GW could do a better job of balancing them", "Yes, ideally, all factions should have a reasonable chance of beating any other faction, assuming a normal range of player skill", "this is the way GW likes to do the game and it isn't likely to change, but you're welcome to different feelings about that", "more codexes and more units makes balancing them all more difficult to achieve", etc. It's so weird. It's like people are trying to WAAC a conversation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fajita Fan wrote:

Newsflash: Marines will always be the most powerful faction because it's the faction that appeals most to the Halo crowd and is therefore the most financially successful product line. I'll give you all one guess as to why the human armies in WHFB were replaced with Sigmar's Space Marines...

OH OH OH! Was it "an intense historical and aesthetic interest in the Persian Immortals?"

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Nothing in this thread will achieve anything, and I advise you all to save your vitriol, or you'll have nothing to gripe about in 4-6 months when 9th drops.

People aren't even taking the most basic middle ground olive branches being offered, like, "Yes, we all agree, points are a good thing, and GW could do a better job of balancing them", "Yes, ideally, all factions should have a reasonable chance of beating any other faction, assuming a normal range of player skill", "this is the way GW likes to do the game and it isn't likely to change, but you're welcome to different feelings about that", "more codexes and more units makes balancing them all more difficult to achieve", etc. It's so weird. It's like people are trying to WAAC a conversation.

If people agree, there's no conversation. Hence the things that get discussed are the things that people don't agree on. Surely that is self evident?

"Immortals - we put their name to the test."

Marines are most powerful now and in 3rd. Thats always?

 Azreal13 wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Nothing in this thread will achieve anything, and I advise you all to save your vitriol, or you'll have nothing to gripe about in 4-6 months when 9th drops.

People aren't even taking the most basic middle ground olive branches being offered, like, "Yes, we all agree, points are a good thing, and GW could do a better job of balancing them", "Yes, ideally, all factions should have a reasonable chance of beating any other faction, assuming a normal range of player skill", "this is the way GW likes to do the game and it isn't likely to change, but you're welcome to different feelings about that", "more codexes and more units makes balancing them all more difficult to achieve", etc. It's so weird. It's like people are trying to WAAC a conversation.

If people agree, there's no conversation. Hence the things that get discussed are the things that people don't agree on. Surely that is self evident?

There's kinds of conversations besides arguments, you know. And accepting a few things we can agree of in the spirit of friendliness and lowered tempers doesn't mean we all just say "Welp! Nothing left to talk about then! Happy Holidays!".

Here, I'll give you all an idea: GW crowdfunds the next edition and codices. Get on Kickstarter and give GW some money as they pledge to build a modern, tight ruleset and a companion set of playtested, balanced codices. Invite all the tournament winners to review them, playtest them, and offer feedback.

GW is continuing to operate based on current and future sales. Those of you who've already bought, assembled, painted, and played your armies who now feel disenfranchised by their lack of perceived competitive balance have already made your contribution and I'm sure GW thanks you. Your army sitting on a shelf isn't actually providing any financial reason to build a better ruleset, crowdfunding would allow the 40k playerbase to vote with our wallets what we want from the rules.

In other words I'm glad you came over to watch the football game but if I'm paying for pizza I'm ordering what I want from where I want. You want something different? Bust out your wallet.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Nothing in this thread will achieve anything, and I advise you all to save your vitriol, or you'll have nothing to gripe about in 4-6 months when 9th drops.

Are you new to the internet?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

He did not get me there, because that's choosing not to fight back. You do NOT have to lay back and accept it.

So what exactly does this fight entail and when should we be expecting to see the results?

It entails voting with your wallet, sending them emails expressing displeasure, and ultimately getting other people to do it. Refer to this Onion article for the power of numbers.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theonion.com/how-bad-for-the-environment-can-throwing-away-one-plast-1819571260/amp

And if they (and in all probability will) ignore you, then what?

 Fajita Fan wrote:

Give us one possible scenario for the latter affecting their bottom line. A reduction in sales is the only way for them to deviate from their plan and even then you're assuming they'll attribute the lack of sales to competitive balance "at the top tables." [you all have no idea how much I hate that expression] They will attribute the lack of sales to many things and try to remedy the easiest things first (more starter or start collecting sets, reduction of points, sell more narrative campaign books, change the fiction, etc) but the very expensive option of investing in heavy playtesting to consolidate their product line and reduce redundant SKUs will most likely be the last resort short of dropping prices (LOLOLOLOL).

Not pretend I'm a know-it-all but I see an awful lot of people demanding more balance without 1) proposing a way to make it financially expedient for GW to do anything extra or 2) any concrete, specific changes to all of the codices that will please not just the demand for competitive balance but the Timmys who get their parents to buy this stuff.

1) They have already shown that they respond to the community.
2) Most people don't need to buy models to play the game.

Newsflash: Marines will always be the most powerful faction because it's the faction that appeals most to the Halo crowd and is therefore the most financially successful product line. I'll give you all one guess as to why the human armies in WHFB were replaced with Sigmar's Space Marines...

A more important newsflash: Marines only just became the most powerful faction after more than 2 years into the edition, which ruins that entire premise.

And have been bad more than theyve been good

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Nothing in this thread will achieve anything, and I advise you all to save your vitriol, or you'll have nothing to gripe about in 4-6 months when 9th drops.

People aren't even taking the most basic middle ground olive branches being offered, like, "Yes, we all agree, points are a good thing, and GW could do a better job of balancing them", "Yes, ideally, all factions should have a reasonable chance of beating any other faction, assuming a normal range of player skill", "this is the way GW likes to do the game and it isn't likely to change, but you're welcome to different feelings about that", "more codexes and more units makes balancing them all more difficult to achieve", etc. It's so weird. It's like people are trying to WAAC a conversation.

If people agree, there's no conversation. Hence the things that get discussed are the things that people don't agree on. Surely that is self evident?

There's kinds of conversations besides arguments, you know. And accepting a few things we can agree of in the spirit of friendliness and lowered tempers doesn't mean we all just say "Welp! Nothing left to talk about then! Happy Holidays!".

Not on the internet there isn't. It never ceases to amaze how often what appears to be a perfectly reasonable point is vehemently objected to by some parties. Every thread will ultimately go through multiple life stages until it's just the most entrenched and adamant from both camps flinging pooh at each other. Then the thread is locked if it devolves too far, or the concerned parties simply run out of ammo.

Don't take any of it seriously, don't expect to achieve anything and certainly don't expect to change people's minds.

Which armies were better? As long as I've been in the game since 3rd if you took any Xenos codex and built the best possible anti 3+ save list you could do well because marines/CSM were the most popular armies. If we're going by tournament results then it absolutely behooves any Xenos player to bring an anti-marine list but which books have been overall better over the years with most possible "good" builds? Necrons? Dark Eldar? Orks (giggle)? Those books had mostly one build (the old disappearing Monolith trick, Venomspam, Nob bikers, etc).

They responded to the community by *gasp* actually advertising their product line more than a week out like every other entertainment company does. They added comics to the website. They have Duncan, God love him, telling you week after week how to apply two thin coats. They released OMG PLASTIC SISTERS. Yippee. Have they given you the tight ruleset and balanced, competitive army books people have demanded?

You can mail as many letters as you like and they'll tell you they're taking your feedback into account when they sell you the next Chapter Approved. Maybe in 2020 they'll actually edit the damn book. They'll make a new rulebook and still follow the same codex release schedule and the player base will continue to find new min/maxed army lists that break the game. This will always be the pace until sales tell them otherwise.

 Azreal13 wrote:


Not on the internet there isn't. .

Sure there are. I have them all the time.

It's just a matter of letting go of the idea that arguing and disagreeing are the only things "worth" doing on a webforum or social media or whatever, and not thinking of disagreements as a "fight" you have to "win".

 Fajita Fan wrote:
Have they given you the tight ruleset and balanced, competitive army books people have demanded?

They got the closest they've even been before the new marine books came out.

I'm not demanding of perfection, either, when they pushed out 23 codexes, a number of 'white dwarf' codexes in under two years, and campaign books that interact with the armies in a non-trivial way. I don't care who you are - there is no time in the world to balance all of that especially when new units are hitting the table constantly.

Marines had a lot of consistent problems, such as poor throw weight. As assault was eroded slowly and firepower went up, marines degraded as well.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Nothing in this thread will achieve anything, and I advise you all to save your vitriol, or you'll have nothing to gripe about in 4-6 months when 9th drops.

Are you new to the internet?

Oh, these two comments are awesome.
The thread achieves discussion, perspective on what is important to us like maybe some do not care about a competitive environment.
Also, why "save" the vitriol? It needs to be timely and we may explode from it being pent-up.
As to having "nothing to gripe about in 4-6 months when 9th drops"... many have played this goat rodeo out a few editions.

There is always hope that the right people may see a convincing argument and you hope you may be one of the people that may help bring out some positive change: you can never know who is reading.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:


Not on the internet there isn't. .

Sure there are. I have them all the time.

It's just a matter of letting go of the idea that arguing and disagreeing are the only things "worth" doing on a webforum or social media or whatever, and not thinking of disagreements as a "fight" you have to "win".

This isn't the area of the site that lends itself to that sort of conversation. Threads where people offer their opinion on things inevitably attract people who disagree. What you're doing is suggesting that some sort of parliament all sit down and get along when it is comprised of many people representing many views. The best you can realistically hope for is an honest debate.

 Azreal13 wrote:
This isn't the area of the site that lends itself to that sort of conversation. Threads where people offer their opinion on things inevitably attract people who disagree. What you're doing is suggesting that some sort of parliament all sit down and get along when it is comprised of many people representing many views. The best you can realistically hope for is an honest debate.

One other item to keep in mind is the relative level of knowledge.
Someone who develops games for a living and has a few university level courses on "game theory" under their belt would have an "opinion" that may be more helpful and getting to the heart of the matter better than most of us.
I deal with "process systems" a great deal and played all manner of games for some 3-4 decades so may be able to have a couple helpful suggestions in game design and testing (design of experiments anyone?).
Most of these conversations boil down to "I do NOT like it." or "I DO like it!".

I like a "competitive environment".
The more we can split up the alternating decision making in the game the better.
The my whole army goes then yours is just too much of an advantage.

Many Stratagems give cover saves for those who go second which is a very direct means of mitigating the pain.
Unit activation is a preferred trend to me, even X-wing where the pilot skill breaks activation up a bit is helpful.
The game also relies on more dice rolling than a specific tactical decision in a given circumstance.
Committing limited resources in a timely way is a bit more interesting.
Army selection is still a HUGE element to the game and that may never change.

GW seems to have a more casual focus for 40k that has been pretty consistent for the last decade... we may have to throttle back our expectation of trying to make it what it is not.

 Azreal13 wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:


Not on the internet there isn't. .

Sure there are. I have them all the time.

It's just a matter of letting go of the idea that arguing and disagreeing are the only things "worth" doing on a webforum or social media or whatever, and not thinking of disagreements as a "fight" you have to "win".

This isn't the area of the site that lends itself to that sort of conversation. Threads where people offer their opinion on things inevitably attract people who disagree. What you're doing is suggesting that some sort of parliament all sit down and get along when it is comprised of many people representing many views. The best you can realistically hope for is an honest debate.

But an honest debate without any intent or culminative effect towards either consensus or learning is just a shouting match. Those are for children or drunkards ;-)

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It entails voting with your wallet, sending them emails expressing displeasure, and ultimately getting other people to do it. Refer to this Onion article for the power of numbers.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theonion.com/how-bad-for-the-environment-can-throwing-away-one-plast-1819571260/amp

Sure, offering critique is a good idea. I have emailedto GW numerous times as well. Though if you want to be listened to I hope you are less hostile and hyperbolic when contacting GW than you're here.

As for voting with the wallet, this is mainly a modelling hobby to many so the quality of the rules is not the primary consideration for purchasing decisions.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
So again: why does YOUR favourite version of the game have to be the default one, with everyone else's being the "optional", "spin off" versions? Why is it you can't just play Apocalypse if you like it better?

That is the entitlement I'm talking about.

There's kinds of conversations besides arguments, you know.

I am blown away by the irony of someone aggressively labeling an expression of personal preference as 'entitlement', then turning around and lecturing about how forums can have discussions that aren't I'm-right-you're-wrong arguments.

But while I'm here: Why does YOUR favourite version of the game have to be the default one, with everyone else's being the "optional", "spin off" versions? Why is it you can't just play 8th if you like it better [than the hypothetical Apoc-influenced 9th]?

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Its just that casual lists don't min/max armies so flaws that only happen when you bend optimization to breaking point don't exist in casual games, so our game is a bit more balanced for it.

'Press X to doubt'

You personally, perhaps, but I have a hard time believing that all people who play casually don't enjoy stomping face and adhere to some unwritten set of rules.

this describes 80% of the players I know. the rest play tourneys. I might have a "fun" game against a competitive player, but I will have FUN playing another casual narrative player.

this is never a problem @ my flgs. And worst thing that could happen is I dont play but get to paint instead.

 catbarf wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
So again: why does YOUR favourite version of the game have to be the default one, with everyone else's being the "optional", "spin off" versions? Why is it you can't just play Apocalypse if you like it better?

That is the entitlement I'm talking about.

There's kinds of conversations besides arguments, you know.

I am blown away by the irony of someone aggressively labeling an expression of personal preference as 'entitlement', then turning around and lecturing about how forums can have discussions that aren't I'm-right-you're-wrong arguments.

But while I'm here: Why does YOUR favourite version of the game have to be the default one, with everyone else's being the "optional", "spin off" versions?

1) I'm not labelling a personal preference "entitlement". I'm saying that insisting that one's preferences, which are already readily available to enjoy, have to be made the 'default' for people to be happy, comes across to me as entitled. The simple fact that you prefer competitive play or prefer Apocalypse or whatever is 100% fine and normal, I'm 100% cool with it. What I'm NOT cool with, and think is entitled, is such people demanding that the game be designed specifically around their needs, without respect for the numerous other approaches to the hobby and the game. Or even for what the designers themselves set out to do with their game and want from it.

2) It doesn't. In MOST games I play my preferred mode isn't the default. But I'm not the one asking for 40k to be changed to suit my particular preferences. I'm not the one asking it to be changed so the default is my preference. I'm not the one saying a game that already exists and is available should be made the default just because it's the one I like best and what I like best should be the "main" version. Your comparison would only make sense if I were in this thread saying stuff like "default 40k should be a >1000 point oriented skirmish game with lots of options for campaigns, and tournament play actively discouraged".

Martel732 wrote:
Marines had a lot of consistent problems, such as poor throw weight. As assault was eroded slowly and firepower went up, marines degraded as well.

I’m trying to remember the last time I met a Xenos player who thought any then-current marine codex was underpowered the possible exception of Dark Angels.

 Aestas wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:


Not on the internet there isn't. .

Sure there are. I have them all the time.

It's just a matter of letting go of the idea that arguing and disagreeing are the only things "worth" doing on a webforum or social media or whatever, and not thinking of disagreements as a "fight" you have to "win".

This isn't the area of the site that lends itself to that sort of conversation. Threads where people offer their opinion on things inevitably attract people who disagree. What you're doing is suggesting that some sort of parliament all sit down and get along when it is comprised of many people representing many views. The best you can realistically hope for is an honest debate.

But an honest debate without any intent or culminative effect towards either consensus or learning is just a shouting match. Those are for children or drunkards ;-)

Don't drag innocent drunkards into this!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fajita Fan wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Marines had a lot of consistent problems, such as poor throw weight. As assault was eroded slowly and firepower went up, marines degraded as well.

I’m trying to remember the last time I met a Xenos player who thought any then-current marine codex was underpowered the possible exception of Dark Angels.

Well… Grey Knights are marines…

 Fajita Fan wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Marines had a lot of consistent problems, such as poor throw weight. As assault was eroded slowly and firepower went up, marines degraded as well.

I’m trying to remember the last time I met a Xenos player who thought any then-current marine codex was underpowered the possible exception of Dark Angels.

Should be most of them, or maybe just marine haters. The starcannon ended the marine party in 3rd then csm 3.5 threw them in the street. By 5th, marines were target practice unless you were a snowflake sw ba or gk.

GW traditionally has no idea how the game is actually played. I'm sure gw thinks marines are strong every edition even as ap2 grew cheaper and more plentiful. Idiots.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Marines had a lot of consistent problems, such as poor throw weight. As assault was eroded slowly and firepower went up, marines degraded as well.

I’m trying to remember the last time I met a Xenos player who thought any then-current marine codex was underpowered the possible exception of Dark Angels.

I've always felt kind of sorry for the poor expensive plods (Eldar from WD pre-codex through to present-present - day Drukhari via a brief flirtatious with Orks around Black Reach)...

 Sim-Life wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Nothing in this thread will achieve anything, and I advise you all to save your vitriol, or you'll have nothing to gripe about in 4-6 months when 9th drops.

Are you new to the internet?

I believe in the modern jargon Sim has just won the Internet

Well… Grey Knights are marines…

All I heard about for years was how overpowered Matt Ward's GK were, then Phil Kelly's Space Wolves, how weak DE were now, OMG NO ONE PLAYS NECRONS, Orks are trash except Nob bikers, Eldar are too weak, etc. I know that plenty of codices had a good build, usually some one trick pony like Wave Serpents, but as overall books? Now marine players always believe they're at a disadvantage but when every playerbase thinks they're underpowered I find it amusing. I browse different forums and so far no one has said how overpowered they feel with CA2019, the grass is always greener in the other section.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

Well… Grey Knights are marines…

All I heard about for years was how overpowered Matt Ward's GK were, then Phil Kelly's Space Wolves, how weak DE were now, OMG NO ONE PLAYS NECRONS, Orks are trash except Nob bikers, Eldar are too weak, etc. I know that plenty of codices had a good build, usually some one trick pony like Wave Serpents, but as overall books? Now marine players always believe they're at a disadvantage but when every playerbase thinks they're underpowered I find it amusing. I browse different forums and so far no one has said how overpowered they feel with CA2019, the grass is always greener in the other section.

This is part of why that tangent about advising a new player against buying a particular army they like because they're really sucky right now in competitive terms was so weird to me… which armies are "bad" and which aren't is constantly in flux. If someone sticks with the hobby for more than a year or two, chances are their preferred army will end up in a totally different "tier" then when they started. Drukhari may be a "bad" army now (though I wonder how much of that is people misinterpreting the fact that they're an unforgiving army, that requires a lot of finesse to use well), but someday it won't be, so I'm not going to let that deter me from the fact that I love their models and love their lore and love the way they play.

Someone's probably going to come in and yell some exception at me, like "SUCH-AND-SUCH ARMY HAS SUCKED EVER SINCE 5E" or something, as though outliers automatically nullify any point made about something that's generally true, but… well… at this point I'm not really writing my posts for the benefit of the people who've completely dug in their heels on 40k being an awful, irreparably broken PoS with virtually no redeeming qualities and all that.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

Well… Grey Knights are marines…

All I heard about for years was how overpowered Matt Ward's GK were, then Phil Kelly's Space Wolves, how weak DE were now, OMG NO ONE PLAYS NECRONS, Orks are trash except Nob bikers, Eldar are too weak, etc. I know that plenty of codices had a good build, usually some one trick pony like Wave Serpents, but as overall books? Now marine players always believe they're at a disadvantage but when every playerbase thinks they're underpowered I find it amusing. I browse different forums and so far no one has said how overpowered they feel with CA2019, the grass is always greener in the other section.

Well, 7th ed Scatbikes, Wraithknigts, Pale Courts Warp Spiders spam pre Flicker Jump FAQ, Aspect Host or Raider mounted Fire Dragons or Wraithguard pre taxi-services FAQ were all bonkers. We had unusable gak (Storm Guardians anyone?) in our codex but there were too many straight up broken autowin-button choices, so yes, entire book was OP as hell.

Armies are in flux, but marines were so bad in 7th they had to spor them 400+ pts.

7th only lasted for like two years, though, right?

nataliereed1984 wrote:
7th only lasted for like two years, though, right?

Three, 6th lasted two.

nou wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
7th only lasted for like two years, though, right?

Three, 6th lasted two.

LONG MAY IT STAY DEAD ...Both for clarification.

But its fair to say most armies have a time in the sun, the reality is some of the lesser played factions (Necrons, GK etc.) Take longer periods between books. But it should also be said from the beginning of 6th two entire factions have been released, three factions that were in the fluff. (Kinda technically four cause chaos knights but meh) Now Xenos players are correct they receive fewer releases but they have not limited effectiveness of Xenos as a whole but rather Elder and Tau have been quite good, Orks have been playable though not diverse. Necrons are okay. Nids seem usable.

TLR Yeah space Marines are broke for now but C: SM usually sets the bar everyone reaches.

nou wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
7th only lasted for like two years, though, right?

Three, 6th lasted two.

Thanks.

Still though… it takes awhile to collect, build and paint a whole army, and aside from kids (who generally aren't tournament players anyway), and most people will stick with and enjoy the hobby and keep their army for more than a couple years ... so even if the army someone loved most was "bad" for a full three years after first investing in it or something like that, that doesn't seem like such a terrible thing?

It just seems the nature of the beast that unless you're rich enough and have enough free time to build a new army every 6 months, sooner or later you're not gonna have a "top tier" army. I don't get being that upset about it.

*shrug*

The guy who said "learn to play". I'll give him 7th ed Orks and I'll take 7th ed craftworld. 10000000 scatterlasers later, GG.

I’m absolutely positive I can lose with even the most OP army and spotted a 500 point handicap.

 Fajita Fan wrote:
I’m absolutely positive I can lose with even the most OP army and spotted a 500 point handicap.

Now THAT would be a fun White Dwarf battle report!

Oh me in a BR would be comically bad. I would lose the narrative game with the new army that always wins. :/

 Fajita Fan wrote:
Oh me in a BR would be comically bad. I would lose the narrative game with the new army that always wins. :/

That's what I mean would be fun!

Having one player DELIBERATELY trying to lose with a tournament list of the "best" army against a fluffy list from the "worst" army!

There are some armies, primarily xenos ones, that have been consistently weak. After 2nd Ed, when they were brokenly overpowered, Tyranids got a hefty nerf and have been consistently low on the tier list ever since. You might infer from my avatar that I'm doing the woe-is-me-my-army-sucks shtick but I think you'll find the general consensus backs me up. And I'm certainly not complaining about my Guard.

Because 'Nids may seem like a one-off outlier: Aside from the short-lived Nob Biker spam, Orks have been consistently low since 3rd. Necrons are in a similar boat to Tyranids with having been very strong at their full introduction in 3rd, but were steadily nerfed into the ground and have remained there ever since.

There are also armies that went underpowered for a very, very long time. Imperial Guard spent a full decade (3rd-4th) pretty much in the gutter, but then came back in a big way. Dark Eldar similarly went a decade before they escaped their then-very-dated 3rd Ed codex.

Personally I am not into the game for competition, but if my first experiences to the hobby were getting tabled by turn 2 every game, I don't know if I'd have stuck with it. I would always warn a new player if their heart is set on a race that historically has struggled and shows no signs of changing, not because I think they should be looking to win tournaments from the get-go, but because it's hard to learn the ropes when you can do everything right and still lose due to army imbalance. If they're okay with that challenge, more power to them. And right now it is bothering the hell out of me that I'm seeing posts on Facebook along the lines of 'I just bought the battleforce, help me make a list' and the replies are essentially 'most of it's worthless, get rid of it and buy these three meta units instead'. Sucks the fun right out of it IMO.

Getting back to balance, I do think the impact of local meta is often understated. What people who you will actually play against actually field matters a lot more than an abstract notion of all possible matchups gleaned from the Internet.

 catbarf wrote:
Personally I am not into the game for competition, but if my first experiences to the hobby were getting tabled by turn 2 every game, I don't know if I'd have stuck with it. I would always warn a new player if their heart is set on a race that historically has struggled and shows no signs of changing, not because I think they should be looking to win tournaments from the get-go, but because it's hard to learn the ropes when you can do everything right and still lose due to army imbalance. If they're okay with that challenge, more power to them. And right now it is bothering the hell out of me that I'm seeing posts on Facebook along the lines of 'I just bought the battleforce, help me make a list' and the replies are essentially 'most of it's worthless, get rid of it and buy these three meta units instead'. Sucks the fun right out of it IMO..

This is so very true. It's a flaw of GW games in particular that the sort of reply you see is common. At least other games, while sure those options might not be the best, there are almost always ways to make them better and you rarely see someone asking for list advice and saying what they have/like being told nah toss all that junk and use this netlist. That sort of advice is unhelpful and often just turns people off because who wants to be told after they've bought something, especially when you're doing it in the way the game tells you to, that it's all garbage and they need to spend even more money on other things. It isn't helpful and the fact that it's even considered acceptable is one of the biggest condemnations of 40k as a game because having that happen should be considered a huge, colossal failure of game design.

People should expect helpful advice, especially new players who are just starting their collections, WITHOUT telling them to just buy whatever the cheese du jour is. And if the options are netlist or lose, then the game is degenerate (as Sirlin would define it)

 catbarf wrote:
There are some armies, primarily xenos ones, that have been consistently weak. After 2nd Ed, when they were brokenly overpowered, Tyranids got a hefty nerf and have been consistently low on the tier list ever since. You might infer from my avatar that I'm doing the woe-is-me-my-army-sucks shtick but I think you'll find the general consensus backs me up. And I'm certainly not complaining about my Guard.

Because 'Nids may seem like a one-off outlier: Aside from the short-lived Nob Biker spam, Orks have been consistently low since 3rd. Necrons are in a similar boat to Tyranids with having been very strong at their full introduction in 3rd, but were steadily nerfed into the ground and have remained there ever since.

There are also armies that went underpowered for a very, very long time. Imperial Guard spent a full decade (3rd-4th) pretty much in the gutter, but then came back in a big way. Dark Eldar similarly went a decade before they escaped their then-very-dated 3rd Ed codex.

Personally I am not into the game for competition, but if my first experiences to the hobby were getting tabled by turn 2 every game, I don't know if I'd have stuck with it. I would always warn a new player if their heart is set on a race that historically has struggled and shows no signs of changing, not because I think they should be looking to win tournaments from the get-go, but because it's hard to learn the ropes when you can do everything right and still lose due to army imbalance. If they're okay with that challenge, more power to them. And right now it is bothering the hell out of me that I'm seeing posts on Facebook along the lines of 'I just bought the battleforce, help me make a list' and the replies are essentially 'most of it's worthless, get rid of it and buy these three meta units instead'. Sucks the fun right out of it IMO.

Getting back to balance, I do think the impact of local meta is often understated. What people who you will actually play against actually field matters a lot more than an abstract notion of all possible matchups gleaned from the Internet.

For the sake of friendliness and olive branches - though I'm trying not to get my hopes up too much about them being accepted - I do actually agree with most of what you've said here, at least in terms of the underlying realities in question (though not necessarily their interpretation). Like it's just a straight-up fact that DE went for about a decade without an update. I wasn't playing at the time... I left the hobby riiiiiigght around when 3rd edition hit (though DE had been introduced via White Dwarf like 6 months prior? Something like that, anyway)... but the history is there to look at for anyone who bothers. And as far as I know, orkz have never been a top-tier army.

Aside about orkz: They can kinda afford that, though, given how fun they are to play, and that they're not MEANT to be an elite force in terms of lore. The randomness of their rules (which I think was actually a big mistake to tone down) meant you could never really predict or rely on what would happen (the biggest problem with those rules, IMO, is that they never really included a random chance of the orkz performing way BETTER than most armies if you got lucky; it was just "do you suck or are you... mediocre?").

The main issues of disagreements around these things, much like around the simple, inarguable fact that GW's priority is making a friendly narrative wargame rather than a competitive tournament wargame, is just how bad you think they are, and how much they impact your enjoyment of the game. And that seems to orbit very much around how one plays it and how one's friends and LGS and gaming group play it and how competitive you are.

Early in the thread I made the minor, tangential point that the higher and more complex you program a chess computer to play against itself, the higher percentage of times white is going to win. We get a similar thing: the imbalance between factions becomes more pronounced at the "highest" levels of most clearly competitive matched play, wherein everyone is using the most optimal list they were able to come up with... and on the lowest level of skill, where neither player really knows what they're doing just yet, they're still learning the game, so they just march their models at each other, shoot, get close, charge.

But for the skill levels in between, which is the majority of players, it's not as pronounced. And for the people who aren't super competitive and super skilled (but also aren't super new and inexperienced) it's both not as pronounced AND not as much of a detriment to fun... and even if you seem to be losing a lot with a current faction, if you're playing against people with comparable skill, you can probable correct that just by improving your list and getting better with your tactics, not having to switch factions! AND, like we've been discussing, sooner or later there will be a new codex or new edition and you're relative strength will change regardless.

So at the end of the day, we're MOSTLY just talking about subjective differences of interpretation caused by personal differences in preferences, skill level, the kind of group or community we play in, etc. And that's an argument no one can ever really WIN.

Yes, 40k is terrible in terms of the balance one needs for a tournament game.
Yes, the balance of points could be a lot better.
Yes, balanced point values makes the game better for almost all players, regardless of the narrative vs competitive dynamic.
Yes, there's issues of detail scaling in the game, and the rules aren't really ideal right now for anything in excess of 1500 points max.
Yes, some factions and codexes are, in many contexts and ways, "better" or "worse" than others.
Sometimes, things that would make balance easier come in conflict with other elements of the game many players enjoy and don't want to see removed...
...but better balance also isn't *inherently* at odds with a narrative, immersive game.
Yes, the more diversity there is in codexes, factions, special rules, stratagems, relics, and units, the harder it is to balance them all.
Yes, the faster the release schedule, the harder it is to balance them all.
Yes, there's ways to represent different faction types other than just making more codexes.
GW have a difficult job with lots of different priorities.
Right now, GW prioritize designing 40k (but not ALL their games) in a way that leans more towards friendly narrative games than competitive tournament games, and this is unlikely to change.

Everything else is just a question of how we feel about it, whether or not we're okay with it, how much it does or doesn't impact our approach to the hobby, whether that impact is positive or negative, and so on. Which is a question of subjectivity.

Warhammer is a HUGELY diverse hobby, with countless approaches. I've been by no means been perfect or even all that good in this regard, but we should all try to be cool with other people having different feelings about different decisions GW makes, and not insisting it has to always be all about us and OUR version of the hobby, right?

Anyway, that's my one last try at us all being friends here, and remembering we're all here because there's at least something about this hobby we love and keeps us coming back, and makes us so invested. I mean, we're all 40k fans, right? We're a community! We have a common interest!

Except, as has been explained, it does not do the job of being a narrative game.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except, as has been explained, it does not do the job of being a narrative game.

Whether it does or doesn't, to what degree it does, and whether it does so enough for what you want to get out of it, are all 100% subjective questions.

I , personally, me, in my opinion, my subjective and personal opinion, etc etc etc feel that, apart from issues with detail scaling, and certain very specific issues regarding particular units, and my personal and subjective blahblahblah preference for alternating activation (or whatever the term is called in WarCry and such?) over I Go You Go* (or whatever the acronym is) think it does a decent job, and acknowledge that I can't have everything my way all the time, and certain things I'd like would come at the expense of more competitive players, or players who like larger games, or even players who want SMALLER games.

"This game is primarily designed with laid-back narrative games between friends, using matched points vales and a mission, as the 'standard' image of a 'baseline' game, to which other considerations are appended" is a truth-statement we can argue about.

"it is not a very good game, in terms of the kind of game it wants to be" is a subjective opinion over which arguing is completely f-ing pointless. You can't "explain" or "establish" or "prove" that anymore than you could the claim that pineapples on pizza are gross.

I mean... come on, Slayer! You're so committed to "winning" this debate that you want to say all our personal feelings and preferences have been "already explained"??? As *I* explained, I think the game has some flaws, but I think it's good, and have fun playing it, and think it's flaws are impressively minor given how many things they have to juggle on such a tight and demanding schedule with limited resources!

*- And that, too, works only on some scales, not others. In some contexts, alternating activations would be a nightmare.

My best 40k experiences have been in a close-knit group of friends who all played the game. We made house rules, we imposed points handicaps, we made wacky lists and we generally had a blast. Even with my underpowered army (Orks), it was possible to have a decently balanced game full of fun by selectively modifying some of the basic rules or conditions accordingly. I loved playing this way.

Then I got older and moved away and found myself without a core group of friends to play with. I started playing pick-up games in gaming stores. And these are just... un-fun if you're not bringing a competitive list for a competitive army. I get stomped over and over again, because the game's poor internal balance is something that gets ruthlessly exploited in the casual pick-up game scene rather than fixed with gentleman's agreements. It almost seems as if the poor balance encourages jerks to tool up to destroy everyone with cheese, because they can and it's so obviously a winning strategy.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:

Well… Grey Knights are marines…

All I heard about for years was how overpowered Matt Ward's GK were, then Phil Kelly's Space Wolves, how weak DE were now, OMG NO ONE PLAYS NECRONS, Orks are trash except Nob bikers, Eldar are too weak, etc. I know that plenty of codices had a good build, usually some one trick pony like Wave Serpents, but as overall books? Now marine players always believe they're at a disadvantage but when every playerbase thinks they're underpowered I find it amusing. I browse different forums and so far no one has said how overpowered they feel with CA2019, the grass is always greener in the other section.

This is part of why that tangent about advising a new player against buying a particular army they like because they're really sucky right now in competitive terms was so weird to me… which armies are "bad" and which aren't is constantly in flux. If someone sticks with the hobby for more than a year or two, chances are their preferred army will end up in a totally different "tier" then when they started. Drukhari may be a "bad" army now (though I wonder how much of that is people misinterpreting the fact that they're an unforgiving army, that requires a lot of finesse to use well), but someday it won't be, so I'm not going to let that deter me from the fact that I love their models and love their lore and love the way they play.

Someone's probably going to come in and yell some exception at me, like "SUCH-AND-SUCH ARMY HAS SUCKED EVER SINCE 5E" or something, as though outliers automatically nullify any point made about something that's generally true, but… well… at this point I'm not really writing my posts for the benefit of the people who've completely dug in their heels on 40k being an awful, irreparably broken PoS with virtually no redeeming qualities and all that.

The constant changes in power are part of the problem. I don't want my DA to be OP cheese for 6 months, then garbage for 3 years, maybe mediocre for a few months later. I want to be able to build a decent list and play games with a good shot at winning (through skill, not randomness) and have a good story happen, all at the same time.

The expectation is not for all armies to be top-tier, or to suck all flavor out of the game and make one generic codex for everyone's models. It is for the gap between the best armies and the worst to be small enough that, for those of us who enjoy a more competitive mindset, skill remains the determining factor, and all armies have a good shot at winning games. Mind you, winning isn't merely about the end result, but in having good, close, challenging battles.

This balance can be achieved while retaining flavor, too. It would just be in different places than pasted-on rules, or using different names for the same USRs depending on which codex you're reading.

Fajita Fan wrote:Learn to play.

This is an elitist, condescending attitude. Understanding the rules of 40k does not cause the game's severe imbalances to poof away.

MiguelFelstone wrote:
Games Workshop does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, or any environment it seems.

I see click bait articles all the time complaining about one thing or another, ways they could improve the game, ect, and that would be wonderful it it actually accomplished a damn thing.

If you accept the above, why on gods green earth would you believe it will be improved? If i'm wrong i'd love to be proven so, please elaborate.

Grey Knights are the poster boys for GWs in-house test team and the perfect example of how completely out of tune they are with the competitive players who buy their products.

If you have a single faction that can't win tournaments for years on end you have a problem, and like i said it's been like this for years, the last GK winning list i saw ran 5-6 baby carriers so it was a while ago.

So? What's your point?

They're plastic models that you build and paint and play a game with. I'm not looking for a perfectly balanced game, I'm looking for a multi-faceted hobby where I can make pew-pew sounds and cheer when I manage to roll enough sixes to be statistically improbable.

If you're going to tournaments with the same faction over and over again you're either:
A. having a great time because you're playing with your favorite faction come heck or high water
or
B. not doing that because you buy whatever the meta army is secondhand off of locals or ebay and then selling that as soon as the meta changes

The only people complaining about X army being useless AT THE TOURNAMENT that they spent HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS to travel to are people that aren't currently playing that army but would like to in the future.

And so the cycle continues.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
...And that seems to orbit very much around how one plays it and how one's friends and LGS and gaming group play it and how competitive you are.

Early in the thread I made the minor, tangential point that the higher and more complex you program a chess computer to play against itself, the higher percentage of times white is going to win. We get a similar thing: the imbalance between factions becomes more pronounced at the "highest" levels of most clearly competitive matched play, wherein everyone is using the most optimal list they were able to come up with... and on the lowest level of skill, where neither player really knows what they're doing just yet, they're still learning the game, so they just march their models at each other, shoot, get close, charge.

But for the skill levels in between, which is the majority of players, it's not as pronounced. And for the people who aren't super competitive and super skilled (but also aren't super new and inexperienced) it's both not as pronounced AND not as much of a detriment to fun... and even if you seem to be losing a lot with a current faction, if you're playing against people with comparable skill, you can probable correct that just by improving your list and getting better with your tactics, not having to switch factions! AND, like we've been discussing, sooner or later there will be a new codex or new edition and you're relative strength will change regardless.

I agree with all of that. My closest friends from college are the ones that got me back into 40K after a long absence, and our group is far from competitive- I have Guard and Tyranids, one is Death Guard, another is Orks, another is Thousand Sons, another is Ultramarines, another is Elysians. We don't take the game particularly seriously. Heck, I'm a painter first and foremost.

But all the same, even in a non-competitive setting, we do run into balance issues from time to time. Lately the problem has been that Tyranids really, really struggle against the new Space Marines- I've yet to survive past turn 3 against our Ultramarine player, and the other armies are having similar difficulties to lesser degrees. Could I optimize my list to fight Marines? Probably, but then that's starting to adopt a competitive mindset in the interest of winning, and practically speaking I have zero interest in buying a bunch of models I don't particularly like just because they're effective at the moment. This is the issue that new players run into- they're sold on the idea that they can build an army out of the models they like, then they put them on the table and find that they built the wrong army out of the wrong units and face an uphill battle. It might not be an auto-lose, and I do agree that in casual play balance is much less important, but right now in our group the performance of loyalist Space Marines is showing how balance can be problematic for casual play.

I'm going through the new-player process with my wife right now, who has decided to go all-in on Dark Eldar. I want her to be able to build the army she wants to play, but I also don't want her to buy an army and then be blindsided by it not functioning on the tabletop. For example, the codex tries to steer you towards the idea of taking three Patrols, but they provide barely any CP, so then you're cut off from all the flavorful stratagems available to the army, which in addition to reducing the army's effectiveness just isn't fun. The triple-Patrol structure is a flavorful idea, but because of its imbalanced implementation it represents a trap, even for casual play.

I don't demand nor do I expect perfect balance from 40K, but when imbalance starts to impinge on casual play I do think it could be substantially better than it is. My biggest criticism is just that the game is still firmly rooted in outdated 1980s design philosophy, and that really exacerbates some of the balance issues, but the relatively modern mechanics introduced in Kill Team and Apoc (eg alternating activations- better late than never, GW!) give me hope that a real evolution of 40K may occur sooner or later. I guess it could be said that I participate in the game in spite of the rules, not because of them.

I don't think it has to be a casual-vs-competitive argument. I think everyone stands to benefit from better balance and more interactivity.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
If someone sticks with the hobby for more than a year or two, chances are their preferred army will end up in a totally different "tier" then when they started. Drukhari may be a "bad" army now.

Mid-tier at worst, nothing in the game really compares to SMs but i've had a lot of success with a DT Coven, all those 2 DMG Venom shots just eat Primaris.

(deleting this post about how lots of wacky random-table stuff with orkz is great for narrative play but terrible for competitive and even worse for tournament, because I feel pretty good about where I left things off in the prior two posts, and don't wanna leave room for getting sucked into more arguing :-P )

The state of competitive 40k is not too bad all things considered. The meta rotates constantly and keeps the game fresh. I love how hard space marines are now. It's payback for all the abuse I gave them throughout 8E as a chaos/xenos player

Regarding pickup games, I recently moved to a new area and the local club here has laid out some fantastic guidelines for setting them up at their store. Copy/pasted from their rules:

When it comes to arranging games with an opponent, we are big advocates of “The Conversation”. It is important, in our busy lives, that the few hours we get to play a game be fun for everyone, even the player who ultimately loses. Discussing your expectations for the game with your opponent beforehand is critical for the enjoyment of all parties. If you want to bring your most powerful, tournament-level list — Great! All that we ask is that you ensure that your opponent is not taken unawares. If you want to kick back and relax with a game that is silly and casual, that’s fine too; just make sure your opponent knows not to bring his strongest competitive game. As long as we are mindful of maintaining a positive environment and contributing value to the community, all of us wargamers can enjoy our hobby together, regardless of our specific likes and dislikes.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except, as has been explained, it does not do the job of being a narrative game.

One day you should try seeing other viewpoints. To use your vernacular, as has been explained, your hot take isn’t the only view of the game. Plenty of people find the game immersive. Plenty of people enjoy it for narrative gaming. That’s their experience and you’d do well to accept that. Your experience is not universal... but this isn’t your first time on the internet so you should know that by now. Telling people they’re wrong to enjoy the game is... well it’s a choice. I’ll leave it at that.

Anomander's point stands. Two people can't take the same points and get a good game too much of the time.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
(deleting this post about how lots of wacky random-table stuff with orkz is great for narrative play but terrible for competitive and even worse for tournament, because I feel pretty good about where I left things off in the prior two posts, and don't wanna leave room for getting sucked into more arguing :-P )

You in the wrong neighborhood fool.

 Archon Sinter wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
(deleting this post about how lots of wacky random-table stuff with orkz is great for narrative play but terrible for competitive and even worse for tournament, because I feel pretty good about where I left things off in the prior two posts, and don't wanna leave room for getting sucked into more arguing :-P )

You in the wrong neighborhood fool.

The hell going on with your boobs, girl?

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Archon Sinter wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
(deleting this post about how lots of wacky random-table stuff with orkz is great for narrative play but terrible for competitive and even worse for tournament, because I feel pretty good about where I left things off in the prior two posts, and don't wanna leave room for getting sucked into more arguing :-P )

You in the wrong neighborhood fool.

The hell going on with your boobs, girl?

Truly the question of our age.

 Archon Sinter wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:


The hell going on with your boobs, girl?

Truly the question of our age.

*nods sagely*

Martel732 wrote:
Anomander's point stands. Two people can't take the same points and get a good game too much of the time.

Yes they can. I think our group has only had one "bad" game since 8th started and it was mostly because the players dice turned against him.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Anomander's point stands. Two people can't take the same points and get a good game too much of the time.

Yes they can. I think our group has only had one "bad" game since 8th started and it was mostly because the players dice turned against him.

I question the legitimacy of their competitive spirit if this is the case.

If that was your point, that a local gaming club can still have relative balance i'd agree. Honestly it's hard to follow after 20 something pages.

I don't think things are nearly as bad as people are saying, if you don't count the latest cluster of releases (that's a big IF), but i do agree GW has a piss poor record of testing their products and they could / should do more.

 Archon Sinter wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
(deleting this post about how lots of wacky random-table stuff with orkz is great for narrative play but terrible for competitive and even worse for tournament, because I feel pretty good about where I left things off in the prior two posts, and don't wanna leave room for getting sucked into more arguing :-P )

You in the wrong neighborhood fool.

I looked at this and thought of the GTA:SA "You came to the wrong house fool!" quote (which might have been what you meant lol)

Anyways, I think everyone agrees that 40k is ill-suited to a hardcore competitive game, and probably should not have been forced into that square hole by a rabid community that wants everything to have serious business world championships with (inter)national recognition and maybe in the future paid sponsorships and livable wages for "professional" 40k players (seriously there are people who want this to be a thing. T-sports, they call it). GW certainly never seemed to want to make it like that and then the talk about it in 8th seems to be throwing a bone to that community seeing as they already fractured the game thanks to the ITC and continue to do so thanks to the ITC. I think GW ultimately didn't want to go back down this route but would be stupid not to (as seen in 7th) because like it or not, people seem to want these sort of appendage measuring contests to be a thing everywhere ever since Magic busted onto the scene with "professional" games being played.

Whether or not 40k is also a bad casual/narrative game (spoiler: It is, but you can work around it easier) is much more subjective because you can ad-hoc things and that's much more common at the casual/narrative level (ITC notwithstanding at the tournament level). It doesn't fix all the issues, true, but you can often fix just enough to not have a miserable game against someone, so the perception becomes that it's okay for casual/narrative. Of course, the result of "Game sucks but we can tweak it ourselves to make it better" is a problem all its own as Slayer-Fan not-so-eloquently put it because you shouldn't NEED to ad-hoc a game that you're paying premium money for and that's being pitched as a premium game; some one-man-show rules that are done in someone's spare time, put online for free or a few bucks and only half-written so need expanding sure (and the fact many of those are better written and balanced than an international, multi-million-pound company is laughable), but when the rulebook is what, $80? And the codexes are $50 each, not to mention all the other supplements you may or may not need, you expect not only a finished product but a good one at that. Since GW seems to liken themselves to Apple, it would be like buying an iPhone for a thousand bucks and then you find out you need to add the coding yourself to make calls, but texting works fine. You expect a certain level of quality that comes with a premium product that is pitched as being complete.

The issues that aren't balance-related seem to be that:

1) People don't want to communicate beyond points level and maybe mission. Whether or not you "should need to" is irrelevant as the game is clearly designed with the intent that most of the time A) You are friends with the person you're playing against so wouldn't mind talking to them anyway and B) You set up expectations for the game. It's entirely a player thing to want to do as little of that as possible which I get as you want to maximize playtime (especially in a game that can often drag on for several hours) without needing to spend a bunch of extra time, and also because it seems like most people play so infrequently that the choices seem to be either you play whoever just showed up or don't play at all that week/month/etc. so it really seems like people would rather have a miserable game than no game at all.

2) Different people want different things. Some people want a laid back beer and pretzels game that isn't too serious, others want a highly-tuned competitive focused game with world championships so they can "make a name" for themselves and maybe in the future be paid to play 40k or some such. Some people are just donkey-caves and like to crush their opponents mercilessly to feel better, who knows? When different people with different expectations meet for a game, things can suck. Which is why #1 is so important. If you're fine-tuning your latest LVO list, you probably don't want to play against someone who is mostly a painter and has cobbled together an army based on what models they think to look cool and vice-versa; the comp player is going to win easily so not get anything out of it and walk away unsatisfied, the non-comp player is going to get the stuffing kicked out of them and walk away disappointed thinking they just wasted 3+ hours on top of a drive to the store and had a miserable time that could have been better spent elsewhere. Nobody wins and both people brood resentment for the other.

3) The GW design teams and the 40k team, in particular, are either grossly incompetent, simply don't care or are swamped with so many products due to a ridiculous release schedule that they have no time to properly think of or write rules. If they really are splitting up and having Cruddace write one book, Grant write another and whomever else (not sure who else is on the team and they don't often say now) write the third book without talking about rules ideas and how they might interact with everything else, that's a big reason why books are inconsistent and one book might be well balanced, the next one is a bit weak, the one after that is crazy strong, the one after that one is back to mid-tier, etc. It would explain a lot of why each book feels like they are written in isolation if they really are. Between that and the fact that the rules/game are clearly secondary to selling models (despite the two being intertwined), you can blame issues on GW as they take the lion's share of blame, but it may not be the designers' fault if they are being pushed with unrealistic deadlines that eat into actual design time.

GW doesn't need to change anything because regardless of the low quality work that they put out rules-wise, people will still line up around the block to throw their money at them.

If you want to affect change you need to not reward the company for bad work.

 auticus wrote:
GW doesn't need to change anything because regardless of the low quality work that they put out rules-wise, people will still line up around the block to throw their money at them.

If you want to affect change you need to not reward the company for bad work.

And lest we forgot, people tried that and immediately were suckered in by 8th edition which in many areas killed off every other game that had come up during the decline almost overnight. I know here the moment 8th dropped it pretty much wiped out every other game being played other than 40k instantly.

 auticus wrote:
GW doesn't need to change anything because regardless of the low quality work that they put out rules-wise, people will still line up around the block to throw their money at them.

If you want to affect change you need to not reward the company for bad work.

For you to enact change you need me not to buy stuff, when I'm not overly upset with GW personally.

 Archon Sinter wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Anomander's point stands. Two people can't take the same points and get a good game too much of the time.

Yes they can. I think our group has only had one "bad" game since 8th started and it was mostly because the players dice turned against him.

I question the legitimacy of their competitive spirit if this is the case.

If that was your point, that a local gaming club can still have relative balance i'd agree. Honestly it's hard to follow after 20 something pages.

I don't think things are nearly as bad as people are saying, if you don't count the latest cluster of releases (that's a big IF), but i do agree GW has a piss poor record of testing their products and they could / should do more.

It's amazing how often I say on here that our casual groups enjoys 40k and doesn't think there's any glaringly bad balance that I'm told we must just all be bad at the game or playing it wrong.

I mean, it's true your experience is an outlier, Sim-Life.

 Sim-Life wrote:
It's amazing how often I say on here that our casual groups enjoys 40k and doesn't think there's any glaringly bad balance that I'm told we must just all be bad at the game or playing it wrong.

While being told you're playing it wrong isn't cool, enjoying the game doesn't mean it's good or that the complaints about bad balance aren't valid. It just means you're enjoying it despite those things, which is honestly more power to you and your groups.

Dudeface wrote:

 auticus wrote:
GW doesn't need to change anything because regardless of the low quality work that they put out rules-wise, people will still line up around the block to throw their money at them.

If you want to affect change you need to not reward the company for bad work.

For you to enact change you need me not to buy stuff, when I'm not overly upset with GW personally.

No. If you are upset with GW's bad rules, then you need to not buy stuff. If you are a fan boy, keep on keeping on. Same with any product on the market. The If statement that you quoted from me was pretty clear on that.

*if you want to affect change* - yes/no. Yes? Don't buy stuff. No - happy with GW? Keep buying stuff. If you want to affect change and keep buying stuff anyway, they have no incentive to change because they are getting your money anyway.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Archon Sinter wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Anomander's point stands. Two people can't take the same points and get a good game too much of the time.

Yes they can. I think our group has only had one "bad" game since 8th started and it was mostly because the players dice turned against him.

I question the legitimacy of their competitive spirit if this is the case.

If that was your point, that a local gaming club can still have relative balance i'd agree. Honestly it's hard to follow after 20 something pages.

I don't think things are nearly as bad as people are saying, if you don't count the latest cluster of releases (that's a big IF), but i do agree GW has a piss poor record of testing their products and they could / should do more.

It's amazing how often I say on here that our casual groups enjoys 40k and doesn't think there's any glaringly bad balance that I'm told we must just all be bad at the game or playing it wrong.

it's a fun with friends game. Sounds like you aren't only playing it right, you and your friends are winning!

Ok, I know that players should not have to patch a premium product or to „do GWs job for them”. I know that working out the balance yourself or repairing busted rules and then convincing people to accept they are not OP for your own gain is hard and unsuitable for pick-up culture. But since the last 30 years have shown that you are likely to have to wait a decade for things to change in your favour, why not try to save your own enjoyment of your favourite hobby on casual level via simple rules patches, self-steering towards a tie, like e.g. something like this:

Strenght from GW incompetence: at the beginning of a battle round, the player with less VP may try to Seize the Initiative.

This is a port of a rule that exists in Dark Age TTWG, considered by some to be far more balanced. Originally it is a d20 roll-off modified by respective VPs of players and player with lower score goes first that turn. Of course in AA system of Dark Age it grants a less substantial benefit, but with 40k levels of power gaps occasional double turn for a losing player should not be too much of a handicap. The main advantage of such solution is that you do not have to dabble deeper in redesigning 40k, it is dynamic and works post first roll, it is fast to relay to your casual opponent, it does not invalidate anything existing, and the reason for such rule is easily explained. It can be tweaked for the power gap- trash tier vs IH? seize on 4+..., or use a roll-off as in original, so it is connected directly to current score. The only drawbacks I can see is player downtime during opponents double turn and it works only with progressive scoring missions. But it should increase the fun for both parties, unless someones idea of fun is clubbing baby seals and does not want additional chalenge.

Just a food for thought of course.

I think if you are playing the game at the casual level in a private garage or basement setting with a close knit group of players that all can agree to and actually adhere to an agreement to not field broken filth, that the game could be a lot of fun.

However if you are primarily a public player playing at stores at pickup games, or a tournament player (either way both are public games with a wide variety of players) then you're going to have to either accept it is what it is and adopt that mentality, or you are going to have issues.

 auticus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 auticus wrote:
GW doesn't need to change anything because regardless of the low quality work that they put out rules-wise, people will still line up around the block to throw their money at them.

If you want to affect change you need to not reward the company for bad work.

For you to enact change you need me not to buy stuff, when I'm not overly upset with GW personally.

No. If you are upset with GW's bad rules, then you need to not buy stuff. If you are a fan boy, keep on keeping on. Same with any product on the market. The If statement that you quoted from me was pretty clear on that.

*if you want to affect change* - yes/no. Yes? Don't buy stuff. No - happy with GW? Keep buying stuff. If you want to affect change and keep buying stuff anyway, they have no incentive to change because they are getting your money anyway.

And when the people upset with the rules (yet keep playing mysteriously), stop buying stuff and GW don't care or change. Then what?

Dudeface wrote:

 auticus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 auticus wrote:
GW doesn't need to change anything because regardless of the low quality work that they put out rules-wise, people will still line up around the block to throw their money at them.

If you want to affect change you need to not reward the company for bad work.

For you to enact change you need me not to buy stuff, when I'm not overly upset with GW personally.

No. If you are upset with GW's bad rules, then you need to not buy stuff. If you are a fan boy, keep on keeping on. Same with any product on the market. The If statement that you quoted from me was pretty clear on that.

*if you want to affect change* - yes/no. Yes? Don't buy stuff. No - happy with GW? Keep buying stuff. If you want to affect change and keep buying stuff anyway, they have no incentive to change because they are getting your money anyway.

And when the people upset with the rules (yet keep playing mysteriously), stop buying stuff and GW don't care or change. Then what?

Then you hold out until change happens, it is pretty simple. You don't need everything they're selling. Guess what? Rules and such are SUPER easy to procure without buying their product, so don't reward them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
I think if you are playing the game at the casual level in a private garage or basement setting with a close knit group of players that all can agree to and actually adhere to an agreement to not field broken filth, that the game could be a lot of fun.

So what happens when someone decides they picked up Angel Marines or Grey Knights or Harlequins or Necrons while someone else picked up Codex Marines or Eldar or Imperial Guard? Surprise surprise! The former three armies are significantly written worse! No amount of "casual level" fixes that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So what happens when someone decides they picked up Angel Marines or Grey Knights or Harlequins or Necrons while someone else picked up Codex Marines or Eldar or Imperial Guard? Surprise surprise! The former three armies are significantly written worse! No amount of "casual level" fixes that.

I would agree but that scenario has to happen in small/private clubs, and they have to be dealing with it somehow right (and no, not by not playing or buying a different army). So the question here would be, how do these very casual level groups in someone's garage or basement or similar very small tight-knit group handle it?

 auticus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 auticus wrote:
GW doesn't need to change anything because regardless of the low quality work that they put out rules-wise, people will still line up around the block to throw their money at them.

If you want to affect change you need to not reward the company for bad work.

For you to enact change you need me not to buy stuff, when I'm not overly upset with GW personally.

No. If you are upset with GW's bad rules, then you need to not buy stuff. If you are a fan boy, keep on keeping on. Same with any product on the market. The If statement that you quoted from me was pretty clear on that.

*if you want to affect change* - yes/no. Yes? Don't buy stuff. No - happy with GW? Keep buying stuff. If you want to affect change and keep buying stuff anyway, they have no incentive to change because they are getting your money anyway.

I am in agreement with your last line. The invisible hand of the market is the real influence that GW feels, although they certainly seem to want to understand the state of the game in the wild. Right now the market seems pretty happy with the game, including the competitive crowd. There are wait lists for 40K tournaments in my area, while games like Warmachine geared for tournaments don't even have them anymore locally and the models are in the bargain bin. Weird huh? This must be frustrating for those who are not happy with the game, but there it is. I hope that people only collect and play because they enjoy the game. I understand the frustration somebody might feel who once enjoyed the game but no longer does so. I put my models away for a few years when I was unhappy with the game (6th/7th), but now I am back.

Regarding your throwing in the term "fan boy" to describe those who are happy with the game: some folks have a different opinion on 40K than you do, and they might also be rational people who make their own assessments of value.

It is fanboying though, because you give excuses to them you wouldn't give anyone else.

If Warhammer was released as is, without the 30 years of fluff, do you honestly believe the game would go well? The answer is no, of course not!

And when the people upset with the rules (yet keep playing mysteriously), stop buying stuff and GW don't care or change. Then what?

Quote simply you find a new game to play. If the people upset with the rules keep playing the game that they hate, thats on them.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It is fanboying though, because you give excuses to them you wouldn't give anyone else.

If Warhammer was released as is, without the 30 years of fluff, do you honestly believe the game would go well? The answer is no, of course not!

I guess we get to dismiss your opinions as a "hater" or "troll" then? Which would you prefer?

Myself and 5 other people I know in my local community have quit (hopefully only temporarily) because 8th edition and GW itself has gone off the rails.

My purchasing came to a complete halt quite some time ago due to release fatigue and now I've stopped playing altogether because of the Vigilus campaign books being used in Organized Play events and Psychic Awakening being forced down our throats.

Two year edition lifespan is bs.
GW has gone way too far with pushing books.
GW has back tracked on all of their original promises for what 8th edition is supposed to be. ALL OF THEM.
GW is embracing and fostering a WAAC play style (thanks to bias tournament player influence because that's who they're using for play testers).
Slowly forcing obsolescence on their most iconic property (i.e. Space Marines) all while being completely disingenuous with their fan base about it.
White Dwarf is the worst its ever been.
A release schedule that's completely absurd.
GW's obvious fear of PC culture creeping in and them bowing to it.

It's sad, it's disheartening, I've been involved with 40K for 25 years. I've weathered some pretty bad stuff, but what's happening right now... I cannot take it. I'm so completely disenchanted with EVERYTHING they're doing. I look at my game room with complete disgust for GW and just walk away pretending it's not there - for several months now.

Regarding your throwing in the term "fan boy"

A fan boy is a fan boy. Its not derogatory to me. It means you are all in regardless of negative issues you might have. If you prefer the term "super fan" then use that instead. To me they mean the same thing.

I have star wars fan boys all over my facebook. Disney could trot out Darth Feces, a claymation turd with googly eyes and a ramen noodle light saber painted red, and they'd be telling everyone that the movie was 10/10 awesome because star wars. Those are fan boys.

In GW land fan boys are people that will tell you the games rules are crap and not balanced at all, but they love it anyway for other reasons (lore, models, an active community, things that have nothing to do with gaming) and will continue to shovel their paycheck to GW for more.

Tournament players love that tournaments have a huge following, regardless of rules. It is a nuclear reaction that feeds itself.

If we waved a wand today and 40k never existed as a game, and Bolt Action was the game everyone played at tournaments, and then Joe's Game Shop invented 40k with the same models, same rules, etc... 40k wouldn't register much at all because its biggest positive is that you can go anywhere in the world and get a game in irregardless of bad rules.

It is the one game where your investment is safe. How many times a week do I hear people talking about how they wished other games were popular because the rules are bad, yet continue down the gw road because everyone else is playing it.

Tournaments are huge because tournaments are huge. Not because the game itself is awesome but because the community (which is bigger than the game) is awesome.

~3 years ago GW rallied with a great reinvention of WFB into AoS, a new simpler and better edition of W40K; started engaging the community and releasing some absolutely incredible things, but they're falling deep into their old ways because they cannot keep the absolutely insane pace they've been going at.

 oni wrote:
~3 years ago GW rallied with a great reinvention of WFB into AoS, a new simpler and better edition of W40K; started engaging the community and releasing some absolutely incredible things, but they're falling deep into their old ways because they cannot keep the absolutely insane pace they've been going at.

i will say in theory the PA approach is better than what they've tried before. Give a little something to everyone, rather than well I get a book now and you have to wait 2 years for yours or some nonsense. Not that PA itself did anything major but the idea is sound; I liked how in Warmahordes every book gave at least one new unit to every faction, so nobody was left behind. GW doesn't need to keep adding new units, obviously, but the "everyone gets a little" approach is good.

The way they are releasing though is clearly not sustainable since it's making the team sloppy (not to say it would be any better if they weren't, but it can't be helping) as well as not giving adequate time to test (again no guarantees it would be better tested without the crazy schedule, but the crazy schedule is hindering testing anyway).

I do find it a bit funny though looking back on what they said 8th would be since most of it turned out to be complete fabrications or just vague enough to not be called out as outright lies.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You don't need everything they're selling. Guess what? Rules and such are SUPER easy to procure without buying their product, so don't reward them.

Either the game is fun enough to play and you can buy the rules or it is not and you don't need stolen rules either. Do not try to justify your piratism as some sort of a moral stance.

"Renault's cars are not nearly as good as they should be for the price they're asking, so stealing this Clio is totally morally justified!"

It is fanboying though, because you give excuses to them you wouldn't give anyone else.

If Warhammer was released as is, without the 30 years of fluff, do you honestly believe the game would go well? The answer is no, of course not!

AOS seems to be doing pretty OK these days!

Besides, that 30 years of fluff exists. And if that increases someone's enjoyment of the game then that is totally valid.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You don't need everything they're selling. Guess what? Rules and such are SUPER easy to procure without buying their product, so don't reward them.

Either the game is fun enough to play and you can buy the rules or it is not and you don't need stolen rules either. Do not try to justify your piratism as some sort of a moral stance.

"Renault's cars are not nearly as good as they should be for the price they're asking, so stealing this Clio is totally morally justified!"

It is fanboying though, because you give excuses to them you wouldn't give anyone else.

If Warhammer was released as is, without the 30 years of fluff, do you honestly believe the game would go well? The answer is no, of course not!

AOS seems to be doing pretty OK these days!

Besides, that 30 years of fluff exists. And if that increases someone's enjoyment of the game then that is totally valid.

It is valid, but it doesn't excuse it. And that's the issue. "I'm having fun so everything is fine" is NOT valid and is a big part of a very wrong mentality in the world (the old "Well it works fine for me so nothing can be wrong" approach). "There might be issues but I'm having fun" is valid. I think the problem Slayer has is that people are denying there are any issues at all because someone ignores them. Which I understand, since it's hard to see problems that don't affect you, and someone else's problems might not be yours. But I think that's the disconnect. Slayer is saying unequivocally the game has serious problems (and I'm inclined to agree for the most part). Someone else says well I'm having fun and don't see any problems, so the game is fine and has no issues at all, which puts that mindset at odds.

I believe what gives rise to the "fanboy" moniker is the fact that nothing is perceived as wrong, even though that's technically valid based on the individual. But the point remains, if 40k wasn't 40k with GW behind it, the game would probably be laughed out of the park due to its rules and balance and gameplay. So it's only the fact it is 40k and GW is GW which makes those things not so important.

 auticus wrote:
In GW land fan boys are people that will tell you the games rules are crap and not balanced at all, but they love it anyway for other reasons (lore, models, an active community, things that have nothing to do with gaming) and will continue to shovel their paycheck to GW for more.

This is such a red herring. We are all GW fans, the fact that your here proves that, otherwise you're just complaining about something you have no stake it.

I'm a competitive player, by no means a slayer but i do enjoy the min/max aspect of the tournament scene. That's not to say GW hasn't done a piss poor job of testing, or that i'm happy with the cash grab direction they are going. When i was a kid i told myself "it's peuter that costs money" now i tell myself i've got disposable income

I really don't think anyone is saying that there aren't any issues, merely that they personally enjoy the game despite of them. Slayer simply doesn't seem to be able to accept this.

Dudeface wrote:

 auticus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 auticus wrote:
GW doesn't need to change anything because regardless of the low quality work that they put out rules-wise, people will still line up around the block to throw their money at them.

If you want to affect change you need to not reward the company for bad work.

For you to enact change you need me not to buy stuff, when I'm not overly upset with GW personally.

No. If you are upset with GW's bad rules, then you need to not buy stuff. If you are a fan boy, keep on keeping on. Same with any product on the market. The If statement that you quoted from me was pretty clear on that.

*if you want to affect change* - yes/no. Yes? Don't buy stuff. No - happy with GW? Keep buying stuff. If you want to affect change and keep buying stuff anyway, they have no incentive to change because they are getting your money anyway.

And when the people upset with the rules (yet keep playing mysteriously), stop buying stuff and GW don't care or change. Then what?

Then they're playing other games, which have now become more popular and easier to play pick-up, and everybody wins anyway!

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You don't need everything they're selling. Guess what? Rules and such are SUPER easy to procure without buying their product, so don't reward them.

Either the game is fun enough to play and you can buy the rules or it is not and you don't need stolen rules either. Do not try to justify your piratism as some sort of a moral stance.

"Renault's cars are not nearly as good as they should be for the price they're asking, so stealing this Clio is totally morally justified!"

It is fanboying though, because you give excuses to them you wouldn't give anyone else.

If Warhammer was released as is, without the 30 years of fluff, do you honestly believe the game would go well? The answer is no, of course not!

AOS seems to be doing pretty OK these days!

Besides, that 30 years of fluff exists. And if that increases someone's enjoyment of the game then that is totally valid.

I like that you compare stealing the rules to stealing a car. Nope it IS justified. If you're going to charge your customers for a premium product and not deliver a premium product, that's too bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
I really don't think anyone is saying that there aren't any issues, merely that they personally enjoy the game despite of them. Slayer simply doesn't seem to be able to accept this.

I don't accept people constantly rewarding their behavior.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I like that you compare stealing the rules to stealing a car.

Thanks.

Nope it IS justified. If you're going to charge your customers for a premium product and not deliver a premium product, that's too bad.

Then don't buy it and stop playing! If you think the game is so horrible, why would you want to play anyway?

I don't accept people constantly rewarding their behavior.

Too bad. I don't need to ask you whether I enjoy the game, and neither does anyone else. If people are having fun with the game, it is perfectly logical for them to spend money on it.

 Archon Sinter wrote:

 auticus wrote:
In GW land fan boys are people that will tell you the games rules are crap and not balanced at all, but they love it anyway for other reasons (lore, models, an active community, things that have nothing to do with gaming) and will continue to shovel their paycheck to GW for more.

This is such a red herring. We are all GW fans, the fact that your here proves that, otherwise you're just complaining about something you have no stake it.

I'm a competitive player, by no means a slayer but i do enjoy the min/max aspect of the tournament scene. That's not to say GW hasn't done a piss poor job of testing, or that i'm happy with the cash grab direction they are going. When i was a kid i told myself "it's peuter that costs money" now i tell myself i've got disposable income

I'm not really interested in pedantically arguing terms or words. The meaning is pretty clear. If you aren't enjoying the game, stop spending money. If enough people enjoy the game and want to keep shoveling money at GW, then hats off to you. There are enough people I encounter daily that don't like the rules that continue shoveling money at GW. Those are the people to whom I am addressing because you are rewarding the company for its bad balance practices so to them everyone loves their bad balance so they will keep doing it.

It is indeed a massive struggle to get people to invest in other games becausue the investment is simply not safe. I know if I drop $500 on a 40k army I'll always have opponents, despite hating the rules. But thats a personal value judgementt I have to make. Do I hate the rules enough to not play. For me that answer was yes. I monitor 40k boards and AOS / fantasy boards because I hope the rules come around to a point where I can enjoy the game again. For 40k that means terrain meaning something and them stopping the pay to win garbage of shifting metas around instead of working on the internal and external balance issues.

For AOS that means making terrain meaningful, removing the double turn, and putting a big curb on free summoning pay to win mechanics.

Those are my personal issues and I don't mess with the game until they fix those, and won't spend a dime until they have changed those things, because playing AOS or 40k right now is akin to slamming appendages I hold dear in a door over and over. However, I want them to produce a product I can somewhat enjoy, so I lurk and contribute without playing anymore.

I have been kickstarting other games in my area, and its very hard, but those efforts bear fruit after some time. You just have to have extreme patience and not need a vast ocean of players to make you happy.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You clearly never tried to get another game going in your area and don't understand the struggle. You're a spoiled brat in that instance. There isn't another game to use the models I have, simple as that. Otherwise I very much would.

But are you having fun playing? If you don't then there is no point playing even if there was no other games available. Or you have fun, so the game can't be as bad as you claim. And obviously people in your gaming community do not think 40K is so bad, or you wouldn't have problems getting those other games going. Granted, if you're equally personable in the real life than on the internet it is rather understandable if you have trouble convincing anyone about anything.

However based on your posts you fit the archetype of fanboy too well and you'll buy everything anyway.

I only buy rules I will use. I didn't buy Vigilus stuff, I didn't buy the Psychic Awakening stuff. But I didn't use those rules in a game either. I haven't even bought any of the marine supplements yet, as marines are good enough for casual play without them. However, if I attend a tournament I'll obviously buy a supplement then (IF, probably.)

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You clearly never tried to get another game going in your area and don't understand the struggle. You're a spoiled brat in that instance. There isn't another game to use the models I have, simple as that. Otherwise I very much would.

But are you having fun playing? If you don't then there is no point playing even if there was no other games available. Or you have fun, so the game can't be as bad as you claim. And obviously people in your gaming community do not think 40K is so bad, or you wouldn't have problems getting those other games going. Granted, if you're equally personable in the real life than on the internet it is rather understandable if you have trouble convincing anyone about anything.

However based on your posts you fit the archetype of fanboy too well and you'll buy everything anyway.

I only buy rules I will use. I didn't buy Vigilus stuff, I didn't buy the Psychic Awakening stuff. But I didn't use those rules in a game either. I haven't even bought any of the marine supplements yet, as marines are good enough for casual play without them. However, if I attend a tournament I'll obviously buy a supplement then (IF, probably.)

Based on the fact I have to essentially sell my nursing home to potential new patients, that's clearly not the issue. See, there's tons in the bay area and you simply need to show that yours is better than the other, especially when there's a ton of variety that will meet various needs for your family member.

Compare that to 40k and trying to get a different game going in the area. Even in the bay area that's difficult, and there's a LOT of people and a LOT of games. However you can't guarantee you can even get one person to stick to it. This is why you're akin to the spoiled brat I made mention of earlier: you don't have to try to get anything simply because you don't actually care and in reality, even though you say you have issues, you don't do anything about it and pretend everything is fine.

Let's try to minimize the snarky jabs so one of the more overzealous mods here doesn't butt in and stop the discussion.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Compare that to 40k and trying to get a different game going in the area. Even in the bay area that's difficult, and there's a LOT of people and a LOT of games. However you can't guarantee you can even get one person to stick to it. This is why you're akin to the spoiled brat I made mention of earlier: you don't have to try to get anything simply because you don't actually care and in reality, even though you say you have issues, you don't do anything about it and pretend everything is fine.

I mean yeah, on the list of things I care about 'competitive balance of 40K' certainly doesn't rank terribly high. I think that is pretty normal. Perhaps you should try that? I mean it is not even top of my 40K related concerns, I care much more about model releases and on the rule side I care more about variety of gear options existing so that I can model them than I care about those options being balanced. So please try understand this, people here who say here that they enjoy the game despite the issues are not 'pretending everything is fine', they merely have different priorities than you.

And about affecting things, do you really think that your raging here rand antagonising people really accomplishes anything?

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Compare that to 40k and trying to get a different game going in the area. Even in the bay area that's difficult, and there's a LOT of people and a LOT of games. However you can't guarantee you can even get one person to stick to it. This is why you're akin to the spoiled brat I made mention of earlier: you don't have to try to get anything simply because you don't actually care and in reality, even though you say you have issues, you don't do anything about it and pretend everything is fine.

I mean yeah, on the list of things I care about 'competitive balance of 40K' certainly doesn't rank terribly high. I think that is pretty normal. Perhaps you should try that? I mean it is not even top of my 40K related concerns, I care much more about model releases and on the rule side I care more about variety of gear options existing so that I can model them than I care about those options being balanced. So please try understand this, people here who say here that they enjoy the game despite the issues are not 'pretending everything is fine', they merely have different priorities than you.

And about affecting things, do you really think that your raging here rand antagonising people really accomplishes anything?

It isn't even balanced casually! You're denying that too!

Wayniac wrote:
Let's try to minimize the snarky jabs so one of the more overzealous mods here doesn't butt in and stop the discussion.

bout 15 pages too late

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It isn't even balanced casually! You're denying that too!

I am not denying it, just don't care as much as you do. Seriously, the balance has been kinda gak as long as I've played this game, which is long. So I really can't get worked up about it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I like that you compare stealing the rules to stealing a car.

Thanks.

Nope it IS justified. If you're going to charge your customers for a premium product and not deliver a premium product, that's too bad.

Then don't buy it and stop playing! If you think the game is so horrible, why would you want to play anyway?

I don't accept people constantly rewarding their behavior.

Too bad. I don't need to ask you whether I enjoy the game, and neither does anyone else. If people are having fun with the game, it is perfectly logical for them to spend money on it.

You clearly never tried to get another game going in your area and don't understand the struggle. You're a spoiled brat in that instance. There isn't another game to use the models I have, simple as that. Otherwise I very much would.

So I will only ever buy the models I need, and I won't give GW even one cent for their printed materials. They don't deserve it, and if you did the same maybe those issues you supposedly do have would eventually be listened to. However based on your posts you fit the archetype of fanboy too well and you'll buy everything anyway.

Oh the irony, they're a spoilt brat but you're paddying because you can't get people to play what you want the way you want it.

I don't like the way you painted your front door, I'll take that for free, you deserve it.

Guess what, if you steal GW books they still think you want to play the game so badly, you'd steal for it. So they retain a player to sell models to and the world keeps on turning.

Reassess your priorities, you've devolved into a petulant spoiled brat through the course of this thread

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It isn't even balanced casually! You're denying that too!

I am not denying it, just don't care as much as you do. Seriously, the balance has been kinda gak as long as I've played this game, which is long. So I really can't get worked up about it.

So if you don't care, what's the point even of buying codices? Just roll dice and go pewpew. Either GW does their job or they don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I like that you compare stealing the rules to stealing a car.

Thanks.

Nope it IS justified. If you're going to charge your customers for a premium product and not deliver a premium product, that's too bad.

Then don't buy it and stop playing! If you think the game is so horrible, why would you want to play anyway?

I don't accept people constantly rewarding their behavior.

Too bad. I don't need to ask you whether I enjoy the game, and neither does anyone else. If people are having fun with the game, it is perfectly logical for them to spend money on it.

You clearly never tried to get another game going in your area and don't understand the struggle. You're a spoiled brat in that instance. There isn't another game to use the models I have, simple as that. Otherwise I very much would.

So I will only ever buy the models I need, and I won't give GW even one cent for their printed materials. They don't deserve it, and if you did the same maybe those issues you supposedly do have would eventually be listened to. However based on your posts you fit the archetype of fanboy too well and you'll buy everything anyway.

Oh the irony, they're a spoilt brat but you're paddying because you can't get people to play what you want the way you want it.

I don't like the way you painted your front door, I'll take that for free, you deserve it.

Guess what, if you steal GW books they still think you want to play the game so badly, you'd steal for it. So they retain a player to sell models to and the world keeps on turning.

Reassess your priorities, you've devolved into a petulant spoiled brat through the course of this thread

Did you actually read the post or get mad because you fall in the category of fanboy?

Dudeface wrote:
I don't like the way you painted your front door, I'll take that for free, you deserve it.

Comparing physical goods to digital ones and equating theft to copyright infringement has never been a valid comparison, regardless of where you stand on the issue.

Dudeface wrote:
Guess what, if you steal GW books they still think you want to play the game so badly, you'd steal for it.

As someone who has worked in the videogame industry, where piracy is a huge deal: No, this is simply not based in fact. To start with, GW has no useful metrics on how many people are downloading their products, which might be used to inform demand. Even if they did, I have never heard a single instance of piracy rates being used to infer that the product is desired as-is with no modifications. It's always the opposite; either do further market research to figure out why people are pirating and how they could be enticed to buy legitimately (carrot), and/or invest in DRM to try to make piracy harder to begin with (stick).

GW's books not selling well in comparison to models is legitimately one of the only things that could indicate that their approach to books needs to be rethought.

In the meantime, while I own two codices and two indices from this edition, I am using Battlescribe for the Blood of Baal rules, because I really am not keen to pay $50 for eight pages of relevant content. And I fully intend to say so on the annual survey, for whatever that's worth to GW. I guess it's a wonder I haven't stolen any doors.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

So if you don't care, what's the point even of buying codices? Just roll dice and go pewpew. Either GW does their job or they don't.

The books contain rules, those rules work well enough for me on the rare occasion I want to play a game with my models. And they certainly work better now than in the last edition. It's really not that hard to get.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

GW's books not selling well in comparison to models is legitimately one of the only things that could indicate that their approach to books needs to be rethought.

This is true, and that's why I haven't bough their campaign books. But then I'm not using those rules either.

When the Kirby-era corporate GW suits talked about the "loyal customer" who could be depended on to always buy the product, they didn't mean those of us who actually enjoy the game and product, and feel we're getting reasonable return on our investment. They meant the people who go right on buying the products no matter how much they complain and rage and yell and send angry letters (which includes you, Slayer, no matter how much you think pirating rulebooks is "sticking it to the man").

It's like the "Wednesday Warrior" in comic books. It doesn't mean someone who's buying the current X-Men comics and praising them online because they really enjoy the direction they've been going in since House of X. It means the person who keeps on buying a huge $75 stack of all the Big Two titles every single week because they need to "keep up with the continuity", regardless of how much they do or don't like the current creative teams and story arcs.

Just thought that was important to say, cos some people seem to have it backwards. Buying products you enjoy isn't blind loyalty. Buying products out of some sense that you're obligated to do so, that's blind loyalty.

By the way, I thought pro-piracy conversations were against the rules here anyway? I got a warning from a mod about it the other day, and that was for something way way more low-key than what Slayer's going on about in here.

 catbarf wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I don't like the way you painted your front door, I'll take that for free, you deserve it.

Comparing physical goods to digital ones and equating theft to copyright infringement has never been a valid comparison, regardless of where you stand on the issue.

Dudeface wrote:
Guess what, if you steal GW books they still think you want to play the game so badly, you'd steal for it.

As someone who has worked in the videogame industry, where piracy is a huge deal: No, this is simply not based in fact. To start with, GW has no useful metrics on how many people are downloading their products, which might be used to inform demand. Even if they did, I have never heard a single instance of piracy rates being used to infer that the product is desired as-is with no modifications. It's always the opposite; either do further market research to figure out why people are pirating and how they could be enticed to buy legitimately (carrot), and/or invest in DRM to try to make piracy harder to begin with (stick).

GW's books not selling well in comparison to models is legitimately one of the only things that could indicate that their approach to books needs to be rethought.

In the meantime, while I own two codices and two indices from this edition, I am using Battlescribe for the Blood of Baal rules, because I really am not keen to pay $50 for eight pages of relevant content. And I fully intend to say so on the annual survey, for whatever that's worth to GW. I guess it's a wonder I haven't stolen any doors.

Netflix killed piracy and then all the new streaming services brought it back XD also I know someone that works in a publishing company and 200 page hardcover books costs no more than 10 dollars, if even, to produce and print and distribute. If their books are getting ripped off I am not surprised nor do I have any sympathy. Video games industry... I actually feel really bad for. The rapidly increasing quality in graphics is causing production costs of video games to skyrocket but most people don’t understand that. And the seemingly ruthless gouging in content and rise of various experiments on how to sell a game for 60$ to make a profit honestly kind of sucks for everyone involved (DLC, pay to win, etc..) a lot of their woes are also due to gamestop basically setting a clock on the time a video game has to make money... The music industry also kind of brought its own problems on itself; I purchased a fully produced album with gorgeous custom CD jacket art and lyrics in the jacket, with very high quality audio production quality at 5$ directly from a band with no record label... music labels are ripping you off so bad at 4x that rate...

But again, GW books shouldn’t cost more than 30$ a pop. And that’s steep from a person in the publishing industry’s opinion.

I think GWs books must be selling just fine considering we appear to be getting a new one every month for the foreseeable future.

I wonder if the cognitive dissonance Slayer is suffering from the idea of people enjoying 40k outside of tournaments is whats causing him to fall back on just calling everyone a fanboy.

 Sim-Life wrote:
I think GWs books must be selling just fine considering we appear to be getting a new one every month for the foreseeable future.

I wonder if the cognitive dissonance Slayer is suffering from the idea of people enjoying 40k outside of tournaments is whats causing him to fall back on just calling everyone a fanboy.

I'm just gonna say I can definitely see why Slayer has very little experience with friendly games…

 Sim-Life wrote:
I think GWs books must be selling just fine considering we appear to be getting a new one every month for the foreseeable future.

I wonder if the cognitive dissonance Slayer is suffering from the idea of people enjoying 40k outside of tournaments is whats causing him to fall back on just calling everyone a fanboy.

Well like I said I think the issue isn't people enjoying 40k outside of tournaments, it's that they aren't acknowledging that it's bad because they don't experience any of the bad parts, while presumably, Slayer does often. Slayer's emphasis seems to be on the "Game's fine, my friends and I are having a blast. Everything is great!" mindset.

Wayniac wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I think GWs books must be selling just fine considering we appear to be getting a new one every month for the foreseeable future.

I wonder if the cognitive dissonance Slayer is suffering from the idea of people enjoying 40k outside of tournaments is whats causing him to fall back on just calling everyone a fanboy.

Well like I said I think the issue isn't people enjoying 40k outside of tournaments, it's that they aren't acknowledging that it's bad because they don't experience any of the bad parts, while presumably, Slayer does often. Slayer's emphasis seems to be on the "Game's fine, my friends and I are having a blast. Everything is great!" mindset.

Couldn't it just as easily be said that people aren't acknowledging that it's good because they don't experience any of the good parts?

The game being good or bad, and to what degree, is a subjective opinion thing! I don't know why people keep wanting to act like "the game is bad" is some objective, empirical fact, like "Games Workshop is based in Nottingham, UK" or "Warhammer 40k is a tabletop wargame played with hand-painted miniatures and models".

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I think GWs books must be selling just fine considering we appear to be getting a new one every month for the foreseeable future.

I wonder if the cognitive dissonance Slayer is suffering from the idea of people enjoying 40k outside of tournaments is whats causing him to fall back on just calling everyone a fanboy.

Well like I said I think the issue isn't people enjoying 40k outside of tournaments, it's that they aren't acknowledging that it's bad because they don't experience any of the bad parts, while presumably, Slayer does often. Slayer's emphasis seems to be on the "Game's fine, my friends and I are having a blast. Everything is great!" mindset.

Couldn't it just as easily be said that people aren't acknowledging that it's good because they don't experience any of the good parts?

The game being good or bad, and to what degree, is a subjective opinion thing! I don't know why people keep wanting to act like "the game is bad" is some objective, empirical fact, like "Games Workshop is based in Nottingham, UK" or "Warhammer 40k is a tabletop wargame played with hand-painted miniatures and models".

Yes, exactly. I'm saying I think that's Slayer's issue. They think the game is objectively bad, and saying you don't see anything wrong with it is disingenuous

 auticus wrote:
A fan boy is a fan boy. Its not derogatory to me. It means you are all in regardless of negative issues you might have. If you prefer the term "super fan" then use that instead. To me they mean the same thing.

It's rather less the "fan" part than the "boy" part. Setting aside the implication that no girls need apply, it's still infantilising and condescending (the American use age carrying even more baggage.

As an experiment, head for the pub and call everyone "boy" all night. Tell us how that works out...

Besides, as "fan" is shorthand for "fanatic," if thre's a need to emphasise that still works.

macluvin wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I don't like the way you painted your front door, I'll take that for free, you deserve it.

Comparing physical goods to digital ones and equating theft to copyright infringement has never been a valid comparison, regardless of where you stand on the issue.

Dudeface wrote:
Guess what, if you steal GW books they still think you want to play the game so badly, you'd steal for it.

As someone who has worked in the videogame industry, where piracy is a huge deal: No, this is simply not based in fact. To start with, GW has no useful metrics on how many people are downloading their products, which might be used to inform demand. Even if they did, I have never heard a single instance of piracy rates being used to infer that the product is desired as-is with no modifications. It's always the opposite; either do further market research to figure out why people are pirating and how they could be enticed to buy legitimately (carrot), and/or invest in DRM to try to make piracy harder to begin with (stick).

GW's books not selling well in comparison to models is legitimately one of the only things that could indicate that their approach to books needs to be rethought.

In the meantime, while I own two codices and two indices from this edition, I am using Battlescribe for the Blood of Baal rules, because I really am not keen to pay $50 for eight pages of relevant content. And I fully intend to say so on the annual survey, for whatever that's worth to GW. I guess it's a wonder I haven't stolen any doors.

Netflix killed piracy and then all the new streaming services brought it back XD also I know someone that works in a publishing company and 200 page hardcover books costs no more than 10 dollars, if even, to produce and print and distribute. If their books are getting ripped off I am not surprised nor do I have any sympathy. Video games industry... I actually feel really bad for. The rapidly increasing quality in graphics is causing production costs of video games to skyrocket but most people don’t understand that. And the seemingly ruthless gouging in content and rise of various experiments on how to sell a game for 60$ to make a profit honestly kind of sucks for everyone involved (DLC, pay to win, etc..) a lot of their woes are also due to gamestop basically setting a clock on the time a video game has to make money... The music industry also kind of brought its own problems on itself; I purchased a fully produced album with gorgeous custom CD jacket art and lyrics in the jacket, with very high quality audio production quality at 5$ directly from a band with no record label... music labels are ripping you off so bad at 4x that rate...

But again, GW books shouldn’t cost more than 30$ a pop. And that’s steep from a person in the publishing industry’s opinion.

Can't relate to the video game example, but when I used to be in a band we sold the demos for like 3-5$. Buying music will either be directly from the band at a show or when I go into a music store and peruse the $1 section for covers that intrigue me. That's how I discovered Lesbian, Gotsu-Totsu-Kotsu, and Turbonergo of all bands (though I mostly don't go out of my way to discover punk stuff).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I think GWs books must be selling just fine considering we appear to be getting a new one every month for the foreseeable future.

I wonder if the cognitive dissonance Slayer is suffering from the idea of people enjoying 40k outside of tournaments is whats causing him to fall back on just calling everyone a fanboy.

You're not even listening to the argument are you? Lemme separate the words individually for you so you can understand the grand point:
The. Game. Is. Not. Balanced. For. Either. Tournament. Or. Casual. Play.

You denying that doesn't change that as actual absolute fact. Every time I have asked "what about casual Angel Marines, Grey Knights, and Necrons vs Casual Codex Marines, Eldar, and Imperial Guard", literally none of you decided to tackle that point. It's because you don't HAVE an argument.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

macluvin wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I don't like the way you painted your front door, I'll take that for free, you deserve it.

Comparing physical goods to digital ones and equating theft to copyright infringement has never been a valid comparison, regardless of where you stand on the issue.

Dudeface wrote:
Guess what, if you steal GW books they still think you want to play the game so badly, you'd steal for it.

As someone who has worked in the videogame industry, where piracy is a huge deal: No, this is simply not based in fact. To start with, GW has no useful metrics on how many people are downloading their products, which might be used to inform demand. Even if they did, I have never heard a single instance of piracy rates being used to infer that the product is desired as-is with no modifications. It's always the opposite; either do further market research to figure out why people are pirating and how they could be enticed to buy legitimately (carrot), and/or invest in DRM to try to make piracy harder to begin with (stick).

GW's books not selling well in comparison to models is legitimately one of the only things that could indicate that their approach to books needs to be rethought.

In the meantime, while I own two codices and two indices from this edition, I am using Battlescribe for the Blood of Baal rules, because I really am not keen to pay $50 for eight pages of relevant content. And I fully intend to say so on the annual survey, for whatever that's worth to GW. I guess it's a wonder I haven't stolen any doors.

Netflix killed piracy and then all the new streaming services brought it back XD also I know someone that works in a publishing company and 200 page hardcover books costs no more than 10 dollars, if even, to produce and print and distribute. If their books are getting ripped off I am not surprised nor do I have any sympathy. Video games industry... I actually feel really bad for. The rapidly increasing quality in graphics is causing production costs of video games to skyrocket but most people don’t understand that. And the seemingly ruthless gouging in content and rise of various experiments on how to sell a game for 60$ to make a profit honestly kind of sucks for everyone involved (DLC, pay to win, etc..) a lot of their woes are also due to gamestop basically setting a clock on the time a video game has to make money... The music industry also kind of brought its own problems on itself; I purchased a fully produced album with gorgeous custom CD jacket art and lyrics in the jacket, with very high quality audio production quality at 5$ directly from a band with no record label... music labels are ripping you off so bad at 4x that rate...

But again, GW books shouldn’t cost more than 30$ a pop. And that’s steep from a person in the publishing industry’s opinion.

Can't relate to the video game example, but when I used to be in a band we sold the demos for like 3-5$. Buying music will either be directly from the band at a show or when I go into a music store and peruse the $1 section for covers that intrigue me. That's how I discovered Lesbian, Gotsu-Totsu-Kotsu, and Turbonergo of all bands (though I mostly don't go out of my way to discover punk stuff).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I think GWs books must be selling just fine considering we appear to be getting a new one every month for the foreseeable future.

I wonder if the cognitive dissonance Slayer is suffering from the idea of people enjoying 40k outside of tournaments is whats causing him to fall back on just calling everyone a fanboy.

You're not even listening to the argument are you? Lemme separate the words individually for you so you can understand the grand point:
The. Game. Is. Not. Balanced. For. Either. Tournament. Or. Casual. Play.

You denying that doesn't change that as actual absolute fact. Every time I have asked "what about casual Angel Marines, Grey Knights, and Necrons vs Casual Codex Marines, Eldar, and Imperial Guard", literally none of you decided to tackle that point. It's because you don't HAVE an argument.

Just because you state opinion as fact does not make it so.

You saying "nah opinion" does not work. I can mathematically show you, as it has been done multitudes of times, how bad certain armies are. Numbers are not opinions.

So can you actually prove the game is balanced?

nataliereed1984 wrote:
The game being good or bad, and to what degree, is a subjective opinion thing! I don't know why people keep wanting to act like "the game is bad" is some objective, empirical fact

I mean, the same can be said of film, but there is such thing as critical consensus. People can enjoy bad movies, but it's generally agreed that there are certain things that work better than others and elements that are indicative of good or bad films.

From a game design perspective, there are some very specific things in 40K that you can point to as 'not representative of generally accepted best practice'. IGOUGO limits player interaction to 5-6 major decisions, the vast array of stratagems and special rules creates a significant cognitive burden, and the high numbers of dice rolls to resolve basic interactions (inc re-rolls) is time-consuming. I'm sure there are people who enjoy these gameplay elements, but it is not accidental that the rest of the industry has been keen to ditch these holdovers of 80s/90s-era game design.

I mean, heck, I already mentioned that I have history in the videogame industry- that's about as subjective as it gets, but we still had yearly conferences about best practices and design advice, and there's still some general sense of what games are widely considered good or bad, and I spent whole semesters at school just dissecting successful and unsuccessful games to figure out what makes them tick.

Which is all to say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying 40K, but there are elements that can be regarded as objectively bad, at least to the degree that anything in media can be considered 'objectively bad'. I can completely understand the frustration with legitimate criticisms being dismissed with 'but I have fun with it', although Slayer is getting a little overzealous here.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You saying "nah opinion" does not work. I can mathematically show you, as it has been done multitudes of times, how bad certain armies are. Numbers are not opinions.

So can you actually prove the game is balanced?

I can mathematically define how much handicap must be issued for a given faction matchup to have a close game and that in no way means that I don’t see a problem with GW provided balance. It simply means that I prefer to enjoy my time by playing the game rather than endlessly insult people on the interwebz.

Get over it already - some people simply accept reality for what it is and try to find workarounds to have fun.

Is there any point to this thread now it’s just become a “Slayer barking at people for playing wrong” thread?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You saying "nah opinion" does not work. I can mathematically show you, as it has been done multitudes of times, how bad certain armies are. Numbers are not opinions.

So can you actually prove the game is balanced?

Oh yes, mathhammer. That thing that falls apart as soon as you actually play a game and realise that the game isn't played on Planet Bowling Ball and units don't fight facing off 1v1 while the rest of the armies politely stand back and watches while waiting their turn to fight their designated opponent and dice don't roll statistically, perfectly average with every roll.

Unless you mean tournament data? Which doesn't account for dice swings or player skill and a whole shedload of other variables which basically renders it useless for anything other than figuring out what the most OP army of the moment is. Except for when things like necrons or grey knights win.

 catbarf wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
The game being good or bad, and to what degree, is a subjective opinion thing! I don't know why people keep wanting to act like "the game is bad" is some objective, empirical fact

I mean, the same can be said of film, but there is such thing as critical consensus. People can enjoy bad movies, but it's generally agreed that there are certain things that work better than others and elements that are indicative of good or bad films.

Sure. And I'd have no problem with anyone saying "there is a general consensus that late-8th edition 40k is a flawed game".

But people aren't saying that, they're being "you're not acknowledging that it's bad!", as though it's climate change denialism or something.

And the fact that there isn't a consensus is pretty clearly demonstrated both by the "you're not acknowledging" and the fact that we've now had 25 pages of people disagreeing. A consensus that it's flawed, and could be better, and isn't "balanced"? Yes. A consensus that it's "bad"? Absolutely not.

I just don't get why we can't just treat this question of preferences and tastes as a question of preferences and tastes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You saying "nah opinion" does not work. I can mathematically show you, as it has been done multitudes of times, how bad certain armies are. Numbers are not opinions.

So can you actually prove the game is balanced?

"The game is bad" and "the game is unbalanced" are two different things, Slayer.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
"The game is bad" and "the game is unbalanced" are two different things, Slayer.

Not really. Even in a narrative context, the game is adversarial. There is a winner and a loser. Unless your fluff is "my Necrons suck and their tombworld was accidentally overrun when an Imperial Guard regiment mistakenly landed there" or something, it is still important to have rules that define "realistic" (here I mean "narratively consistent") outcomes.

For example, it is narratively inconsistent for Grey Knights to autolose to Chaos.

Wayniac wrote:
Well like I said I think the issue isn't people enjoying 40k outside of tournaments, it's that they aren't acknowledging that it's bad because they don't experience any of the bad parts,

I'd go as far to say in many cases it is because they don't experience anything else, period.

Saying "I like 40K" or variations thereon is a perfectly fine opinion to have, but if all you do is play 40K or even simply within the GW eco system, then it is akin to eating exclusively at McDonald's and claiming the Big Mac is the finest foodstuff in all creation. Nobody can claim you aren't within your rights to hold that opinion, you are entitled to hold it and other people might indeed agree with you if their experience mirrors yours.

I don't question the validity of anyone's opinion, but there are some expressed here which, to me, lack credibility.

 Sim-Life wrote:
I think GWs books must be selling just fine considering we appear to be getting a new one every month for the foreseeable future.

I wonder if the cognitive dissonance Slayer is suffering from the idea of people enjoying 40k outside of tournaments is whats causing him to fall back on just calling everyone a fanboy.

Correction it's his fall back when he loses. We all buy plastic army men and spend too much relatively on it.we are all fanboys.

Also of course gw doesn't test with competitive players because unless you're getting paid for it it's hard to get in enough games a week to properly play test a whole system and note all the weaknesses for a book compared to at least 12 other books it's just a problem. This is not to say that space marines are not a step above.....they are. However some can still compete

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
"The game is bad" and "the game is unbalanced" are two different things, Slayer.

Not really. Even in a narrative context, the game is adversarial. There is a winner and a loser.

We're going in circles now, so I'm just going to refer you back to everything people have already said earlier about the adversarial aspect not necessarily being that big a deal to all players.

And really, if this thread is seriously going to be an argument about whether or not a game can be objectively bad or good, that is just way too silly for me. Certain basic things need to be taken as a given - like "preferences are subjective" and "qualitative judgements cannot be proven or disproven" - for any discussion to have merit.

I'm not even saying that all opinions are equally credible and equally valid. Some opinions are ridiculous, and some opinions are well-informed. But we should at least be able to admit an opinion is an opinion, not a fact.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Is there any point to this thread now it’s just become a “Slayer barking at people for playing wrong” thread?

The notion that playing it right seems to involve a dose of piracy was... novel, I guess.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
"The game is bad" and "the game is unbalanced" are two different things, Slayer.

Not really. Even in a narrative context, the game is adversarial. There is a winner and a loser.

We're going in circles now, so I'm just going to refer you back to everything people have already said earlier about the adversarial aspect not necessarily being that big a deal to all players.

And really, if this thread is seriously going to be an argument about whether or not a game can be objectively bad or good, that is just way too silly for me. Certain basic things need to be taken as a given - like "preferences are subjective" and "qualitative judgements cannot be proven or disproven" - for any discussion to have merit.

I'm not even saying that all opinions are equally credible and equally valid. Some opinions are ridiculous, and some opinions are well-informed. But we should at least be able to admit an opinion is an opinion, not a fact.

Opinion stated as fact is the foundation of Dakka though.

 captain collius wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I think GWs books must be selling just fine considering we appear to be getting a new one every month for the foreseeable future.

I wonder if the cognitive dissonance Slayer is suffering from the idea of people enjoying 40k outside of tournaments is whats causing him to fall back on just calling everyone a fanboy.

Correction it's his fall back when he loses. We all buy plastic army men and spend too much relatively on it.we are all fanboys.

Undoubtedly, but don't make the mistake of thinking were all GW fanboys.

Also of course gw doesn't test with competitive players because unless you're getting paid for it it's hard to get in enough games a week to properly play test a whole system and note all the weaknesses for a book compared to at least 12 other books it's just a problem. This is not to say that space marines are not a step above.....they are. However some can still compete

Well, yes they do allegedly test with competitive players, but you're right about not paying people to play test, even studio staff were expected to do that on their won time at one point. Perhaps still.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
"The game is bad" and "the game is unbalanced" are two different things, Slayer.

Not really. Even in a narrative context, the game is adversarial. There is a winner and a loser. Unless your fluff is "my Necrons suck and their tombworld was accidentally overrun when an Imperial Guard regiment mistakenly landed there" or something, it is still important to have rules that define "realistic" (here I mean "narratively consistent") outcomes.

For example, it is narratively inconsistent for Grey Knights to autolose to Chaos.

I am sure most people here would agree that 40K's poor balancing is a detriment for the game, but everyone doesn't think it is enough to make the game 'bad' as there are other aspects they enjoy and they find the game fun regardless of its shortcoming. Ultimately games are for fun, if you're having fun playing it, it cannot be a terribly bad game.

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
"The game is bad" and "the game is unbalanced" are two different things, Slayer.

Not really. Even in a narrative context, the game is adversarial. There is a winner and a loser. Unless your fluff is "my Necrons suck and their tombworld was accidentally overrun when an Imperial Guard regiment mistakenly landed there" or something, it is still important to have rules that define "realistic" (here I mean "narratively consistent") outcomes.

For example, it is narratively inconsistent for Grey Knights to autolose to Chaos.

I am sure most people here would agree that 40K's poor balancing is a detriment for the game, but everyone doesn't think it is enough to make the game 'bad' as there are other aspects they enjoy and they find the game fun regardless of its shortcoming. Ultimately games are for fun, if you're having fun playing it, it cannot be a terribly bad game.

Which is precisely the problem. Some people are having fun, but some people aren't. I love narrative games, but it wasn't narratively supportable to have my army tabled at the top of 3 every game. "This is Bradley, Earl of Montfor- oh blimey. Well this is Bradley II, Earl of Mont- ah, drat. Well this is Bradley III, Earl of - oh, bother."

I was out of the game for six or eight months until Sororitas dropped because of bad narrative experiences. Now that Sororitas dropped, I have played like five games and am cautiously enjoying it more. But I am waiting for the pin to drop, because I think at this point it is inevitable that I will have a game I don't like.

And tbqh, I feel kind of bad even when I do win. My latest narrative campaign game saw my Death Guard opponent nearly tabled by the top of 4 (1500 pts) and I was running an all foot Sisters horde. My opponent was clearly quite distraught - not at me, and he tried to hide it gracefully - but it was clear he was having less fun than I was. And I hate that. We even did the pre-game conversation and stuff; heck the game was organized a week ago in our narrative discord when I elected to defend against his attack on the map. His 1500 points was simply worse than mine, and that shouldn't have happened.

Thats what happens when you have a game that pushes list building over everything else.

To me, 1500 points should have a fair shot against 1500 points. If it can you have good internal and external balance.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Well like I said I think the issue isn't people enjoying 40k outside of tournaments, it's that they aren't acknowledging that it's bad because they don't experience any of the bad parts,

I'd go as far to say in many cases it is because they don't experience anything else, period.

Saying "I like 40K" or variations thereon is a perfectly fine opinion to have, but if all you do is play 40K or even simply within the GW eco system, then it is akin to eating exclusively at McDonald's and claiming the Big Mac is the finest foodstuff in all creation. Nobody can claim you aren't within your rights to hold that opinion, you are entitled to hold it and other people might indeed agree with you if their experience mirrors yours.

I don't question the validity of anyone's opinion, but there are some expressed here which, to me, lack credibility.

I do think there is quite a bit of this with 40k. I was outside the GW bubble (though mostly just next to it given most designers were GW alums) a good while before my miniatures war game of choice became Warhammer 40k. Or some variation. I completely recognize the flaws in the game, but I still like it well enough for what it is and willing to make alterations to get it to work better for me and my opponent. I continue to be baffled my those who expect it to work as a good cutthroat game. I don't think it will ever work like that. If you understand that and still want to play it like that's great. It just isn't how I want to play it. I also think for the most part, the idea new players are going to meet with their respective armies and one happens to bring a badly built, bottom tier army and the other also randomly puts together a near net list army they actually understand how to make use is a bit overstated on Dakka. As well as just how bad the match will be.

Heck, In the past month or so I have been the new (ish) player on both ends of this. First with Age of Sigmar where I played my warscrolls off of the building instructions army of Slaves to Darkness vs. Bonereapers where I got absolutely murdered. But that game was a perfect storm of Bonereapers currently being REALLY good right now and a mission/points level that really favored them vs. a garbage tier faction and pretty bad player. Even now, with a few games and a new Battletome, I don't see me winning vs. Bonereapers all that often. A lot of what OSB faction does what I want my Slaves to Darkness to do, but they kinda do it better. However, at least I have a fighting chance. Maybe even more if I actually adapt. And at the end of the day, that is all I am asking for.

The other end of the spectrum was this weekend of Primaris (me) vs. Tyranids with a lot of Forge World models. The big FW bugs. The mission didn't really favor the Tyranids (killing). However, I made a lot of activation order mistakes and probably should have castled up more given area control wasn't an issue. About the only I did well was spreading his forces out to deal with in detail rather than all at once. I practically tabled the Tyranid player end of round 5 shooting. I do think the Tyranid player played better than me too. He just had a very melee focused army of mechanically inferior units. It was probably a bit of a skew list as well since he did have a Lord of War, but nothing my take-all-comers army couldn't handle since he was paying a premium for T8 and weakest of Saves. So certainly there is room for balance with his stuff vs. mine. However, the game did make it to round 5, which all things considered, wasn't too bad given how killy this edition is. I figure I can drop a 100-200 points from my army and the game will be a lot more interesting. I don't even see it as a handicap. More of a player motivated points balancing for Forge World Lord of War models. I can say many Dakkanauts were right that FW stuff can be really bad in game. But it looks so cool I don't my that Tyranid player to not bring it.

And since it is you I am quoting, I could (note: could) level very limited experience (two games) that Guildball is unbalanced. I know it isn't, I just had incredibly bad luck. I am pretty sure I am the world record holder for losing a game of Guildball the fastest. Back before non-metal models, I was trying to learn the game with a box of Hunters I was originally commissioned to paint but then got as part of a trade. I went to my FLGS which was teaching people to play and got in a game with Fishermen (I think) where I proceeded to lose with barely any input into the game. I know a lot of that loss was just freakishly bad ball bounces and right rolls by my opponent (who also knew the game really well, but didn't really know how to demo/teach it). Anyways whatever the bare minimum moves to win the game, it was a blowout. I didn't play again not really due to that game. More that I really didn't like the game at any level, didn't like the team I had and the group there was far more cutthroat than I enjoy my games to be.

I also forget if it was this thread or another where you asked for more unbalanced miniatures games than that of GW ones. I felt that Deadzone 1st edition was pretty unbalanced beyond the starter box and even then could still be a cakewalk/impossible with the right/wrong secret mission card. You could probably level the same toward Dreadball 1st edition too after Season 2. Granted, I have a personal bias against Jake Thornton as a game designer made worst when I found out he 'designed' Lost Patrol. Good ideas, but very flawed execution with his games. I played a heavily house-ruled version, but to hear the players talk of it, the Mechwarrior Clix game toward the later releases sounded like it went fully off the rails. I didn't really play Dust 1947, but my army (Allied Rangers) had mostly been power-creeped out by USMC and the game itself seem to not entirely understand the intricacies of Battlefront Games version it copied and really only payed lip-service to the non-tile based tabletop version. Black Powder would also be an absolute nightmare to play how many want Warhammer 40k to work as it is a game with no points and toolbox approach that largely required the players to work together to build a game or have the most historically minded host a game. It would break down at nearly every level that 40k is scrutinized by, and it was written by Rick Priestly who states he often enjoys playing the game with the Perry Brothers, Jervis Johnson and John Stallard.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Well, yes they do allegedly test with competitive players, but you're right about not paying people to play test, even studio staff were expected to do that on their won time at one point. Perhaps still.

But if they disregard feedback for whatever reason its akin to having history consultants on awful movies, although GW aren't alone PP released 3rd ed WMH with one faction basically unplayable and one of the first releases was broken as bobbins

 oni wrote:
Myself and 5 other people I know in my local community have quit (hopefully only temporarily) because 8th edition and GW itself has gone off the rails.

My purchasing came to a complete halt quite some time ago due to release fatigue and now I've stopped playing altogether because of the Vigilus campaign books being used in Organized Play events and Psychic Awakening being forced down our throats.

Two year edition lifespan is bs.
GW has gone way too far with pushing books.
GW has back tracked on all of their original promises for what 8th edition is supposed to be. ALL OF THEM.
GW is embracing and fostering a WAAC play style (thanks to bias tournament player influence because that's who they're using for play testers).
Slowly forcing obsolescence on their most iconic property (i.e. Space Marines) all while being completely disingenuous with their fan base about it.
White Dwarf is the worst its ever been.
A release schedule that's completely absurd.
GW's obvious fear of PC culture creeping in and them bowing to it.

It's sad, it's disheartening, I've been involved with 40K for 25 years. I've weathered some pretty bad stuff, but what's happening right now... I cannot take it. I'm so completely disenchanted with EVERYTHING they're doing. I look at my game room with complete disgust for GW and just walk away pretending it's not there - for several months now.

So why don't you & those other 5 who're of similar mind simply get together & play in whatever way you all find agreeable? If Vigilus & Psychic Awakening are a book too far? Then just don't use them.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:


And since it is you I am quoting, I could (note: could) level very limited experience (two games) that Guildball is unbalanced. I know it isn't, I just had incredibly bad luck. I am pretty sure I am the world record holder for losing a game of Guildball the fastest. Back before non-metal models, I was trying to learn the game with a box of Hunters I was originally commissioned to paint but then got as part of a trade. I went to my FLGS which was teaching people to play and got in a game with Fishermen (I think) where I proceeded to lose with barely any input into the game. I know a lot of that loss was just freakishly bad ball bounces and right rolls by my opponent (who also knew the game really well, but didn't really know how to demo/teach it). Anyways whatever the bare minimum moves to win the game, it was a blowout. I didn't play again not really due to that game. More that I really didn't like the game at any level, didn't like the team I had and the group there was far more cutthroat than I enjoy my games to be.

To be fair, that a new player lost hard to an experienced player doesn't speak to imbalance as much to a learning curve, something which GB is acknowledged to possess, and a steep one at that. Personally, that I feel like how I play the game is a bigger determinant to victory than my list is a huge part of the appeal. Your experiences might have been compounded by using Hunters, when they were first introduced (and I know of which I speak, they were my first team from shortly after release) Steamforged self confessedly had them underpowered. Not "going to get crushed everytime" under, but they suffered from needing to do 3 things in order to do what other teams could do in one or two. Consequently there was a real issue against anyone who knew what they were about, as they'd be able to disrupt the Hunters player everytime. This was a temporary issue, however, and they soon got fixed from Season 3.

I also forget if it was this thread or another where you asked for more unbalanced miniatures games than that of GW ones. I felt that Deadzone 1st edition was pretty unbalanced beyond the starter box and even then could still be a cakewalk/impossible with the right/wrong secret mission card. You could probably level the same toward Dreadball 1st edition too after Season 2. Granted, I have a personal bias against Jake Thornton as a game designer made worst when I found out he 'designed' Lost Patrol. Good ideas, but very flawed execution with his games. I played a heavily house-ruled version, but to hear the players talk of it, the Mechwarrior Clix game toward the later releases sounded like it went fully off the rails. I didn't really play Dust 1947, but my army (Allied Rangers) had mostly been power-creeped out by USMC and the game itself seem to not entirely understand the intricacies of Battlefront Games version it copied and really only payed lip-service to the non-tile based tabletop version. Black Powder would also be an absolute nightmare to play how many want Warhammer 40k to work as it is a game with no points and toolbox approach that largely required the players to work together to build a game or have the most historically minded host a game. It would break down at nearly every level that 40k is scrutinized by, and it was written by Rick Priestly who states he often enjoys playing the game with the Perry Brothers, Jervis Johnson and John Stallard.

I wouldn't try and argue that other games haven't had or got issues, but IME these aren't so endemic to a system that it has become normalised the way it has in 40K. Most broken factions or units seem to get fixed addressed at some point, not always as fast or in the way everyone wants, but at least in a way that some way attempts to correct the error.

Something like Black Powder (which in no way is unique, I understand points are an alien concept in a certain stripe of Historical) has an advantage in that by not using points it sets expectations accordingly. In 40K they use points, and it is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make that equal values mean equal utillity. Yes, there is a certain mechanical consideration, but when 1500 points vs 1500 points doesn't actually mean a fair game with both players starting from an equivalent position, people get upset.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Well, yes they do allegedly test with competitive players, but you're right about not paying people to play test, even studio staff were expected to do that on their won time at one point. Perhaps still.

But if they disregard feedback for whatever reason its akin to having history consultants on awful movies, although GW aren't alone PP released 3rd ed WMH with one faction basically unplayable and one of the first releases was broken as bobbins

Yeah, but as I said, mistakes aren't the same as 30 years of persistent problems. But then, the GW hobby is buying GW miniatures, so why worry whether a silly game is balanced or no!

 Azreal13 wrote:

Yeah, but as I said, mistakes aren't the same as 30 years of persistent problems. But then, the GW hobby is buying GW miniatures, so why worry whether a silly game is balanced or no!

To be fair, don't act as though this is somehow unique to gw. Look at privateer press. Warmachine has been around for what? 15 years? And there are still core issues with the game that have never been fundamentally solved. focus is stil problematic for example. Some warcasters and units have been junk since mk1 and some are still go-to after all that time. And in fairness, there have been persistent edition-unique issues that have cropped up in each successive edition of the game to the point where you could say the game changed as it aged, it didn't necessarily improve.

I think it's just the nature of ttgs.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You saying "nah opinion" does not work. I can mathematically show you, as it has been done multitudes of times, how bad certain armies are. Numbers are not opinions.

So can you actually prove the game is balanced?

Not balanced is not the same as not good.

The game is not balanced. I've been involved since third edition and it has never been balanced. It never will be. I've also played a lot outside of the gw bubble, and to be fair, the grass isn't necessarily greener. The best I've seen is various shades of 'more or less good enough some of the time', and for all the times there ok, that helps little when time after time, you still go up against gaspy 2 or the haleys in warmachine and the community as a whole eschews creativity in favour of crutches and go-to netlists.

I've learned not to chase the dragon that is 'balance' to the ends of the earth and back. You'll never find it. It's a unicorn. I'm happy with 'good enough'. I think it is the best that can be realistically expected from any game designer. And that comes with the expectation that I might also have to put some work in at the front end, talk to the other guy, I might have to play down or accomodate in some way. If that leads to a fair(er) game and helps give back to my community, then I'm happy to do my bit. It's like recycling.
I have also learned there are things other than absolute balance provided by gaming-Jesus that are also massively important to me. Considering nothing will ever be perfect, will I accept balance issues if the other things that are important to me are also there? The answer is yes. For the simple reason there are things I can do at my end to mitigate issues that pop up. No different to a model I like not being 'quite-as-perfect' as I'd like - hey, I can convert it. Dodgy rules? We can change them.

I am not the only person to approach games like this.

None of this means I (or people like me) ignore problems or that we don't care about them or don't see them. We are not 'I'm alright jacks'. It doesn't make us entitled or blind or fanboys. It just means we take personal responsibility and ownership of our games, rather than unquestioningly adhering to broken rules or thinking the responsibility isn't ours. It doesn't make us better. Or mean I look down on you. It means proactivity, maybe in a different direction to those of you who complain about, or discuss issues on the internet for years at a time (legitimate position, though personally, I question its value beyond a certain point) but stay playing 'by the rules'. Or those of you who leave to play other games (legitimate position. I play and have played many non-gw games. And yet most of my gaming fun these last 3 years has come from gw stables. If you would have told me this ten years ago I would have laughed!). It does mean, att he cost of some work at the front end, I get to continue to enjoy a game and ip, rather than slowly have that love and joy in by hobby slowly turn to toxicity and hate. Nah, I'll take a bit of work and optimism, thanks.

 Azreal13 wrote:

I wouldn't try and argue that other games haven't had or got issues, but IME these aren't so endemic to a system that it has become normalised the way it has in 40K. Most broken factions or units seem to get fixed addressed at some point, not always as fast or in the way everyone wants, but at least in a way that some way attempts to correct the error.

This is literally exactly what GW is doing! And these days they're patching their game pretty damn rapidly too.

Yeah, but as I said, mistakes aren't the same as 30 years of persistent problems.

Yes they are, except GW is the only one who can have 'persistent problems' as they're practically the only one to have persistent games!

But then, the GW hobby is buying GW miniatures, so why worry whether a silly game is balanced or no!

Well certainly the miniatures are the main appeal.

Deadnight wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Yeah, but as I said, mistakes aren't the same as 30 years of persistent problems. But then, the GW hobby is buying GW miniatures, so why worry whether a silly game is balanced or no!

To be fair, don't act as though this is somehow unique to gw. Look at privateer press. Warmachine has been around for what? 15 years? And there are still core issues with the game that have never been fundamentally solved. focus is stil problematic for example. Some warcasters and units have been junk since mk1 and some are still go-to after all that time. And in fairness, there have been persistent edition-unique issues that have cropped up in each successive edition of the game to the point where you could say the game changed as it aged, it didn't necessarily improve.

I think it's just the nature of ttgs.

I do not in any way assert that the "perfect" game exists. Without playing every one in depth I can't be sure, but I would strongly suspect that literally every game held up as an example of better balance than 40K brings its own issues and imperfections. But were operating on a curve here where perfection isn't required to be better.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You're not even listening to the argument are you? Lemme separate the words individually for you so you can understand the grand point:
The. Game. Is. Not. Balanced. For. Either. Tournament. Or. Casual. Play.

Let me sum it up for you: So. What.

I don't care what your tourney experiences are or how bad they are. This game isn't (and never has been) built for tourney play. So if you insist on using it for such? Don't bitch about the results.
In casual play? 1st, this edition isn't bad enough to bail on (yet). 2nd, we've solved much of this at the individual group lv. These solutions might vary between groups though, so be prepared to be adaptable/flexible.
(for ex; The group I play most often with? We have more detailed terrain/cover rules & we use vehicle weapon fire arcs. Another group in the area doesn't use CPs or strats)

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You denying that doesn't change that as actual absolute fact. Every time I have asked "what about casual Angel Marines, Grey Knights, and Necrons vs Casual Codex Marines, Eldar, and Imperial Guard", literally none of you decided to tackle that point. It's because you don't HAVE an argument.

Well what do you want said? Each casual group might well have a different answer. This is why you play these games with friends. You get together, you play, you run into something, and you discuss how to fix it for next week. (knowing full well this isn't a universal fix, so if you play with a different group or at an event....).

 Azreal13 wrote:

 captain collius wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I think GWs books must be selling just fine considering we appear to be getting a new one every month for the foreseeable future.

I wonder if the cognitive dissonance Slayer is suffering from the idea of people enjoying 40k outside of tournaments is whats causing him to fall back on just calling everyone a fanboy.

Correction it's his fall back when he loses. We all buy plastic army men and spend too much relatively on it.we are all fanboys.

Undoubtedly, but don't make the mistake of thinking were all GW fanboys.

Also of course gw doesn't test with competitive players because unless you're getting paid for it it's hard to get in enough games a week to properly play test a whole system and note all the weaknesses for a book compared to at least 12 other books it's just a problem. This is not to say that space marines are not a step above.....they are. However some can still compete

Well, yes they do allegedly test with competitive players, but you're right about not paying people to play test, even studio staff were expected to do that on their won time at one point. Perhaps still.

Ohh I'm no rose tinted glasses GW fanboy. I stopped playing for a while after AOS came out. I know the reality. I also know that the game is fairly balanced I play a Tau list (I don't spam the ever living f outta drones) and I do fairly well by contrast my Deathwing sucks big-time. Heck just getting access to chaplain buffs would help them. Here's hoping tomorrows release gives me hope and a bigger Ezekiel model.

ccs wrote:
...(for ex; The group I play most often with? We have more detailed terrain/cover rules & we use vehicle weapon fire arcs. Another group in the area doesn't use CPs or strats)...

...Which is exactly what people are complaining about. If you're prepared to write the game yourself why are you paying GW money to write rulebooks?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
...(for ex; The group I play most often with? We have more detailed terrain/cover rules & we use vehicle weapon fire arcs. Another group in the area doesn't use CPs or strats)...

...Which is exactly what people are complaining about. If you're prepared to write the game yourself why are you paying GW money to write rulebooks?

The Core Rules don't use CP or strats.

 Blndmage wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
...(for ex; The group I play most often with? We have more detailed terrain/cover rules & we use vehicle weapon fire arcs. Another group in the area doesn't use CPs or strats)...

...Which is exactly what people are complaining about. If you're prepared to write the game yourself why are you paying GW money to write rulebooks?

The Core Rules don't use CP or strats.

Do they have detailed terrain/cover rules or vehicle weapon fire arcs?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
...(for ex; The group I play most often with? We have more detailed terrain/cover rules & we use vehicle weapon fire arcs. Another group in the area doesn't use CPs or strats)...

...Which is exactly what people are complaining about. If you're prepared to write the game yourself why are you paying GW money to write rulebooks?

The Core Rules don't use CP or strats.

Do they have detailed terrain/cover rules or vehicle weapon fire arcs?

The BRB offer terrain suggestions for the players to decide to use or not. It is in the back of the book just before Campaigns. As for weapon arcs, I'm sure you could agree that is more of a personal preference to use or not use as the gaming group sees fit.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
...(for ex; The group I play most often with? We have more detailed terrain/cover rules & we use vehicle weapon fire arcs. Another group in the area doesn't use CPs or strats)...

...Which is exactly what people are complaining about. If you're prepared to write the game yourself why are you paying GW money to write rulebooks?

Again with the ridiculous hyperbole! FFS!

- Supplementing the game with house rules isn't "writing the game yourself"

- Even if you modified every single rule in the whole game, the rulebooks are still full of lore, art, mission concepts, inspiration, and jumping-off points.

- As mentioned above, CP and stratagems are even presented as optional within the rulebook itself.

yeah but it rings like a hollow justification to say "supplementing the game with house rules isn't writing the game yourself".

GW has 4 pages of rules. One of these days, they might have like 1 page of rules that says:

1) Move phase. Units move a number of inches equal to the movement stat for their data sheet.
2) Shoot phase. Select a unit to shoot. Roll a dice and compare it to the unit's Ballistic Skill. If it meets the required score, select an enemy unit to destroy.
3) Charge phase. Put your units near an enemy unit if they wish to charge it. We recommend within 1".
4) Fight phase: Select a unit to fight. Roll a dice and compare it to the unit's Weapon Skill. If it meets the required score, select an enemy unit to destroy. We recommend limiting it to units within 1" for narrative reasons.

Like sure, there's "structure" there. Technically you could play the game using that 1 page of rules if you want.

But really?

GW's rules right now aren't a whole lot more complicated than that; heck, the morale phase has already been reduced to "select a unit. Roll a d6 and add casualties. Compare to <score>, remove casualties equal to difference." The sum total of the mechanic which is supposed to illustrate the effect of psychology in warfare has been reduced to one sentence.

How much of the game are we supposed to write ourselves? The core rules are four pages...

EDIT:
Plus! They'd still find a way to feth it up and have to errata it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


How much of the game are we supposed to write ourselves? The core rules are four pages....

Like the amount of honey, lemon or milk in your tea, as much as you need to get you what you want.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
...(for ex; The group I play most often with? We have more detailed terrain/cover rules & we use vehicle weapon fire arcs. Another group in the area doesn't use CPs or strats)...

...Which is exactly what people are complaining about. If you're prepared to write the game yourself why are you paying GW money to write rulebooks?

The Core Rules don't use CP or strats.

Do they have detailed terrain/cover rules or vehicle weapon fire arcs?

Nope, but for 100% free Core Rules, these terrain rules work:

Terrain and Cover

The battlefields of the far future are littered with terrain features such as ruins, craters and twisted copses. Models can take shelter within such terrain features to gain protection against incoming weapons’ fire.

If a unit is entirely on or within any terrain feature, add 1 to its models’ saving throws against shooting attacks to represent the cover received from the terrain (invulnerable saves are unaffected). Units gain no benefit from cover in the Fight phase.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


How much of the game are we supposed to write ourselves? The core rules are four pages....

Like the amount of honey, lemon or milk in your tea, as much as you need to get you what you want.

If I'm paying for tea, I expect it to be made correctly.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


How much of the game are we supposed to write ourselves? The core rules are four pages....

Like the amount of honey, lemon or milk in your tea, as much as you need to get you what you want.

If I'm paying for tea, I expect it to be made correctly.

There's no "correct" proportion of milk, sugar, honey or lemon in tea, Slayer...

Guys, I found 9th edition box sets....
https://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=DChcSEwiJ1NOandDmAhXYIK0GHfJSDqgYABABGgJwdg&ae=1&sig=AOD64_0cm4zVJBcNryBw_IgvwigwTNY7cA&adurl=https://www.target.com/p/risk-board-game/-/A-10855294?ref%3Dtgt_adv_XS000000%26AFID%3Dgoogle%26fndsrc%3Dtmnv%26DFA%3D71700000057132013%26CPNG%3DPLA_DVM%252B0060H00000pDiCoQAK-Hasbro-GamesSearch-AO-flight-2019%26adgroup%3DPLA_HasbroAllTime%26LID%3D700000001393753pgs%26network%3Dg%26device%3Dt%26location%3D9030164%26gclsrc%3Daw.ds%26%26gclid%3DEAIaIQobChMIidTTmp3Q5gIV2CCtBh3yUg6oEAQYASABEgLlYfD_BwE&ctype=46&ved=2ahUKEwje5MqandDmAhUzlZ4KHeA9ABoQzzl6BAgBEF8

macluvin wrote:
Guys, I found 9th edition box sets....
https://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=DChcSEwiJ1NOandDmAhXYIK0GHfJSDqgYABABGgJwdg&ae=1&sig=AOD64_0cm4zVJBcNryBw_IgvwigwTNY7cA&adurl=https://www.target.com/p/risk-board-game/-/A-10855294?ref%3Dtgt_adv_XS000000%26AFID%3Dgoogle%26fndsrc%3Dtmnv%26DFA%3D71700000057132013%26CPNG%3DPLA_DVM%252B0060H00000pDiCoQAK-Hasbro-GamesSearch-AO-flight-2019%26adgroup%3DPLA_HasbroAllTime%26LID%3D700000001393753pgs%26network%3Dg%26device%3Dt%26location%3D9030164%26gclsrc%3Daw.ds%26%26gclid%3DEAIaIQobChMIidTTmp3Q5gIV2CCtBh3yUg6oEAQYASABEgLlYfD_BwE&ctype=46&ved=2ahUKEwje5MqandDmAhUzlZ4KHeA9ABoQzzl6BAgBEF8

Just post a picture

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


How much of the game are we supposed to write ourselves? The core rules are four pages....

Like the amount of honey, lemon or milk in your tea, as much as you need to get you what you want.

If I'm paying for tea, I expect it to be made correctly.

There's no "correct" proportion of milk, sugar, honey or lemon in tea, Slayer...

Well here's why your metaphor sucks. There's a huge difference between making your tea at home and going somewhere and paying for sweet tea, and then being handed regular Iced Tea because the waitress said it was already sweet enough and, instead of telling them you want your money back, you pour sugar into the tea to try and get what you ordered. However, that just leaves a bunch of sugar on the bottom.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


How much of the game are we supposed to write ourselves? The core rules are four pages....

Like the amount of honey, lemon or milk in your tea, as much as you need to get you what you want.

If I'm paying for tea, I expect it to be made correctly.

There's no "correct" proportion of milk, sugar, honey or lemon in tea, Slayer...

Well here's why your metaphor sucks. There's a huge difference between making your tea at home and going somewhere and paying for sweet tea, and then being handed regular Iced Tea because the waitress said it was already sweet enough and, instead of telling them you want your money back, you pour sugar into the tea to try and get what you ordered. However, that just leaves a bunch of sugar on the bottom.

Of course the analogy breaks down if you apply to a completely different thing than it was intended for.

Jeez. It's Christmas Eve, dude! Can't you at least try to accept other people's perspectives *tonight*, and see things from their point of view, if not anytime else?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Don't use bad analogies then. Your point of view for the analogy was bloody terrible that I was surprised someone would even try to use it. Paying for a product means your product shouldn't be super defective or not what you ordered. Have some respect for yourself.

It wasn't even MY analogy you !

Goodnight.

you cannot compare 40k to Warmachine or say that there are 30 years of experience/development

while Warmachine (or Kings of War, or most other games out there) are still the same game after an Edition change, this is not true for 40k

8th is a completely new game, all past experience with design, gameplay or points values is worthless
This is a reason why just adjusting points without changing rules in the beginning did not work well (looking at Brimstones) because no one really new which stats will be the important ones that needed change or how well old profiles will translate into the new game.

So 40k is a 2 year old game and we now get the first faction books written for 8th that are based on experience with the new game.
while everything before can be seen as public Beta test.


you can still blame GW for that, as instead of fixing their game, they just release a new one without thinking/developing it through (and test the new game with faction rules from the old game)

 kodos wrote:
you cannot compare 40k to Warmachine or say that there are 30 years of experience/development

while Warmachine (or Kings of War, or most other games out there) are still the same game after an Edition change, this is not true for 40k

8th is a completely new game, all past experience with design, gameplay or points values is worthless
This is a reason why just adjusting points without changing rules in the beginning did not work well (looking at Brimstones) because no one really new which stats will be the important ones that needed change or how well old profiles will translate into the new game.

So 40k is a 2 year old game and we now get the first faction books written for 8th that are based on experience with the new game.
while everything before can be seen as public Beta test.


you can still blame GW for that, as instead of fixing their game, they just release a new one without thinking/developing it through (and test the new game with faction rules from the old game)

WMH mk2 to 3 changed loads about the game so I think its a fair comparison.

it changed a lot, but not the basic mechanics behind the game

 kodos wrote:
it changed a lot, but not the basic mechanics behind the game

Neither did 8th. Its still a d6 system with hit/wound/save rolls.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


How much of the game are we supposed to write ourselves? The core rules are four pages....

Like the amount of honey, lemon or milk in your tea, as much as you need to get you what you want.

If I'm paying for tea, I expect it to be made correctly.

There's no "correct" proportion of milk, sugar, honey or lemon in tea, Slayer...

Tea At All Costs-er!

Catulle wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:


There's no "correct" proportion of milk, sugar, honey or lemon in tea, Slayer...

Tea At All Costs-er!

Name ONE other type of tea that's as poorly balanced as Lady Gray! I'll wait.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Catulle wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:


There's no "correct" proportion of milk, sugar, honey or lemon in tea, Slayer...

Tea At All Costs-er!

Name ONE otjher type of tea that's as poorly balanced as Lady Gray! I'll wait.

Rooibos is clearly the red-headed stepchild of the range. Objective. Fact.

Catulle wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Catulle wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:


There's no "correct" proportion of milk, sugar, honey or lemon in tea, Slayer...

Tea At All Costs-er!

Name ONE otjher type of tea that's as poorly balanced as Lady Gray! I'll wait.

Rooibos is clearly the red-headed stepchild of the range. Objective. Fact.

A lot of people have mixed feelings about Roobois' recent resurrection and becoming Lord Commander of the Teaperium.

People are being snarky but saying you can house rule GW's bad rules so things are fine is just a bit disingenuous. Which I think is Slayer's whole issue although I also don't think it's "objective fact" that everything is garbage either. Just it does feel like getting cheated when you're paying money for expensive books and then have to also spend time fixing the problems. Doubly so when you don't have a small, close-knit group where you can establish house rules.

Remember, most of us in the USA play at public stores where anyone can turn up for a game. Regulars, people new to the area, people just passing through, etc. It's not exactly common or easy to have a list of additions to the game and expect everyone to know or use them. That's why having a solid core is so important; people don't want to house rule. They want standard and official rules that are used universally and expected to be good for the price paid. Saying oh well it's bad but my group changes the rules so it's not is kinda proving the point. You shouldn't need to do the work of so-called professional designers if they were any good at their job.

There's a difference between house ruling to add extras and house ruling to fix flaws in the game's design.

Wayniac wrote:
People are being snarky but saying you can house rule GW's bad rules so things are fine is just a bit disingenuous. Which I think is Slayer's whole issue although I also don't think it's "objective fact" that everything is garbage either. Just it does feel like getting cheated when you're paying money for expensive books and then have to also spend time fixing the problems. Doubly so when you don't have a small, close-knit group where you can establish house rules.

Remember, most of us in the USA play at public stores where anyone can turn up for a game. Regulars, people new to the area, people just passing through, etc. It's not exactly common or easy to have a list of additions to the game and expect everyone to know or use them. That's why having a solid core is so important; people don't want to house rule. They want standard and official rules that are used universally and expected to be good for the price paid. Saying oh well it's bad but my group changes the rules so it's not is kinda proving the point. You shouldn't need to do the work of so-called professional designers if they were any good at their job.

There's a difference between house ruling to add extras and house ruling to fix flaws in the game's design.

My group only has one house rule and its just to make cover easier (units in terrain get cover saves) to remember because we're all getting older and already forget loads already. We get by fine, but then we also play wrong and apparently do our best not to kill each others armies I'm told by people on here.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


How much of the game are we supposed to write ourselves? The core rules are four pages....

Like the amount of honey, lemon or milk in your tea, as much as you need to get you what you want.

Okay, but to add those I have to have tea first, not just a bunch of unfiltered river water.

Yes, I could filter and boil it myself.
Yes, I could go get my own tea leaves.
Yes, I could brew my own tea if I wanted .

That is where 40k is now. It isn't really tea. It's a brown liquid, but that's because they just took a scoop out of the bottom of a river...

I hate to be a pedant but there are literally two-year-old gamebreaking bugs in the code (ref:assault weapons) that we are all reasonably house-ruling around.

Excuse me if I order tea and get upset when I am served unfiltered river water, even if I really *could* make it work. At that point it is easier to just start my own tea (by that I mean write my own game).

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Catulle wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Catulle wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:


There's no "correct" proportion of milk, sugar, honey or lemon in tea, Slayer...

Tea At All Costs-er!

Name ONE otjher type of tea that's as poorly balanced as Lady Gray! I'll wait.

Rooibos is clearly the red-headed stepchild of the range. Objective. Fact.

A lot of people have mixed feelings about Roobois' recent resurrection and becoming Lord Commander of the Teaperium.

That's t'eacclesiarchy for you...

Catulle wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Catulle wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Catulle wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:


There's no "correct" proportion of milk, sugar, honey or lemon in tea, Slayer...

Tea At All Costs-er!

Name ONE otjher type of tea that's as poorly balanced as Lady Gray! I'll wait.

Rooibos is clearly the red-headed stepchild of the range. Objective. Fact.

A lot of people have mixed feelings about Roobois' recent resurrection and becoming Lord Commander of the Teaperium.

That's t'eacclesiarchy for you...

I’m all about the home brew, myself.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Catulle wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Catulle wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Catulle wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:


There's no "correct" proportion of milk, sugar, honey or lemon in tea, Slayer...

Tea At All Costs-er!

Name ONE otjher type of tea that's as poorly balanced as Lady Gray! I'll wait.

Rooibos is clearly the red-headed stepchild of the range. Objective. Fact.

A lot of people have mixed feelings about Roobois' recent resurrection and becoming Lord Commander of the Teaperium.

That's t'eacclesiarchy for you...

I’m all about the home brew, myself.

I really enjoy a caffeinated breakfast tea. It helps my psychic awakening in the morning.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 kodos wrote:
it changed a lot, but not the basic mechanics behind the game

Neither did 8th. Its still a d6 system with hit/wound/save rolls.

of course, I guess than Draughts and Go are just different names for the same game

 kodos wrote:
Of course, I guess than Draughts and Go are just different names for the same game

I suppose T.E.A. can be bottled to go, but it's a different experience if you can find a place serving it on draught.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Don't use bad analogies then. Your point of view for the analogy was bloody terrible that I was surprised someone would even try to use it. Paying for a product means your product shouldn't be super defective or not what you ordered. Have some respect for yourself.

It wasn't even MY analogy you !

Goodnight.

Don't defend the bad analogy then.

The only way I can think to make the tea analogy even slightly work is you're charged £15 for a mug of hot water, and told that if you wanted tea you should have brought your own bags, milk and sugar.

Guys. The tea analogy was just to answer that there's no one single set amount that you're supposed to add house-rules. It can be as much, or as little, as you want. It's not an overarching analogy for the whole game.

It wasn't "40k is a like a cup of tea! You modify it to suit your own tastes, and shouldn't complain if it's not fully completed!!", it was "House rules are like what you add to a cup of tea, in that one does it to whatever amount suits your preference".

Look back at what the exchange actually was:

Alice: "how much additional rules are we supposed to add, then?"
Bob: "However much you want, like milk and sweetener for your tea"
Slayer: "ARGH IF I ORDER TEA I WANT IT MADE CORRECTLY ARGH"
Me: "There's no one correct way to add milk / sweetener to tea…"
Slater: "THIS IS A TERRIBLE ANALOGY"
Me: "Well, you aren't applying the analogy to what it was actually referring to…"
Slayer: "YOU MADE A BAD ANALOGY" (followed by lots of incredibly rude, patronizing BS that was bad enough to actually get deleted)

…

It's really not that hard to understand the point of the tea analogy, and it works just fine if you're not taking it out of context or trying to make some weird straw man with it.

Jiminy Crickets.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
Guys. The tea analogy was just to answer that there's no one single set amount that you're supposed to add house-rules. It can be as much, or as little, as you want. It's not an overarching analogy for the whole game.

"how much additional rules are we supposed to add, then?"
"However much you want, like milk and sweetener for your tea"

It's not that hard to understand.

Jiminy Crickets.

Well, yes it is, actually. Because some people pay for the rules so that they don't have to do any work.

We could write the whole game from scratch in each of our garages. Sure, we could. But I didn't pay $80 or whatever for a set of rules that says "do whatever man" on each page with the rest of the space being spent on huge art spreads.

House-ruling 40k isn't like adding sugar or lemon to tea at all. House ruling 40k is akin to being handed hot water and asked to harvest and implement your own tea leaves!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
Guys. The tea analogy was just to answer that there's no one single set amount that you're supposed to add house-rules. It can be as much, or as little, as you want. It's not an overarching analogy for the whole game.

"how much additional rules are we supposed to add, then?"
"However much you want, like milk and sweetener for your tea"

It's not that hard to understand.

Jiminy Crickets.

Well, yes it is, actually. Because some people pay for the rules so that they don't have to do any work.

We could write the whole game from scratch in each of our garages. Sure, we could. But I didn't pay $80 or whatever for a set of rules that says "do whatever man" on each page with the rest of the space being spent on huge art spreads.

House-ruling 40k isn't like adding sugar or lemon to tea at all. House ruling 40k is akin to being handed hot water and asked to harvest and implement your own tea leaves!

AGAIN:

It's not an analogy for the game or the game's rules. It is not saying they are like tea. It is saying that HOUSE RULES are like WHAT YOU PUT IN TEA in terms of THERE BEING NO PARTICULAR AMOUNT YOU'RE "SUPPOSED" TO DO SO.

For crying out loud!!!

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
Guys. The tea analogy was just to answer that there's no one single set amount that you're supposed to add house-rules. It can be as much, or as little, as you want. It's not an overarching analogy for the whole game.

"how much additional rules are we supposed to add, then?"
"However much you want, like milk and sweetener for your tea"

It's not that hard to understand.

Jiminy Crickets.

Well, yes it is, actually. Because some people pay for the rules so that they don't have to do any work.

We could write the whole game from scratch in each of our garages. Sure, we could. But I didn't pay $80 or whatever for a set of rules that says "do whatever man" on each page with the rest of the space being spent on huge art spreads.

House-ruling 40k isn't like adding sugar or lemon to tea at all. House ruling 40k is akin to being handed hot water and asked to harvest and implement your own tea leaves!

AGAIN:

It's not an analogy for the game or the game's rules. It is not saying they are like tea. It is saying that HOUSE RULES are like WHAT YOU PUT IN TEA in terms of THERE BEING NO PARTICULAR AMOUNT YOU'RE "SUPPOSED" TO DO SO.

For crying out loud!!!

That is patently false, because without house rules certain core mechanics (ref: assault weapons, pistols) fail to function.

So clearly the answer is "however many to patch those" at the very least.

And that's the problem. 0 should be an option.

*sigh*

You guys are being stubborn and fussy to the point of willful misinterpretation of very clear, simple ideas.

Not everyone thinks assault guns are broken. Zero is, indeed, an option. Just like black tea. It may be an unpopular option, like black tea with no sugar, but it is an option. And the analogy was just there to answer one weird question. That's it.

This is just…

…

Something. Let me just say this thread sure is… Something.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
*sigh*

You guys are being stubborn and fussy to the point of willful misinterpretation of very clear, simple ideas.

Not everyone thinks assault guns are broken. Zero is, indeed, an option. Just like black tea. It may be an unpopular option, like black tea with no sugar, but it is an option.

This is just…

…

Something. Let me just say this thread sure is… Something.

I play with them the way they are. It's fine, in real life. I've never even trotted out that silly argument IRL.

But that's a house-rule, you know. And a perfect example of awful rules writing.