Just something I was thinking about.

There are people who played earlier editions, who complain about how 40K these days is so terrible, etc.

However-

The phrase "forge the narrative" is often mocked. Similarly, there were complaints about both the 6th edition rulebook having a mention of improvised rules, and that for example the debut battle report of the Tau was a custom scenario with third party Sternguard, etc. But, both 2nd and 3rd editions* were all about putting the story before trying to win.

* Most people apparently either thought second ed is/was the best thing ever, or was terrible. I'm mentioning both second and third to include both sides of the divide.

Second edition era, not only did White Dwarfs frequently use/encourage house rules, but, for example, when the Firebase, the White Dwarf included ideas for scenarios. Things like "one side has to hold the landing pad until a squadron of Land Speeders can be refulled and launched".There weren't any mechanics for refuelling Land Speeders, in either the White Dwarf or the rulebook, or anything close to mechanics. The players were encouraged to design their own scenario and rules.

The third edition rulebook was very clear in encouraging improvised rules (maybe the second edition book too but my younger brother had that one...). It had four terrain generators for different planets, and suggested those as a guideline to design other planets' terrain generators).

Another thing: the complaints about certain overpowered units essentially ruining the game. Even second edition had the sixteen Pulsa Rokkit list, among other things. he only difference was that Games Workshop were more vocal that the game wasn't intended to be played that way, and you shouldn't do it**. I can't imagine that now, if White Dwarf articles said the same thing about [unit] spam lists, it wouldn't be ridiculed- by the same people who were fine with that attitude in earlier editions.

** Probably because, while tournaments existed and were kinda semi-competitive, it wasn't intended for truly competitive WAAC types in 2nd, wasn't in 3rd, and isn't now.

While my memories of forums at the time have faded, I don't remember anyone during third edition being so competitive they would avoid ice world generation, as hills were dangerous terrain, or death worlds because of terrain attacking models and whatnot.

These days theres an attitude - I suspect it might come from the video game community - about how winning is everything, and it seems like those people try to apply it to 40K where it doesn't fit. Presumably that's where the attitude of the people wanting the rules to be set in stone comes from, though I've even seen complaints about rules that require interpretation or even common sense, which frankly is... I don't even know...

I suspect many competitive players, even ones that complain about how older editions were better, would pitch a fit if you asked them to emulate rules from death worlds***, or half the third edition missions, or the scenarios suggested throughout second edition white dwarfs.

*** - a certain terrain feature would kill one member of a non-vehicle unit that got too close on a 4+. Now, consider lists that spam Riptides/Wraithknights...

I miss Death World generation. I miss forests in general really. Everything is all about ruins and factories now... Once my little group of friends gets more used to the rules themselves, I'm going to introduce them to the alternative styles. Planetstrike missions, Death World terrain, Altar of War missions, it can end up being a very good time again besides 'Oh it's mission 3 today... Hope I get "Capture Objective 3" because then I win by deployment.'

I have a lot of fun in 7th, and I do really like to win and would be happy winning every game, but I picked up all sorts of alternative game modes the other day and was seven kinds of happy at the possibilities I could make again.

Tyranno wrote:


These days theres an attitude - I suspect it might come from the video game community - about how winning is everything, and it seems like those people try to apply it to 40K where it doesn't fit. Presumably that's where the attitude of the people wanting the rules to be set in stone comes from, though I've even seen complaints about rules that require interpretation or even common sense, which frankly is... I don't even know...

Are you saying its a good thing the rules are vague, nebulous, ambiguous, and open to interpretation? There are numerous instances in the rules that common sense or interpretation don't cover, at least not universally.

People wanting rules to be 'set in stone', or rather lets use a better term, properly written, are people who want to sit down with someone and not have to 4+ a rules disagreement or thumb back and forth through the book to find a particular rule. Dozens of games get this right. Why is it unreasonable to want/expect it from 40k?

Further, I don't see any of this winning is everything attitude. I know people want a game where the victor is decided by skill and not random tables and list strength, which is not only reasonable, but expected from a quality wargame charging $100 for the rules.

I suspect many competitive players, even ones that complain about how older editions were better, would pitch a fit if you asked them to emulate rules from death worlds***, or half the third edition missions, or the scenarios suggested throughout second edition white dwarfs.

I suspect you suspect a lot of things that have no backing beyond your own experiences. I suspect many players would be happy if the rules, I don't know, improved. Currently, 40k is neither good for competitive play, or narrative play.

Your basic premise that everyone that plays to win isn't out for fun and is just a WAAC player.
You won't gain any understanding of others' arguments until you get rid of your own confusion.

Tyranno wrote:
Just
While my memories of forums at the time have faded, I don't remember anyone during third edition being so competitive they would avoid ice world generation, as hills were dangerous terrain, or death worlds because of terrain attacking models and whatnot.

These days theres an attitude - I suspect it might come from the video game community - about how winning is everything, and it seems like those people try to apply it to 40K where it doesn't fit. Presumably that's where the attitude of the people wanting the rules to be set in stone comes from, though I've even seen complaints about rules that require interpretation or even common sense, which frankly is... I don't even know...

Nope, the attitude of 'winning is everything' predates video games. You might not remember those competitive people running competitive builds back in the day, but I certainly do.

Tyranno wrote:
The phrase "forge the narrative" is often mocked.

Yes, it is. Because it's used as an excuse for the rules not being competently (or completely) written, in a game that due to it's nature is not actually particularly suited to narrative play.

6th/7th edition has some great ideas for narrative building, but implements them in a way that makes no sense. Want to build a back-story for your army that you carry with them from battle to battle? You can't, unless your story includes an explanation as to why your army commander and any psykers tagging along all have multiple personality disorder, thanks to the random generation of warlord traits and psychic powers (and yes, people hated the random generation of psychic powers in 2nd edition as well).

40K has always been intended as a way to tell a story, yes. But the last couple of editions have focussed far more on that side of it, while at the same time completely failing to actually incorporate that narrative building into the game.

While my memories of forums at the time have faded, I don't remember anyone during third edition being so competitive they would avoid ice world generation, as hills were dangerous terrain, or death worlds because of terrain attacking models and whatnot.

I don't remember anyone in 3rd edition ever actually using the terrain generator at all.

These days theres an attitude - I suspect it might come from the video game community - about how winning is everything, and it seems like those people try to apply it to 40K where it doesn't fit. Presumably that's where the attitude of the people wanting the rules to be set in stone comes from, though I've even seen complaints about rules that require interpretation or even common sense, which frankly is... I don't even know...

This is a common misconception. For starters, there have always been players who were in it to win it. What has changed is that somewhere along the line people decided that playing a game that pits two players against each other for the purpose of one of them beating the other and caring about the outcome is in some way a bad thing...

Meanwhile, the competitive players aren't the only ones who want clear, concise rules. Having unclear, badly written rules is actually more of a problem for the casual player. Because in a tournament setting, when a rule is unclear you have a judge to make a ruling. In a casual game, particularly if you're playing someone you don't know well, you're left to reach an agreement amongst yourselves, and that's not always a smooth ride. Every unclear rule is one more hurdle in just getting on with playing the game, especially when you find yourself across the table from someone with a slightly different outlook on the game to your own.

I suspect many competitive players, even ones that complain about how older editions were better, would pitch a fit if you asked them to emulate rules from death worlds***, or half the third edition missions, or the scenarios suggested throughout second edition white dwarfs.

*** - a certain terrain feature would kill one member of a non-vehicle unit that got too close on a 4+. Now, consider lists that spam Riptides/Wraithknights...

You don't need to suspect. People complained about Mysterious Terrain for the brief lifespan of 6th edition... because it was extra randomness that didn't actually add a great deal to the game other than randomness for randomness' sake, and unfairly penalised some armies over others.

Properly written basic and advanced play rules would allow me to create a better narrative experience.

The further GW goes with adding to already shaky RT/2nd ed mechanics the further away narrative gaming gets.

YMMV.

As above

Its hard to forge the narrative when you are spending half the game argueing or getting blownover because some one always brings 20 Daemon princes of nurgle that fly.

Tyranno wrote:


These days theres an attitude - I suspect it might come from the video game community - about how winning is everything, and it seems like those people try to apply it to 40K where it doesn't fit. Presumably that's where the attitude of the people wanting the rules to be set in stone comes from, though I've even seen complaints about rules that require interpretation or even common sense, which frankly is... I don't even know...

I suspect many competitive players, even ones that complain about how older editions were better, would pitch a fit if you asked them to emulate rules from death worlds***, or half the third edition missions, or the scenarios suggested throughout second edition white dwarfs.

*** - a certain terrain feature would kill one member of a non-vehicle unit that got too close on a 4+. Now, consider lists that spam Riptides/Wraithknights...

In the past White Dwarf and 40k were popular in the AD&D and other roleplaying communities and that influence is still strong at GW. I think current player base, particularly outside of GW's home market, has a far greater share of gamers among them, people with a background in videogames and cardgames and they place a stronger emphasis on a solid set of rules to play a game rather than a set of guidelines to tell a story. In part this development has been driven by the company as the trend from 2nd to 5th was one of streamlining the game which attracted a different type of player. However in 6th there is this strong U-turn towards narrative gaming. It's not weird that this leads to a disconnect with the player base.

many people just dont like change. You get used to something and when it is changed, you have to change in some way yourself.
This change is often unwanted in terms of gaming because often times, players will find loopholes that they can exploit or the game just fits their individual style.
Of course, no matter what you do, you will never make EVERYONE happy. Today, we see players cry and whine because of how they feel the game has changed and gone downhill. If you changed it to suit them, they would be singing GW's praises and you would have a different set whining and crying.
You learn to live with it.

GW's repeated efforts to update their rules has lead them to become like a copy of a copy.

Data is constantly degraded.

At its heart the rules that were somewhat okay for narrative based skirmish gaming (overseen by a GM no less) are the same that are being pushed for battalion+ sized gaming with vehicles and other shenanigans.

If anything I long for the narrative based days of massive battles (Epic) with some individual platoon unit actions taking place with 40k and maybe some space based combat too (spacefleet/BFG).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
many people just dont like change. You get used to something and when it is changed, you have to change in some way yourself.
This change is often unwanted in terms of gaming because often times, players will find loopholes that they can exploit or the game just fits their individual style.
Of course, no matter what you do, you will never make EVERYONE happy. Today, we see players cry and whine because of how they feel the game has changed and gone downhill. If you changed it to suit them, they would be singing GW's praises and you would have a different set whining and crying.
You learn to live with it.

I have played every incarnation of 40k. Maybe I see it through rose tinted specs. I have to say what I see though.

40k has never really been up to scratch rules wise - I have always said it about 40k from RT upwards. And I would hate to play a game of RT now.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Today, we see players cry and whine because of how they feel the game has changed and gone downhill.

I see far more people dismiss complaints as 'whining' than I see actual whining.

How about we try to avoid using loaded language to stir up trouble, hmm?

 EVIL INC wrote:
many people just dont like change. You get used to something and when it is changed, you have to change in some way yourself.
This change is often unwanted in terms of gaming because often times, players will find loopholes that they can exploit or the game just fits their individual style.
Of course, no matter what you do, you will never make EVERYONE happy. Today, we see players cry and whine because of how they feel the game has changed and gone downhill. If you changed it to suit them, they would be singing GW's praises and you would have a different set whining and crying.
You learn to live with it.

I've also played through every edition from RT to 6th. Adapting to change isn't it at all. (And if you'd ever listen, you'd know that.) What we don't like are changes that make the game less fun. (subjective) So, some people find the new changes decrease their enjoyment of the game.
Also, I love change when it's for the better. I changed from 40k to other games and I'm adapting nicely.

Tyranno wrote:
Just something I was thinking about.

I feel your thinking is misdirected.

There are people who played earlier editions, who complain about how 40K these days is so terrible, etc.

However-

The phrase "forge the narrative" is often mocked. Similarly, there were complaints about both the 6th edition rulebook having a mention of improvised rules, and that for example the debut battle report of the Tau was a custom scenario with third party Sternguard, etc. But, both 2nd and 3rd editions* were all about putting the story before trying to win.

* Most people apparently either thought second ed is/was the best thing ever, or was terrible. I'm mentioning both second and third to include both sides of the divide.

Second edition era, not only did White Dwarfs frequently use/encourage house rules, but, for example, when the Firebase, the White Dwarf included ideas for scenarios. Things like "one side has to hold the landing pad until a squadron of Land Speeders can be refulled and launched".There weren't any mechanics for refuelling Land Speeders, in either the White Dwarf or the rulebook, or anything close to mechanics. The players were encouraged to design their own scenario and rules.

The third edition rulebook was very clear in encouraging improvised rules (maybe the second edition book too but my younger brother had that one...). It had four terrain generators for different planets, and suggested those as a guideline to design other planets' terrain generators).

People don't dislike improvised and house rules. The reason "forge the narrative" has become a joke is because the core rules are poorly written so people take "forge the narrative" to mean "don't worry about the fethed up rules, you just aren't forging the narrative hard enough!!".

Also, no one (or very few) thinks "2nd edition was the best ever". I prefer 2nd edition, not because I think it was perfect, but because I think the core design (other than CC) was better designed. There were a bunch of additions to the core rules that fethed things up and made it time consuming and unbalanced, but the core systems of armour save modifers, to hit modifiers, the idea of run, move/shoot or assault vs the current system where you have 3 separate phases within a turn where you can choose to move.

When I feel nostalgic about 2nd, it's not "oh 2nd edition was awesome and everything since is crap". No, it's "why the feth didn't GW just fix 2nd edition instead of bringing out 3rd edition and then having 16 years of new editions and still have crap rules".

It's not a case of "X edition was awesome and now this edition sucks". It's more "Why the feth have I been playing for 25 years and GW still can't figure out how to write rules that make since and are somewhat balanced".

Another thing: the complaints about certain overpowered units essentially ruining the game. Even second edition had the sixteen Pulsa Rokkit list, among other things. he only difference was that Games Workshop were more vocal that the game wasn't intended to be played that way, and you shouldn't do it**. I can't imagine that now, if White Dwarf articles said the same thing about [unit] spam lists, it wouldn't be ridiculed- by the same people who were fine with that attitude in earlier editions.

** Probably because, while tournaments existed and were kinda semi-competitive, it wasn't intended for truly competitive WAAC types in 2nd, wasn't in 3rd, and isn't now.

While my memories of forums at the time have faded, I don't remember anyone during third edition being so competitive they would avoid ice world generation, as hills were dangerous terrain, or death worlds because of terrain attacking models and whatnot.

These days theres an attitude - I suspect it might come from the video game community - about how winning is everything, and it seems like those people try to apply it to 40K where it doesn't fit. Presumably that's where the attitude of the people wanting the rules to be set in stone comes from, though I've even seen complaints about rules that require interpretation or even common sense, which frankly is... I don't even know...

I suspect many competitive players, even ones that complain about how older editions were better, would pitch a fit if you asked them to emulate rules from death worlds***, or half the third edition missions, or the scenarios suggested throughout second edition white dwarfs.

*** - a certain terrain feature would kill one member of a non-vehicle unit that got too close on a 4+. Now, consider lists that spam Riptides/Wraithknights...

Again, you seem to think that since the game has always been crap the changing opinions have come from gamers changing. Not all people who dislike 40k are WAAC or hypercompetitive. And guess what, some of the most WAAC and hypercompetitive people I've ever played against were people I played against in the mid 90's.

People used to complain about the rules back then as well. We weren't a hyper competitive group, one of my mate's pretty much always lost though, just his army selection was pathetic vs the other armies we had going and he didn't have the time and money to change it up to create a winning force. He used to always complain about poor balance.

The problem is, 40k has had these issues for at least 20 years... why aren't they fixed?? Why are we still dealing with poorly written rules that have multiple interpretations, why are we having to deal with increasingly convoluted rules, why are we still having to deal with poor balance.

It's not that 40k used to be awesome and now it sucks, it's that after so many years of dealing with the same issues many people get sick of it, and we see new games popping up that are doing a much better job of growing and improving their games while GW sits stagnant, putting out 7th edition that has rules that were ambiguous in 6th and weren't even reworded for 7th.

Within that, you have people who prefer specific editions for various reasons. I don't think anyone is naive enough to think 1 edition was perfect, it's just as GW shuffle rules from one edition to the next instead of actually improving things, inevitably you end up with people who have preference for specific editions.

I think 2nd was the best because I like the core rules the most, but it still needs house rules to fix it. I don't like the way allies are done, I think it's a lazy and poorly done implementation. I don't like the way LoW are done, I think it's a lazy and poorly done implementation. I don't like the way fliers are done I think it's a poor attempt to fit vehicles which are out of scale in to the game. I don't like the way multiple FOC's is done, for years 40k has had poor army selection rules, allowing multiple FOC's and Unbound to me just seems like admitting "well we don't know how to make good army selection rules... so feth army selection rules, take what you want!". So naturally 7th is the edition I like the least.

I'm a fluffy player that thinks its ridiculous that 40k punishes the fluffy player by being curb stomped by every other army. I want a game that rewards fluffy players or at least doesn't beat them up and steal their lunch money.

Agreed. Nobody thinks 2nd Edition was the best thing ever.

The problem is that 3rd was just a different kind of worse.

What 2nd Edition 40K needed was a tweaking and streamlining. 3rd Edition was an entirely new game. And it was crappy.

So if people are nostalgic about 2nd, it is because a lot of people would have liked to see 2nd Edition get massaged into a more sophisticated, balanced, and easy to play ruleset. Which wouldn't have been impossible, or really, even that difficult. Most of the complaints people have about 2nd Edition revolved around overpowered heroes, wonky list balancing, and psychic phases stretching games out too long. Those aren't exactly insurmountable issues. The core ruleset was actually pretty good.

Instead, GW tossed the baby out with the bathwater and rebuilt the game basically from scratch, eliminating all of the wargaming aspects so you could play with more models ($$!) and in less time. 3rd Edition turned 40K into a dice rolling exercise, where you spent a couple hours setting up your models, rolling dice, and removing your models. Every edition through 5th was just a modification of that same silly set of mechanics. More recently, tweaked to drive sales of whatever GW felt you needed more of (vehicles, then flyers, then fortifications, etc)

6th seemed promising, but then GW just threw in the towel and said "Eh, whatever. Superheavies? Sure. Giant robots? Sure. Titans? Sure."

My $0.02 on the whole thing about.
I like the direction the game is going. Since the 6th Edition Codex: Space Marines all of the Codex have gotten much better at being balanced.
They even noticed that the Nid Dex had some issues and are making an attempt to fix it with a new release. [I still don't know about the Dark Eldar, but I think it is still to soon to tell].
It may not be the same game I started with in 1989, but I am still having fun with it.

"Fluffy players" should play with other "Fluffy players," that way they can have some parity with their opponent in regards to their expectation and approach to the game. It's the same with competitive players; they need to play against other people looking to get the same thing out of the game as they are. Fluff players in a competitive environment get beaten; competitive players in a fluff environment attract derision because they're playing to win.

Don't worry about forging the narrative, worry about forging a better social contract with your gaming.

 SkaerKrow wrote:
"Fluffy players" should play with other "Fluffy players," that way they can have some parity with their opponent in regards to their expectation and approach to the game. It's the same with competitive players; they need to play against other people looking to get the same thing out of the game as they are. Fluff players in a competitive environment get beaten; competitive players in a fluff environment attract derision because they're playing to win.

Except that's exactly the problem. What if a competitive player also wants to be a fluffy player?

The fact that the game creates that distinction is absurd.

You shouldn't need to hold interviews in order to find an opponent that you might have a chance of having an enjoyable game with.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

What 2nd Edition 40K needed was a tweaking and streamlining. 3rd Edition was an entirely new game. And it was crappy.

Id like to see it

Iv never played 2nd ed. exactly how different was it?

 SkaerKrow wrote:
"Fluffy players" should play with other "Fluffy players," that way they can have some parity with their opponent in regards to their expectation and approach to the game. It's the same with competitive players; they need to play against other people looking to get the same thing out of the game as they are. Fluff players in a competitive environment get beaten; competitive players in a fluff environment attract derision because they're playing to win.

Don't worry about forging the narrative, worry about forging a better social contract with your gaming.

WS Spam is fluffy....

 Desubot wrote:
Iv never played 2nd ed. exactly how different was it?

The very basic structure was more or less the same as it is now. Charging and running were part of the movement phase. Models had a 90 degree arc of fire to their front, and had to fire at the closest target (but different models in the unit could fire at different things if they were facing different directions). Overwatch was a condition you entered instead of shooting in the shooting phase, and allowed you to take a shot during the enemy movement phase instead. Rolling to Hit and Wound involved a bunch of modifiers (short or long range, strength of the weapon, various assorted other things). Weapons that fired multiple shots had a specal die, and could jam. Enemy models could be set on fire and would then run randomly around the board. Close Combat was worked out one model vs one model at a time, which got painful in larger battles. Vehicles had datacards, with hits being assigned to different locations (hull, tracks, turret, etc) could could each have their own armour value and different damage results. Vehicles also had turning arcs which limited how many times they could change direction on the move. Psychic powers were resolved with a deck of cards. Orks were fun. Chaos was interesting. And Space Wolves and Eldar ruled the galaxy.

I enjoyed this post, and agree

Tyranno wrote:
Just something I was thinking about.
There are people who played earlier editions, who complain about how 40K these days is so terrible, etc.

As you allude to, this is in large part due to the emphasis on winning and the willingness to jump through hoops of fire to do so, something that was not as prevalent in 2nd and 3rd edition eras. In addition, back then there wasn't really high speed Internet, meaning a an exploitative idea didn't get refined and shared with the entire universe overnight.

Tyranno wrote:
These days theres an attitude - I suspect it might come from the video game community - about how winning is everything, and it seems like those people try to apply it to 40K where it doesn't fit. Presumably that's where the attitude of the people wanting the rules to be set in stone comes from, though I've even seen complaints about rules that require interpretation or even common sense, which frankly is... I don't even know...

This is absolutely true. In a competitive/ranked multiplayer (or duel) video game, the system does the matchmaking, and your only objective is winning. There is really no point to playing other than to improve your skills and try to win, because losing to a stranger is not rewarding.

On the other hand, this attitude is terrible for wargaming, in my opinion. It just sucks all the fun out of it. To me, Wargaming is supposed to be about junk food, pop, and epic battles between friends

 Desubot wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

What 2nd Edition 40K needed was a tweaking and streamlining. 3rd Edition was an entirely new game. And it was crappy.

Id like to see it

Iv never played 2nd ed. exactly how different was it?

I've got some of the 2E books right here, and it was *very* different. Everything had a move stat like Fantasy (and assaults were initiated in the movement phase likewise), weapons had armor save modifiers instead of an AP, many weapons did multiple wounds (a Lascannon would inflict 2d6 wounds if it wounded, a heavy bolter d4), multi-meltas were blast weapons, close combat was far more complicated and involved, vehicles had individual hit locations, most models could only shoot in a forward 90* arc, lots of weapons could jam or explode spectacularly (e.g. Assault Cannons), Deep Strike capability was *very* expensive, model count was half or a third of what it is now (basic marine is like 33pts), models hit by a flamer would catch fire and keep burning, exploding tanks could have a turret fly off and land on (and blow up) another tank, etc.

Much smaller scale, much more detailed rules, lots of randomness, etc.

 insaniak wrote:
Except that's exactly the problem. What if a competitive player also wants to be a fluffy player?

The fact that the game creates that distinction is absurd.

You shouldn't need to hold interviews in order to find an opponent that you might have a chance of having an enjoyable game with.

I mostly find distinctions like WAAC, competitive and fluffy to be pointless because it seems odd to me that someone would actually fall entirely in to 1 category.

On this forum I'd probably be considered competitive, bordering on WAAC because I like to win and I think the rules should be played as written unless agreed to beforehand and I have no problem calling people out on moving their models 6.2" instead of 6". It's a game and I think it should be played as I'd play any other game, I play to the rules and I expect my opponent to do so as well.

But then personally, I identify more as a fluffy player. I collect armies because I like the fluff and the aesthetic. There's not an army I didn't start because of fluff/aesthetics, I didn't start any of my armies because I thought they were the best competitively.

...but then once I am collecting an army I look for the best builds and I tend not to take things that suck. This might get me labelled as competitive but IMO it's actually because I'm fluffy, it breaks my immersion when my army is repeatedly tabled by turn 3 so even if I like certain troops from a fluff and aesthetics point of view I won't take them if they're a crutch.

But anyway, yeah, the fact we make these distinctions is because we are trying to fit within the crappy rules not because they are genuinely useful distinctions.

Talys wrote:
As you allude to, this is in large part due to the emphasis on winning and the willingness to jump through hoops of fire to do so, something that was not as prevalent in 2nd and 3rd edition eras.

It really isn't.

People were playing to win back in 2nd edition as well. As others have pointed out, the reason people are complaining about the game now is that GW have had 20+ years and 7 editions to get the rules into some semblance of order, and have completely and utterly failed to do so.

Each edition, instead of refining the rules and clearing out issues, just changes stuff around and introduces as many or more new issues as it removes.

Case in point: Captain Shrike was introduced in 4th edition with a rule that allowed a unit joined to him to infiltrate... but had no legal way for this to actually happen. It wasn't until towards the end of 5th edition that GW got around to fixing this, by issuing an errata to the rules for ICs joining units that actually allowed them to join a unit before deployment. And then 3 minutes later, 6th edition came along with no sign of that change, and we went back to Shrike having an almost completely useless special rule.


A big part of the problem is simply that, thanks to their refusal to actively engage with the community, GW are totally out of touch with how people actually play their games. Prime example: When 7th edition was released, the designers' notes talked about how they felt that Psykers needed beefing up because all of the Marine players in the studio tended to take Chaplains and Captains instead of Librarians. Which is completely at odds with how everyone outside the studio was building Marine armies.

No, the problem isn't people wanting to win. It's people wanting the self-proclaimed market leader to produce a product after 6 previous attempts that in some way resembles a market-leading product.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Except that's exactly the problem. What if a competitive player also wants to be a fluffy player?

The fact that the game creates that distinction is absurd.

You shouldn't need to hold interviews in order to find an opponent that you might have a chance of having an enjoyable game with.

I mostly find distinctions like WAAC, competitive and fluffy to be pointless because it seems odd to me that someone would actually fall entirely in to 1 category.

On this forum I'd probably be considered competitive, bordering on WAAC because I like to win and I think the rules should be played as written unless agreed to beforehand and I have no problem calling people out on moving their models 6.2" instead of 6". It's a game and I think it should be played as I'd play any other game, I play to the rules and I expect my opponent to do so as well.

But then personally, I identify more as a fluffy player. I collect armies because I like the fluff and the aesthetic. There's not an army I didn't start because of fluff/aesthetics, I didn't start any of my armies because I thought they were the best competitively.

...but then once I am collecting an army I look for the best builds and I tend not to take things that suck. This might get me labelled as competitive but IMO it's actually because I'm fluffy, it breaks my immersion when my army is repeatedly tabled by turn 3 so even if I like certain troops from a fluff and aesthetics point of view I won't take them if they're a crutch.

But anyway, yeah, the fact we make these distinctions is because we are trying to fit within the crappy rules not because they are genuinely useful distinctions.

I don't think any of the things you describe are WAAC. Packing an army with wave serpents and fire dragons, riptides, IKs, or wraithknights, or any other gimicky army is WAAC, in my book.

Desiring to win and calling out cheating, and knowing the rules and enforcing them is just bring competent. I think a casual player (like me) will do the same thin as golf and offer a handicap if I know it's a skewed fight. When it comes to golf, I will happily take a handicap too

Frankly, I don't know why WAAC is a bad thing, anyhow. These players are identified very quickly and stick to themselves.

Oh, regarding 2nd ed -- I actually miss the small scale nature of it . A very different game.

I entered the game with 5th edition and I sorely miss the wound allocation rules. I know multi wound models like nobz and paladins abused them but that should have been a quick and easy fix. Instead we got removal from the front in 6th quick just sucks.

This has nothing to do with competitiveness or whatever, I just hate that positioning each individual guy in a mass battle game is important. It slows everything down and completely breaks the narrative when an Ork or marine squad leader is leading his men from the back.

Talys wrote:
Packing an army with wave serpents and fire dragons, riptides, IKs, or wraithknights, or any other gimicky army is WAAC, in my book.

What if you packed your army with wave serpents, fire dragons and wraithknights because you just happen to like the models?

 insaniak wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Today, we see players cry and whine because of how they feel the game has changed and gone downhill.

I see far more people dismiss complaints as 'whining' than I see actual whining.

How about we try to avoid using loaded language to stir up trouble, hmm?

My bad. It was not intended to start anything. I myself "whined" when they changed chaos from the classic Realm of Chaos books. My apologies to anyone who mighta been insulted because it was not meant to be one. It is just a general figure of speach that has been in the gaming community since before I started gaming. Maybe it is my age and using old figures of speach that younger players arent used to that causes them to take me the wrong way. Whatever the case, It was not meant to incite. It was also not meant to dismiss.

Maybe "complain" would be better to say? I've done it myself on occasion and I complain now to this day about the game and aspects of it.
I've learned though that there will always be aspects that you like or dislike about any new edition as they are released.
I think the level of complaining you do will often be influanced by how important the change is to the part of the game that you "like" the most or which is more important to you.

For example...
I ike the hobby aspect of the game. The painting and converting to make your stuff look cooler or more uniquely "you". You will find me complain about the whole MFA thing and argue both sides of the fence about MFA. This is more of a community issue than anything because iearly on, it just was not done as often because of a lack of officil tourneys and so forth. As these came to the fore and you started seeing it more and more GW started to move away from making the game conversion friendly to the point where we are now where players are afrain of doing ANY changes to their models to make them look cool for fear of being acused of MFA. So yes, you find me complain on this. Because in the old days we just used comman sense and just didnt try it.
Another thing is the "power" of different kinds of fighting. As a science fiction game, I always felt that guns and ranged weaponry should be more to the fore with close combatplaying second fiddle excaept for such armies that used it as a main combat form and even then, those should also rely on guns of some kind. I was not happy in earlier editions because the game was reversed with assault to the fore.
I had not really complained though. A lot of this is because thats how it was to begin with. It was not "changed" to that as thats how it was.
Another thing that you will find me complain about is the fluff. i love the fluff and it is still a huge draw for me. I complained when orks went from brutes who had young and drank fungus beer to becoming walking mushrooms themselves, when the slann were removed, when the squats were killed, a host of other changes as well.

With the rules, I epect that different mechanics will be better or wors so I just accept them and focus on the bigger 3 pictures I mentioned above knowing that there will be aspects I dont like. Glass half full rather than half empty, I reckon. Personally, I feel that if you focus on those aspects you dont like to the exclusion of all the good that is left or good that COULD be or the good you have already had, you are hurting yourselfand when you fight too hard to force it onto others, your hurting others by tainting their view when it might not otherwise have been tainted thus harming the hobby as a whole. Of course, thats just my opinion.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Maybe it is my age and using old figures of speach that younger players arent used to that causes them to take me the wrong way.

'Younger player' is not a term I would apply to myself. It's nothing to do with age. Labelling someone's opinion as 'whining' suggests that there is no legitimacy to that opinion... it's just that person having a whinge. So yes, using the word 'complaint' in relation to a complain is going to be less likely to rile people up.

.... As these came to the fore and you started seeing it more and more GW started to move away from making the game conversion friendly...

The what to the who, now?

The game is no less 'conversion friendly' now than it ever was. GW's lack of emphasis on conversions in the last edition or so is nothing to do with what competitive players are doing, but simply the result of less time and money being spent on studio models.

If players are 'afraid' of converting their models, it's the result of their community going a little overboard on enforcing MFA-infractions, not anything that GW have done.

I haven't seen much evidence of that, though. From my experience, there are far more converted armies out there these days than there were back in 2nd ed.

As a science fiction game,...

40K is more Science Fantasy than Science Fiction. The setting was never intended to be hardcore SciFi. It's elves and orcs and magic in space.

 Desubot wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

What 2nd Edition 40K needed was a tweaking and streamlining. 3rd Edition was an entirely new game. And it was crappy.

Id like to see it

Iv never played 2nd ed. exactly how different was it?

Like others have said, a lot.

It was much more wargamey. Vehicles had movement rates (that they had to cycle through) and turning radiuses; damage charts were a bit more exciting (exploding Hellhounds = hilarious). Models had facings, but units could split fire ("Durr, you mean we shouldn't shoot our bolters at that tanks? Just Bob with his missile launcher?"), and the missile launcher could stand still and everyone else could move so long as the unit stayed within coherency, for example. Overwatch was a "condition", where the unit gave up its own shooting phase to fire (with a slight penalty) in the opponent's turn. Assault troops were much better at their job, but they were also much more fragile (imagine that, in a game where there are guns) so required more intelligence to maneuver into position. Tyranids could shoot. Orks could shoot. Not only that, they were actually pretty good at it. And so on.

Not everything was great. Armor save modifiers needed to be toned down/refined (the all-or-nothing AP stat isn't ideal either). Close combat was clunky. Characters were overpowered (WS 10 Chaos lord wiping out my 6 genestealers in close combat comes to mind). Psychic phase was time consuming (I saw psykers banned at more than one store tournament simply out of interests of time). A lot of silly wargear (virus grenades for example, but again, a lot of these things were consensus banned at most stores/gaming groups). Some wonky army lists (Woot woot, All Wolf Guard Termis with Assault Cannon/Cyclone Spam!) But these were really just a byproduct of the game still not having fully found its identity in the wake of Rogue Trader.

A 2.5th Edition game could have easily fixed these things. Heck, most of them disappeared in 3rd, so we know they were easily fixable. I mean, it isn't like there was something unique to 3rd Edition that allowed it to reorganize army list building, or leave out Vortex Grenades, or disallow 5 Space Wolf Terminators with fully automatic krak missile launchers (the Assault Cannon was S8 in 2nd) and a 12" pieplate. But what 3rd Edition did instead was completely gimp shooting by nearly halving effective ranges, and almost doubling movement rates (tripling it in some cases), removing overwatch, strengthening armor (in many cases at least), removing the ability to shoot into close combat, etc. Most of 3+th Edition 40K stems from this change. There was no such thing as an "Assault Army" in 2nd Edition, so there was no need to balance the game for that.

Ultimately, most wargames exist in an "era" so they have less trouble balancing. There will be play style balances. Some armies will be more professional, better equipped, etc, but everybody uses the same weapons and more or less the same tactics. Ancients or medievals, everyone has spears and rudimentary ranged weapons. WW2, everyone is using guns, etc. When you try to blend fantasy and science fiction as hard as 40K tried to in 3rd Edition, ultimately you're adding layers of complexity that a simple game like 40K is going to struggle to balance. Thus why there were so many complaints in 6th Edition about it "nerfing assault". Because players who played factions that had become reliant on close combat units (and balanced in that direction in previous editions, not to mention the model releases for those factions oriented in that direction too). Those play styles would have never existed in a 2.5th Edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

Talys wrote:
Packing an army with wave serpents and fire dragons, riptides, IKs, or wraithknights, or any other gimicky army is WAAC, in my book.

What if you packed your army with wave serpents, fire dragons and wraithknights because you just happen to like the models?

Then you're a lucky WAACer?

 insaniak wrote:

Talys wrote:
Packing an army with wave serpents and fire dragons, riptides, IKs, or wraithknights, or any other gimicky army is WAAC, in my book.

What if you packed your army with wave serpents, fire dragons and wraithknights because you just happen to like the models?

WAAC is more about the Attitude.
>Look at my Waves Serpents, don't they look cool with their paint job. Not WAAC
>My Wave Serpents are going to kick your and there is nothing you can do about it. WAAC

 Anpu42 wrote:

WAAC is more about the Attitude.
>Look at my Waves Serpents, don't they look cool with their paint job. Not WAAC
>My Wave Serpents are going to kick your and there is nothing you can do about it. WAAC

I've come across any number of competitive players who were well adjusted enough to not talk smack unless it was amongst friends who they knew would take it in the right spirit.

You're equating wanting to win with being an ass, which is not necessarily the case.

Talys wrote:
I don't think any of the things you describe are WAAC.

We had a thread a short while back about what the definition of WAAC was... I don't think most people would consider me WAAC but the definitions several people gave in that thread I would be, that's why I just said "bordering on WAAC"

 insaniak wrote:

Talys wrote:
Packing an army with wave serpents and fire dragons, riptides, IKs, or wraithknights, or any other gimicky army is WAAC, in my book.

What if you packed your army with wave serpents, fire dragons and wraithknights because you just happen to like the models?

Whatever, man, play with what you like . If nobody wants to play with ya, deems the breaks.

Our gaming groups has unit limits on super-heavies (based on game point cost) and ratio requirements that scale up the cost of certain units past 3 to discourage cheesy lists.

Talys wrote:
Whatever, man, play with what you like . If nobody wants to play with ya, deems the breaks. .

But that was the point. This isn't a problem of player attitude... it's a flaw in the rules for building those armies.

A player shouldn't be penalised or looked down on for bringing a legal list. That's just an absurdity, and the fact that so many players are so happy to just accept that this is the way it is and try to section the community off into different 'groups' is a constant source of incredulity for me.

 insaniak wrote:

Talys wrote:
Whatever, man, play with what you like . If nobody wants to play with ya, deems the breaks. .

But that was the point. This isn't a problem of player attitude... it's a flaw in the rules for building those armies.

A player shouldn't be penalised or looked down on for bringing a legal list. That's just an absurdity, and the fact that so many players are so happy to just accept that this is the way it is and try to section the community off into different 'groups' is a constant source of incredulity for me.

Let's just agree to disagree. I don't have a problem recognizing that tabletop games have flaws and that some tuning may be required to suit a play group. To me, this does not reduce the funness of the game even a little.

On an online game with matchmaking, I'm full-on WAAC. First thing I did when Hearthstone went live was spend money until owned every card, and then I mercilessly tuned lists until I got to Legendary, and them worked my way up the ladder. I would never do that in an RL game with friends, because if nothing else I'd rather they keep talking to me.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
GW's repeated efforts to update their rules has lead them to become like a copy of a copy.

Data is constantly degraded.

At its heart the rules that were somewhat okay for narrative based skirmish gaming (overseen by a GM no less) are the same that are being pushed for battalion+ sized gaming with vehicles and other shenanigans.

If anything I long for the narrative based days of massive battles (Epic) with some individual platoon unit actions taking place with 40k and maybe some space based combat too (spacefleet/BFG).

................................

I have played every incarnation of 40k. Maybe I see it through rose tinted specs. I have to say what I see though.

40k has never really been up to scratch rules wise - I have always said it about 40k from RT upwards. And I would hate to play a game of RT now.

I agree with this, but for me there was always a feeling that they were at least trying with every new edition. Like the designer notes that explained why the rules had shifted. Or andy chambers infamous "hey we've come to the conclusion that you're right about terminators, theres a problem and here's our attempt to fix it" crux terminatus save. I had massive respect for that. They started losing momentum with 5th and by 6th there was an immediate and obvious feeling that they were just recycling the same thing over and over again. I think copy of a copy with data degradation sums it up brilliantly.

The problem with bad rules, or leaving questions caused by unanswerable rules interactions is that it kills the ability to be clever.

For instance, you have some building and some terrain set up in the middle of the table. You deploy some set of models near that terrain because according to your understanding, Rule X causes Effect Y so your unit's in a great position. Your opponent looks at that, according to their understanding Rule X causes Effect Z, so they spend two turns moving their unit up the table to attack your unit. You're both sitting their enjoying the feeling of being clever, and then in the third turn of the game you both discover the contradictory interpretations.

And trying to guess what the other player was trying to do doesn't really work to prevent the problem. Because you're just as likely to figure "Oh, that unit's not coming up that direction to do A, because we both know how the rules work, so it must be going off to do something else. Hmmmm...." Not to mention how obnoxious it would be for everyone involved if everyone was constantly having to the other player's second guessing of what they're doing.

So now you're in the middle of the game, and you've both got two turns of actions that you would have done differently if the rules interaction had been discussed earlier. You've got two players who were both trying to be clever, and now neither of them can be.

Talys wrote:
Let's just agree to disagree. I don't have a problem recognizing that tabletop games have flaws and that some tuning may be required to suit a play group. To me, this does not reduce the funness of the game even a little.

I doubt that you will find many people at all who expect a game to have no flaws.

It's having the same flaws carry through 7 iterations that people might start to get a little tired of. The point of a new edition is to finetune the rules, not just to sell new books to everyone.

 insaniak wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

WAAC is more about the Attitude.
>Look at my Waves Serpents, don't they look cool with their paint job. Not WAAC
>My Wave Serpents are going to kick your and there is nothing you can do about it. WAAC

I've come across any number of competitive players who were well adjusted enough to not talk smack unless it was amongst friends who they knew would take it in the right spirit.

You're equating wanting to win with being an ass, which is not necessarily the case.

No, I am equating being a jerk with WAAC.

I was a WAAC Back in 2nd or 3rd, now I am Semi-Competitive-Fluffy Player. I get my enjoyment form the socializing and playing a good game, winning just makes the game better.
Here is the other difference: I will play an Ultra-Competitive Player dragging out 6 Riptides and as long they are cool about it and when I ask for a re-match they don't reply "No Not Until You Play Better." The last line was from WAAC Player.

 Anpu42 wrote:

No, I am equating being a jerk with WAAC.

I was a WAAC Back in 2nd or 3rd, now I am Semi-Competitive-Fluffy Player. I get my enjoyment form the socializing and playing a good game, winning just makes the game better.
Here is the other difference: I will play an Ultra-Competitive Player dragging out 6 Riptides and as long they are cool about it and when I ask for a re-match they don't reply "No Not Until You Play Better." The last line was from WAAC Player.

You know, I think the *concept* of a horde of Orks grunts being able to fight 6 Riptides is actually a cool idea, as in, "What would happen if...". I like that the gaming system supports such a battle. And I like Riptides, IK's, Wraithknights, and Baneblades. I mean, these are awesome models that look epic on a gaming table.

However, I dislike a guy who just wants to play 6 Riptides because he knows that the person he's playing against can't win against them.

I mean, once we figure out a battle is a bad idea (no fun, and totally predictable) -- whether it's Riptide spam or Wave Serpent spam, a "friendly" player would move on, *especially* if no strategy, playskill or luck is involved. I mean, just save everyone the time, right? A WAAC player, instead, would want to keep replaying such lists and to feel that they are "better" player.

Talys -

You may find it fun to house rule but think about it you have paid for the privilege to make up your own rules because the £60 book + codexes as is mean your group wont be happy.

Would you buy into anything else like that in life?

insaniak wrote:
6th/7th edition has some great ideas for narrative building, but implements them in a way that makes no sense. Want to build a back-story for your army that you carry with them from battle to battle? You can't, unless your story includes an explanation as to why your army commander and any psykers tagging along all have multiple personality disorder, thanks to the random generation of warlord traits and psychic powers (and yes, people hated the random generation of psychic powers in 2nd edition as well).

Alright, valid point there

insaniak wrote:
This is a common misconception. For starters, there have always been players who were in it to win it. What has changed is that somewhere along the line people decided that playing a game that pits two players against each other for the purpose of one of them beating the other and caring about the outcome is in some way a bad thing...

However, taking "determine to win" to the level of "it's okay to act like a dick and generally have no social skills", if not originating from the video game community, is largely found there, or at least, in internet gaming communities, which by default are largely video game communities. For some reason, many people apparently think because you're communicating through a computer, social skills and being civil can just be dropped whenever you feel like it).

Desubot wrote:As above

Its hard to forge the narrative when you are spending half the game argueing or getting blownover because some one always brings 20 Daemon princes of nurgle that fly.

MWHistorian wrote:I'm a fluffy player that thinks its ridiculous that 40k punishes the fluffy player by being curb stomped by every other army. I want a game that rewards fluffy players or at least doesn't beat them up and steal their lunch money.

However, much like the Pulsa Rokkit list, today's Wraithknight/Riptide spam lists (or lists with 20 Daemon Princes) weren't supposed to exist. They exist because people want competitive lists for a game that hasn't been truly competitive at any point in its existence. The only differences is, GW being less vocal on the subject of "that's not how the game is intended to be played", and arguably, because it's been around for longer, that people shouldn't be more widely aware it isn't designed with truly competitive armies in mind.

insaniak wrote:
What if you packed your army with wave serpents, fire dragons and wraithknights because you just happen to like the models?

In fairness, liking the models doesn't oblige someone to include the maximum number.

 insaniak wrote:


Case in point: Captain Shrike was introduced in 4th edition with a rule that allowed a unit joined to him to infiltrate... but had no legal way for this to actually happen. It wasn't until towards the end of 5th edition that GW got around to fixing this, by issuing an errata to the rules for ICs joining units that actually allowed them to join a unit before deployment. And then 3 minutes later, 6th edition came along with no sign of that change, and we went back to Shrike having an almost completely useless special rule.

Except not.

If the obvious intention of the rules, then the strict letter of the rules isn't really a barrier, especcially if the rules aren't set in stone, like in 40K.

 solkan wrote:
The problem with bad rules, or leaving questions caused by unanswerable rules interactions is that it kills the ability to be clever.

For instance, you have some building and some terrain set up in the middle of the table. You deploy some set of models near that terrain because according to your understanding, Rule X causes Effect Y so your unit's in a great position. Your opponent looks at that, according to their understanding Rule X causes Effect Z, so they spend two turns moving their unit up the table to attack your unit. You're both sitting their enjoying the feeling of being clever, and then in the third turn of the game you both discover the contradictory interpretations.

Fair point. That would be annoying.

If the obvious intention of the rules, then the strict letter of the rules isn't really a barrier, especcially if the rules aren't set in stone, like in 40K.

It is if your opponent says it is.

However, much like the Pulsa Rokkit list, today's Wraithknight/Riptide spam lists (or lists with 20 Daemon Princes) weren't supposed to exist. They exist because people want competitive lists for a game that hasn't been truly competitive at any point in its existence. The only differences is, GW being less vocal on the subject of "that's not how the game is intended to be played", and arguably, because it's been around for longer, that people shouldn't be more widely aware it isn't designed with truly competitive armies in mind.

If it's not intended to be played that way, why not write your ruleset to indicate this?

It'd be real easy to add caps to how many of Unit X can appear on the table.

Tyranno wrote:

However, taking "determine to win" to the level of "it's okay to act like a dick and generally have no social skills", if not originating from the video game community, is largely found there, or at least, in internet gaming communities, which by default are largely video game communities. For some reason, many people apparently think because you're communicating through a computer, social skills and being civil can just be dropped whenever you feel like it).

There is no correlation between being determined to win and acting like a dick. They are two entirely seperate problems. People who act like dicks and generally lack social skills will act that way regardless of the list they use or skill at the game.

However, much like the Pulsa Rokkit list, today's Wraithknight/Riptide spam lists (or lists with 20 Daemon Princes) weren't supposed to exist. They exist because people want competitive lists for a game that hasn't been truly competitive at any point in its existence. The only differences is, GW being less vocal on the subject of "that's not how the game is intended to be played", and arguably, because it's been around for longer, that people shouldn't be more widely aware it isn't designed with truly competitive armies in mind.

How do you know they weren't supposed to exist? What a bold claim with nothing to back it up. If its in the codex, and fits within the Force Org chart (or indeed, Unbound now), then who are you to say it wasn't intented?

Further, how is the game intended to played? If they wanted it to be played a certain way, the rules would reflect that. Currently, they don't. It sounds a lot like you're telling us how we should play based on how you enjoy playing.

Your argument slides down a slippery slope of trying to say a certain way of having fun is superior.

In fairness, liking the models doesn't oblige someone to include the maximum number.

In fairness, someone shouldn't be judged for taking the amount of models they want for any reason.

Except not.

If the obvious intention of the rules, then the strict letter of the rules isn't really a barrier, especcially if the rules aren't set in stone, like in 40K.

The intention isn't obvious. If people are having issues with the rules, they obviously aren't clear. Other games don't have this problem. Other games have well written rules that don't require intentions to be discerned or common sense to applied. You just look at the rules.

Tyranno wrote:
However, taking "determine to win" to the level of "it's okay to act like a dick and generally have no social skills", if not originating from the video game community, is largely found there, or at least, in internet gaming communities, which by default are largely video game communities. For some reason, many people apparently think because you're communicating through a computer, social skills and being civil can just be dropped whenever you feel like it).

I'm still not seeing the connection here. People were acting like dicks before computers came along.

However, much like the Pulsa Rokkit list, today's Wraithknight/Riptide spam lists (or lists with 20 Daemon Princes) weren't supposed to exist.

And yet GW gave us an army selection process that allows players to take whatever the heck they want. So on what basis are you deciding that they're not 'supposed' to exist?

In fairness, liking the models doesn't oblige someone to include the maximum number.

Who mentioned obligation?

People should be free to build their army with whatever they want, within the bounds of what he game deems legal. So if someone is really fond of the Wraithknight model, and they can legally build an army consisting entirely of Wraithknights, why shouldn't they do so?

If the obvious intention of the rules, then the strict letter of the rules isn't really a barrier, especcially if the rules aren't set in stone, like in 40K.

Missing the point. Yes, the intention of the rule is obvious. But GW have had 4 separate editions now in which to match the actual rule to what was intended. They did so in one of those editions, through errata at the end of the edition.

For the 'market leader' in this hobby, that's simply poor.

People shouldn't have to read between the lines to divine how a rule was intended to work. Simply reading the written rule should be sufficient. Especially when the company writing that rule has had 20+ years and 7 attempts at getting it right.

You can hardly blame hobbyists who want to win taking units in their armies that allow them to do so?

Why else would GW write their rules and codexes that way?

Oh man, speaking of trying to get "rules as intended" down, we're back to once again having multiple different rulesets for the same unit/wargear. In 5th, we had a point where there were like three different sets of rules for Assault Cannons and Stormshields and at least two for Drop Pods, along with Rhino's having different costs in different books. It took them two years to Errata that, deciding halfway through 5th to change mindsets from "use whatever it says in the codex" to "yeah, that was dumb, use the newest set of rules".

Now we've got two different rules for the Chimera, one in the Astra Militarum book (which has 65pt Chimeras with 2 fire points and Lasgun arrays) and a different set in the Inquisition E-book (which has 55pt Chimeras with 5 firepoints and no lasgun arrays).

And that's just some of the explicit issues...

 Vaktathi wrote:
Oh man, speaking of trying to get "rules as intended" down, we're back to once again having multiple different rulesets for the same unit/wargear. In 5th, we had a point where there were like three different sets of rules for Assault Cannons and Stormshields and at least two for Drop Pods, along with Rhino's having different costs in different books. It took them two years to Errata that, deciding halfway through 5th to change mindsets from "use whatever it says in the codex" to "yeah, that was dumb, use the newest set of rules".

Now we've got two different rules for the Chimera, one in the Astra Militarum book (which has 65pt Chimeras with 2 fire points and Lasgun arrays) and a different set in the Inquisition E-book (which has 55pt Chimeras with 5 firepoints and no lasgun arrays).

And that's just some of the explicit issues...

The only thing GW intend is to charge extortionate amounts for something that is incomplete or totally incorrect.

It still boggles me that people willingly hand over money to have to try and correct this tripe themselves.

When in the history of w40k wanting to win turned in to being a dick? Was it around the 2000s or later?

Tyranno wrote:


However, taking "determine to win" to the level of "it's okay to act like a dick and generally have no social skills", if not originating from the video game community, is largely found there, or at least, in internet gaming communities, which by default are largely video game communities. For some reason, many people apparently think because you're communicating through a computer, social skills and being civil can just be dropped whenever you feel like it).

With respect, Your understanding of the situation is flawed.

Computers have bugger all to do with things.

You do realise gamers in the 80s were equally lacking in social skills, hygiene, and as full of asshatery as today, right? It's a geek thing, not a computer thing. Asshatery didn't just come out of the woodwork with the dawn of the internet,

I'm sure the roman nerds were just as vocal in their complaints two thousand tears ago. I'm sure Marcus got called every horrible name under the sun when he fielded hislegionnaires against Brutus' Gauls because they were so broken.

 Psienesis wrote:

If the obvious intention of the rules, then the strict letter of the rules isn't really a barrier, especcially if the rules aren't set in stone, like in 40K.

It is if your opponent says it is.

While sometimes it might be obvious what a rule's intention might be, frequently it's not. Especially since the game is so abstracted that you can't just think "well what is more realistic". Whether or not intervening models need to cover 25% to confer a cover save and what is meant by "through the gaps" is something that was not clearly written in 6th and STILL is not clearly written in 7th. It's entirely open to interpretation, something so fundamental to how the game is played should not be open to interpretation and has now slipped by 2 editions without being fixed nor clarified through errata/FAQ.

If you go and use the way back machine - and look at old forums from 10-15 years ago... the arguments are EXACTLY the same (Prices, rules inequalities, etc. etc)

This same discussion has been going on forever.

 cvtuttle wrote:
If you go and use the way back machine - and look at old forums from 10-15 years ago... the arguments are EXACTLY the same (Prices, rules inequalities, etc. etc).

Yes... that's the problem.

The volume of complaints, however, appears to have increased. And GW have, in the last few years, added a few new complaints (regional pricing, direct-only ranges, ridiculous litigation, cutting off communication, refusing to publish errata and FAQs, uneccessary DLC, and a 2-year lifespan for a 40K edition, just to name a few) to the mix.

And the volume of complaints will continue to increase the longer GW refuses to actually address those complaints. Unless everyone along the way just stops caring and moves on to other games. Which is also happening, if you compare the sales figures to those of 10-15 years ago.

I think a lot of the early gamers would have migrated from games like D&D, so forging a narrative was probably second nature for them. I don't imagine that is true today, so it stands to reason that things would feel different.

2nd edition also had a lot more narrative build into the game. Vehicles weren't just destroyed, you actually got a little story blurb which tells you how "The axle snaps, sending debris hurling into the fuel tanks, igniting them..." or something to that effect. You would get a different story depending on the vehicle and what you rolled on the damage table. Some of them were quite funny and they all had different in game effects.

 cvtuttle wrote:
If you go and use the way back machine - and look at old forums from 10-15 years ago... the arguments are EXACTLY the same (Prices, rules inequalities, etc. etc)

This same discussion has been going on forever.

Very true. The difference is that in earlier editions of the game, that was all we had. Now in later editions, players look to the "good old days" and compare it to the present. Back in the earlier editions, we didnt HAVE "good old days" to compare it too as that was all we had. so we accepted it.

This is why you see a higher volume of complaints because they had something earlier to compare to. Had we had the same luxury, you can bet we would have complained just as loudly. You also need to note that years ago, we didnt all have access to the internet that we do now so didnt all have the forums to complain on and when we did, we had to go through the whole turning on the computer or going to the lab or library and so forth and had time to cool off and say " nah, the hell with it" and go back to gaming. Now, everyone and their kid brother has the internet on their cell phone and can complain in the heat of the moment. Not to mention the whole internet bully, or 10 foot tall and bullit proof online while being 95 pounds and 5'2" in real life thing going on. (although to be fair, THAT you see in all internet things though.)
And before someone complains, I will note that I am not directing that to anyone here although, I think I am the only one who ever adds that truthful caveat.

 insaniak wrote:

 cvtuttle wrote:
If you go and use the way back machine - and look at old forums from 10-15 years ago... the arguments are EXACTLY the same (Prices, rules inequalities, etc. etc).

Yes... that's the problem.

The volume of complaints, however, appears to have increased. And GW have, in the last few years, added a few new complaints (regional pricing, direct-only ranges, ridiculous litigation, cutting off communication, refusing to publish errata and FAQs, uneccessary DLC, and a 2-year lifespan for a 40K edition, just to name a few) to the mix.

And the volume of complaints will continue to increase the longer GW refuses to actually address those complaints. Unless everyone along the way just stops caring and moves on to other games. Which is also happening, if you compare the sales figures to those of 10-15 years ago.

I believe 10-15 years ago GW where growing as a company as well. That's probably the most important difference.

Dismissing naysayers when you're the market leader and still growing is perfectly acceptable.
dismissing naysayers when your industry is experiencing almost 20% year on year for about 6 years now and you've only grown in line with inflation (2% or so) while cutting costs to the bone.. I think they call that suicide.

Who did you guys play with in 2nd edition that did not turn into a game of who can be a bigger dick to their opponent with wargear and strategy cards.

4 Words. Virus Grenade Imperial Guard.

People are right though 2nd edition will not be topped for sheer absolutely maddening insanity when it comes to rules though.

It was horribly unbalanced game.

It was also amazingly fun to play with a group of friends who weren't trying to kill the Imperial Guards entire army on turn one with a Virus Grenade.

That's the most important thing

Hollismason wrote:
4 Words. Virus Grenade Imperial Guard.

2 word response: Vortex Detonator

The Vortex psychic power was a much safer option. On the Level 4 Inquisitor in Terminator Armour with a Displacer Field.


But yeah, the club I played at for most of 2nd edition, trying to build a nastier list than everyone else's was pretty much where it was at.

Hollismason wrote:
Who did you guys play with in 2nd edition that did not turn into a game of who can be a bigger dick to their opponent with wargear and strategy cards.

4 Words. Virus Grenade Imperial Guard.

People are right though 2nd edition will not be topped for sheer absolutely maddening insanity when it comes to rules though.

It was horribly unbalanced game.

It was also amazingly fun to play with a group of friends who weren't trying to kill the Imperial Guards entire army on turn one with a Virus Grenade.

That's the most important thing

Fun times.... at least until the vaccine squig was invented. But in fairness it didn't take much to read the rules and see how useful a virus grenade/outbreak would be, even if it did stupidify the game. But if its in the basic rules and causes such a big problem, kind of points to the problems with the basic rules imo. I guess that's the thing though, 5 editions later the only thing thats changed is you need bigger and more expensive models to play the same as you did back then.

You will also note that in earlier editions, you did not really see much in the way of tournaments either. it was more of a game designed to be played amongst buddies than out in a WAAC touney type setting. Generally back then, if you had a question, you just rolled off for it so you can finish the game and look it up later at leasure. The atmosphere of the players (in terms of how they looked at the hobby and who they played with) changed such that now thedetails mean more than they did back then.

You'll notice that this is why when I refer to "the good old days" of 40k, I'm not talking about the rules and mechanics (to me those are secondary and players focus on them WAY too much and make grandstand statements and all on them WAY too much as I think that sort of viewpoint and behavior ruins it as a hobby), I'm talking about the atmosphere we played in and the images the game evoked where we could actually ENJOY a game instead of having to fight through a game.

Hollismason wrote:
4 Words. Virus Grenade Imperial Guard.

Yeah I remember a game, not with a grenade but the 'virus outbreak' strategy card from Dark Millennium. It pretty much wiped out a third of my friends army in one turn. He wasn't impressed at all.

 EVIL INC wrote:
You will also note that in earlier editions, you did not really see much in the way of tournaments either.

Maybe not in Rogue Trader. But there was a healthy tournament following for 2nd edition that just kept building in every edition since.

Generally back then, if you had a question, you just rolled off for it so you can finish the game and look it up later at leasure. The atmosphere of the players (in terms of how they looked at the hobby and who they played with) changed such that now thedetails mean more than they did back then.

That hasn't really changed. There have always been players happy to roll off, and players who prefer to stop and look up the relevant rules. Which is prevalent has always come down to individual playgroups.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:
Yeah I remember a game, not with a grenade but the 'virus outbreak' strategy card from Dark Millennium. It pretty much wiped out a third of my friends army in one turn. He wasn't impressed at all

I once took out all bar 4 models from an opponent's Ork army before the game started with the Virus Outbreak card. After that, we took that card out of the deck... and shortly after that, GW said to do just that in a White Dwarf FAQ article

 insaniak wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
You will also note that in earlier editions, you did not really see much in the way of tournaments either.

Maybe not in Rogue Trader. But there was a healthy tournament following for 2nd edition that just kept building in every edition since.

Generally back then, if you had a question, you just rolled off for it so you can finish the game and look it up later at leasure. The atmosphere of the players (in terms of how they looked at the hobby and who they played with) changed such that now thedetails mean more than they did back then.

That hasn't really changed. There have always been players happy to roll off, and players who prefer to stop and look up the relevant rules. Which is prevalent has always come down to individual playgroups.

The tourney scene started in 2nd edition but was not really big. As you said, over time it grew. I think into the monster that it is today. My point was that while you MAY have seen a tourney or two early on, it was not the scene it later grew into whicj means that the overall attidude was different then.
There are still people willing to "roll off" on issues to make the game go by faster. this is true However, the numbers have shrunk (I think a case could be made that it is in proportion to how the tourney scene has grown but have no numbers to verify so its just apossibility that i think has merit).

One must also remember the current tourney scene is entirely player-created. GW doesn't run tournaments besides the occasional event at Warhammer World in Nottingham, England. If you live anywhere else, it's a player run event. This makes for a different atmosphere than if GW itself were running it.

That said, GW were the ones that started doing major, hyper-competitive oriented events with no regards for painting/hobby portions when they started doing 'Ard Boyz.

Isn't it a bit of a fallacy to say that back in 2ed the game was more "pure", because there were fewer tournaments. Where there were probably fewer tournaments, because the community was much smaller, more then because people felt tournament games as something not w40k.

I watched some some designer guys talk about tournaments and streamlining of rules for chaos , removing stuff like chaos eldar to make the army easier to use in a tournament.

 EVIL INC wrote:

The tourney scene started in 2nd edition but was not really big. As you said, over time it grew. I think into the monster that it is today. My point was that while you MAY have seen a tourney or two early on, it was not the scene it later grew into whicj means that the overall attidude was different then.

Of course it wasn't as big. 40K wasn't as big.

It sounds like your experience of 2nd ed was very different to mine, though. Because I saw no shortage of 2nd ed tournaments.

There are still people willing to "roll off" on issues to make the game go by faster. this is true However, the numbers have shrunk (I think a case could be made that it is in proportion to how the tourney scene has grown but have no numbers to verify so its just apossibility that i think has merit).

Again, I suspect this is more down to different groups in different areas than anything particularly community-wide.

Whether it be a casual game or a tournament, my experience has been that the vast majority of rules issues never even went as far as a roll off. It usually comes down to one player saying 'x', the other player saying 'No, it's 'Y'', and the first player then saying 'Oh, ok then' and getting on with the game.

Even in a tournament, it generally only goes any further than that if it's something that might have a fairly pivotal impact on the game.

Psienesis wrote:If it's not intended to be played that way, why not write your ruleset to indicate this?

It'd be real easy to add caps to how many of Unit X can appear on the table.

True. But that would direct people away from planning senarios involving, say, an entire ghost warrior army.

Blacksails wrote:

Tyranno wrote:

However, taking "determine to win" to the level of "it's okay to act like a dick and generally have no social skills", if not originating from the video game community, is largely found there, or at least, in internet gaming communities, which by default are largely video game communities. For some reason, many people apparently think because you're communicating through a computer, social skills and being civil can just be dropped whenever you feel like it).

There is no correlation between being determined to win and acting like a dick. They are two entirely seperate problems. People who act like dicks and generally lack social skills will act that way regardless of the list they use or skill at the game.

However, much like the Pulsa Rokkit list, today's Wraithknight/Riptide spam lists (or lists with 20 Daemon Princes) weren't supposed to exist. They exist because people want competitive lists for a game that hasn't been truly competitive at any point in its existence. The only differences is, GW being less vocal on the subject of "that's not how the game is intended to be played", and arguably, because it's been around for longer, that people shouldn't be more widely aware it isn't designed with truly competitive armies in mind.

How do you know they weren't supposed to exist? What a bold claim with nothing to back it up. If its in the codex, and fits within the Force Org chart (or indeed, Unbound now), then who are you to say it wasn't intented?

Further, how is the game intended to played? If they wanted it to be played a certain way, the rules would reflect that. Currently, they don't. It sounds a lot like you're telling us how we should play based on how you enjoy playing.

insaniak wrote:

However, much like the Pulsa Rokkit list, today's Wraithknight/Riptide spam lists (or lists with 20 Daemon Princes) weren't supposed to exist.

And yet GW gave us an army selection process that allows players to take whatever the heck they want. So on what basis are you deciding that they're not 'supposed' to exist?

Because of several articles in older White Dwarfs where the WD staff themselves (and games designers) semi-frequently took the attitude that beadry lists and whatnot are bad.

In the context of the backstory, armies with three Wraithknights, Revenants, no Wraithlords and no Wraithguard/those other ones probably appear, well, probably only if the entire enemy force consists of almost entirely superheavy level units. Wave Serpents are the only exception to the spammy lists being out of sync with the mythos in general.

Remember, rolling off disputes become a key issue within GW itself since they write about it in their publications and in their own rules.

It shows a disregard for the paying public that they do not hand over their publications to proper proofreaders or editors who can spot glaring grammatical errors and defects.

Let alone inconsistencies within the rules themselves.

 insaniak wrote:
Whether it be a casual game or a tournament, my experience has been that the vast majority of rules issues never even went as far as a roll off. It usually comes down to one player saying 'x', the other player saying 'No, it's 'Y'', and the first player then saying 'Oh, ok then' and getting on with the game.

Even in a tournament, it generally only goes any further than that if it's something that might have a fairly pivotal impact on the game.

I'll second this. I can't recall the last roll-off.

The only time there is an issue at all is when both players are absolutely sure the rules say X or Y. Usually, it's resolved by asking the next table over (occasionally, the minority is right, and then they get to say, "I told you so" a few hours or the next week), and more often than not, it's not as you say, something that would cause a pivotal impact in the game anyways.

Tyranno wrote:
Because of several articles in older White Dwarfs where the WD staff themselves (and games designers) semi-frequently took the attitude that beadry lists and whatnot are bad.

At one point, the Studio said in White Dwarf that people who took the rules for an existing Special Character and use those rules for their own Chapter's character were horrible people who were destroying the hobby as we know it.

Then the Studio told us that it was perfectly acceptable to paint Marneus Calgar orange and use him in your own home-brew Chapter.

Should we still go by the older material? Or should we go by the more recent statement and assume that what the studio originally intended has little bearing on the current game?


The same thing here.

If you put three cookies on the table and tell people they can eat as many as they like, you can hardly complain if they eat all three. If you only wanted them to eat two, you should have said so.

In the context of the backstory, armies with three Wraithknights, Revenants, no Wraithlords and no Wraithguard/those other ones probably appear, well, probably only if the entire enemy force consists of almost entirely superheavy level units. Wave Serpents are the only exception to the spammy lists being out of sync with the mythos in general.

Speaking of things that were said in old White Dwarf articles... When Epic 40K was released, the studio guys explained the new 'firefight' mechanic as being repesentative of what was essentially a 40K battle happening in the middle of the overall conflict. The idea was that your games of 40K aren't intended to necessarily reflect the whole engagement. They're just a snapshot of a small part of it. The Epic battle was the full shebang.

Within that context, it's perfectly reasonable for a 1500 point army to include nothing but Wraithknights. They're not the only units in the whole battle... just the only units currently taking part in the part of the battle being represented by your current game of 40K.

Tyranno wrote:

Because of several articles in older White Dwarfs where the WD staff themselves (and games designers) semi-frequently took the attitude that beadry lists and whatnot are bad.

In the context of the backstory, armies with three Wraithknights, Revenants, no Wraithlords and no Wraithguard/those other ones probably appear, well, probably only if the entire enemy force consists of almost entirely superheavy level units. Wave Serpents are the only exception to the spammy lists being out of sync with the mythos in general.

I hate to be a killjoy, but that era has long since departed since the SS Kirby steamed in.

And still, if they found it beardy, why the hell didn't they check the g'damned rules BEFORE publication?

If the staffers turn around in publication and say 'well, the serpent shield rule is wrong and shouldn't be used in that way' why din't they edit that part before they signed off on that section?

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Remember, rolling off disputes become a key issue within GW itself since they write about it in their publications and in their own rules.

It shows a disregard for the paying public that they do not hand over their publications to proper proofreaders or editors who can spot glaring grammatical errors and defects.

Let alone inconsistencies within the rules themselves.

This is not entirely correct. The roll-off is there in case two players disagree on a rule, and it can't be resolved quickly. Many times, this occurs because neither player knows where the exact rule is, and the choice is to take 5 minutes to look something up, or to simply get on with it.

It is very seldom that a rule in 7th ed is so ambiguous as to allow two contrarian interpretations, because in 7th ed, most of the complex rules include specific examples. Quite commonly, players disagree over special rules precedence -- for example, whether they get a save or not, when their character's ability says they always get a save, but some special circumstance says they don't get one. Almost universally the rules are very explicit, but to dig up a codex or rulebook and find the language is time-consuming.

Also, many of these type of questions are specific to one army, and one player is simply not familiar with that codex.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

Then the Studio told us that it was perfectly acceptable to paint Marneus Calgar orange and use him in your own home-brew Chapter.

Should we still go by the older material? Or should we go by the more recent statement and assume that what the studio originally intended has little bearing on the current game?

Well, the rules in the current Space Marine Codex is pretty clear -- you can invent your own Chapter (and paint it whatever color you want), but it is descended from one of the original chapters, and gets the benefits of that Chapter. You just have to tell your opponent before the game starts.

 insaniak wrote:

Speaking of things that were said in old White Dwarf articles... When Epic 40K was released, the studio guys explained the new 'firefight' mechanic as being repesentative of what was essentially a 40K battle happening in the middle of the overall conflict. The idea was that your games of 40K aren't intended to necessarily reflect the whole engagement. They're just a snapshot of a small part of it. The Epic battle was the full shebang.

Within that context, it's perfectly reasonable for a 1500 point army to include nothing but Wraithknights. They're not the only units in the whole battle... just the only units currently taking part in the part of the battle being represented by your current game of 40K.

Yeah, and I *LIKE* that the rules allow for a game to occur with 1500 point armies with only super-heavies on one end. However, I think someone's a major ass if they play such an army against an opponent that clearly is not set up to fight it.

One can argue bout what's changed but i know for sure that the grass used to be greener.

Talys wrote:

Yeah, and I *LIKE* that the rules allow for a game to occur with 1500 point armies with only super-heavies on one end. However, I think someone's a major ass if they play such an army against an opponent that clearly is not set up to fight it.

Why? They are using an army that is perfectly legal so why should they be looked down on for their army choices? Or are you proposing that someone should spend the money and time to buy multiple iterations of their army so that they can tailor it to what their opponent expects to face? What exactly makes your way of playing the game superior to everyone else's?

If someone builds a legal army for a determined point level, then that army should have a reasonable chance to defeat and be defeated by every other army of the same points level. If this doesn't happen, then it is not the player's fault, its the rules!

Why do you people insist on blaming the players for the mistakes of the rules creators?

Talys wrote:
Yeah, and I *LIKE* that the rules allow for a game to occur with 1500 point armies with only super-heavies on one end. However, I think someone's a major ass if they play such an army against an opponent that clearly is not set up to fight it.

And they well might be. But that isn't the point.

If the game was actually written with some consideration for unit balance, it would be far more acceptable for someone to rock up to that game with their super-heavies.

The fact that so many people are so willing to put all the blame on players for building legal armies rather than expecting the guys who write the game to put some actual effort into it is just mind-boggling.

 insaniak wrote:

Talys wrote:
Yeah, and I *LIKE* that the rules allow for a game to occur with 1500 point armies with only super-heavies on one end. However, I think someone's a major ass if they play such an army against an opponent that clearly is not set up to fight it.

And they well might be. But that isn't the point.

If the game was actually written with some consideration for unit balance, it would be far more acceptable for someone to rock up to that game with their super-heavies.

The fact that so many people are so willing to put all the blame on players for building legal armies rather than expecting the guys who write the game to put some actual effort into it is just mind-boggling.

This this this this. A balanced game would have a superheavy as a tactical choice, that made you sacrifice other tactical choices, not basically an "I Win" button. Compare the closest thing, the Colossal/Gargantuan in Warmachine/Hordes: They fill roughly the same role, except they are balanced in the overall game. If I show up with a Conquest (Khador Colossal), it's nothing more than a tactical choice I'm making. It's not going to single-handedly win me the game, or even be something that my opponent needs to specifically deal with (it's basically two Warjacks rolled into one). If they can deal with a Warjack, then can deal with a Colossal just they have to be aware of some of the things it can do (even the stronger Colossals, such as Cygnar's Stormwall, is basically the same thing. It's a very nasty Warjack, but it's still a Warjack).

40k doesn't have that. Most superheavies require you to actually build an army to deal with them, or they will walk all over you because, to quote a popular video game meme, you are not prepared.

The blame for that lies 100% on GW for not balancing them correctly because they have this cool idea that a superheavy should demolish anything it's set against, and make it like that. While that is likely true in the fluff, GW refuses to realize (or just don't care) that the fluff can't always be translated to the game and the game needs to take precedence. In fact, they already do this in other cases - in the fluff a single squad of Space Marines can pacify an entire planet, but that can't happen in the game. So worse still, they selectively choose where to enforce the fluff versus game balance, to everyone's detriment.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Talys wrote:
Yeah, and I *LIKE* that the rules allow for a game to occur with 1500 point armies with only super-heavies on one end. However, I think someone's a major ass if they play such an army against an opponent that clearly is not set up to fight it.

And they well might be. But that isn't the point.

If the game was actually written with some consideration for unit balance, it would be far more acceptable for someone to rock up to that game with their super-heavies.

The fact that so many people are so willing to put all the blame on players for building legal armies rather than expecting the guys who write the game to put some actual effort into it is just mind-boggling.

This this this this. A balanced game would have a superheavy as a tactical choice, that made you sacrifice other tactical choices, not basically an "I Win" button. Compare the closest thing, the Colossal/Gargantuan in Warmachine/Hordes: They fill roughly the same role, except they are balanced in the overall game. If I show up with a Conquest (Khador Colossal), it's nothing more than a tactical choice I'm making. It's not going to single-handedly win me the game, or even be something that my opponent needs to specifically deal with (it's basically two Warjacks rolled into one). If they can deal with a Warjack, then can deal with a Colossal just they have to be aware of some of the things it can do (even the stronger Colossals, such as Cygnar's Stormwall, is basically the same thing. It's a very nasty Warjack, but it's still a Warjack).

40k doesn't have that. Most superheavies require you to actually build an army to deal with them, or they will walk all over you because, to quote a popular video game meme, you are not prepared.

The blame for that lies 100% on GW for not balancing them correctly because they have this cool idea that a superheavy should demolish anything it's set against, and make it like that. While that is likely true in the fluff, GW refuses to realize (or just don't care) that the fluff can't always be translated to the game and the game needs to take precedence. In fact, they already do this in other cases - in the fluff a single squad of Space Marines can pacify an entire planet, but that can't happen in the game. So worse still, they selectively choose where to enforce the fluff versus game balance, to everyone's detriment.

Bah! You should just houserule everything - but keep buying dem official "rulez!"

Sometimes I thin the toss up is between buying the rulebooks or just spending a quid or two on some paper and a pens and writing up my own stuff - It comes to the latter whichever way.

Tyranno wrote:


Because of several articles in older White Dwarfs where the WD staff themselves (and games designers) semi-frequently took the attitude that beadry lists and whatnot are bad.

As has been pointed out, those articles are now really, really old. Their relevance to the game as it stands now is pretty thin, and if they still intended it to be played a certain way, they certainly didn't make any real effort to show that in the rules.

Besides, the definition of beardy is not universal. What you may find beardy, I may find to be just another Tuesday at the store.

Point is, if they intended the game to be played a certain way that the rules don't reflect, they have failed. Any blame lies squarely on the writers, and not an ounce on the player who takes a legal force they enjoy.

In the context of the backstory, armies with three Wraithknights, Revenants, no Wraithlords and no Wraithguard/those other ones probably appear, well, probably only if the entire enemy force consists of almost entirely superheavy level units. Wave Serpents are the only exception to the spammy lists being out of sync with the mythos in general.

And any of those armies you feel are out of sync are easily explained to be very fluffy, considering a battle of 40k is often representing a smaller section of a much larger battle. A 40k army with wraithknights and revenants just represents the superheavy spearhead of the battle, and is 100% fluffy. Further, spam is in fact very fluffy for nearly every army in 40k, and indeed reality. You may personally dislike spam, but it is not in any way unfluffy.

Actually if you had a question in 2nd edition you could literally call the "Rulez Boys" ? I think it was called and they'd answer it. There was I think a 1 800 number and an actual number to the Games Workshop in England that you could call.

The only thing I really miss about 2nd edition is the removal of specific movement. Its never sat right with me that everyone has the same movement rate for infantry.


Oh and just bring back the original Overwatch rules.

Hollismason wrote:
Actually if you had a question in 2nd edition you could literally call the "Rulez Boys" ? I think it was called and they'd answer it. There was I think a 1 800 number and an actual number to the Games Workshop in England that you could call.

The only thing I really miss about 2nd edition is the removal of specific movement. Its never sat right with me that everyone has the same movement rate for infantry.


Oh and just bring back the original Overwatch rules.

Eh the Roolz Boyz were just gamers though, so the joke at the time used to be you could call three times, ask the same question and get three different answers. They weren't official in any way, shape or form they were basically just a third-party arbiter and would tell you how they would interpret/play the rule. It's a far cry from say PP where on the forums they have a special poster rank (Infernal) that is essentially speaking the word of the designers and can definitively state how a rule works without it being questioned.

Hollismason wrote:
The only thing I really miss about 2nd edition is the removal of specific movement. Its never sat right with me that everyone has the same movement rate for infantry.


Oh and just bring back the original Overwatch rules.

The main things I want to see come back from 2nd edition...

1. Movement characteristics, as you say, just makes more sense to me than having a bunch of special rules that have to dictate movement rates for different unit types. Just put a movement characteristic right in the unit profile next to Ws and you can simplify many rules.

2. The overall movement system where you only move once in a turn. Decide if you're going to move and shoot, stand and shoot or run and not shoot and then move accordingly. Get rid of this silliness where you move in the movement, possibly move again in the shooting and possibly move again in the assault phase. This again could greatly serve to simplify the game, especially for newcomers.

3. Drop the AP system and bring back save modifiers. The 2nd edition modifiers needed to be tweaked (lasguns and bolters used to be -1, they should probably be 0), but overall it was a better system for the sake of balance.

4. Bring back "to hit" modifiers.

What has changed? GW realized that putting limits on people causes them to buy less. Codices used to have units that were 0-1 choices, those went away. We used to be limited to one codex for building an army, that went away. We used to be restricted to an FOC, now that too has more or less gone away.

If you don't think GW intends for people to run things like 5 Wraithknights or riptides, you simply are not looking. Let me just point to codex:Imperial knights, the spamiest codex ever to exists consisting of 1 unit, must take at least 3 to play it by itself.

GW realized that hey selling 5 Iknights is way better than selling 1, same with Riptides, Wraithknights etc.

If selling a person 1 codex is good, selling them multiples + formations + data slates is better.

Same is true with Fortifications, same is true with escalation etc.

The thing I miss most about earlier editions is the internal balance within Codexes, really. In 3e and 4e (I didn't play 2e, can't remark there) your basic Troops units were reasonably efficient (if not the most efficient) ways to accomplish certain goals, with a lot of the new kits that showed up in 5e/6e it feels like somewhere along the line taking two minimum Troops units so you can take more Monstrous Creatures/Flyers stopped being the WAAC/munchkin thing to do and started being an accepted normal way to play the game.

As to the current state of the game my impression is that power creep got vastly out of control in the 5e/6e era and GW's in the process of running damage control with the stripped-down 7e Codexes that don't offer much in the way of new toys, but their release schedule is such that damage control could take years.

Tyranno wrote:


Because of several articles in older White Dwarfs where the WD staff themselves (and games designers) semi-frequently took the attitude that beadry lists and whatnot are bad.

In the context of the backstory, armies with three Wraithknights, Revenants, no Wraithlords and no Wraithguard/those other ones probably appear, well, probably only if the entire enemy force consists of almost entirely superheavy level units. Wave Serpents are the only exception to the spammy lists being out of sync with the mythos in general.

You mean the same white dwarf that stated its great news that one of the designers could take his 6 riptide army when unbound was revealed?

PhantomViper wrote:If someone builds a legal army for a determined point level, then that army should have a reasonable chance to defeat and be defeated by every other army of the same points level. If this doesn't happen, then it is not the player's fault, its the rules!

Why do you people insist on blaming the players for the mistakes of the rules creators?

Because it's really hard to have that in a very complex game that caters to the veterans, who are more likely to have with vast (unit) resources. There is nothing wrong with a Baneblade being 525-640 points, *as long as the other side has ways to deal with them*. In fact, 640 is perfectly balanced, in my opinion, relative in costs to units like Stormclaw, Wraithknight, Hammernators, et cetera.

You can't have a game with THOUSANDS of possible playing pieces ranging in size from Gretchin to Imperial Knights, from powerful Psykers to lumbering units with the intelligence of "Hulk, Smash" and perfectly balance them in every scenario.

insaniak wrote:
If the game was actually written with some consideration for unit balance, it would be far more acceptable for someone to rock up to that game with their super-heavies.

The fact that so many people are so willing to put all the blame on players for building legal armies rather than expecting the guys who write the game to put some actual effort into it is just mind-boggling.

If you made a real-life type wargame, an army of guys with pistols could not take on a mechanized armor or a fleet of bombers, even though all those units would certainly have points attached to them.

This is what 40k is like: the universe has all of these units, and in order to create a maximally effective battleforce, you need to have access to little units and big units that do all sorts of things. But, not every player has the money to do this, and when they start, and for a long time, it's easy to have invested in a non-optimal battleforce.

I don't think this makes 40k a bad game at all, and I don't blame developers for allowing ineffective combinations. I do think there are simpler games that avoid these issues, but to achieve this, they sacrifice the rich complexity that exists in real life.

I do believe in this thing called sportsmanship and I, personally, don't really get any great pleasure out of winning a game simply because I have a overwhelmingly superior force.

But, anyhow, I digress: play how you like; I don't fault players that just want to play their specialty armies, though I won't actively seek out games with them, either. In my play groups, I know who they are, and I will field armies accordingly, if we happen to be the last matchups possible (or if I have to swap with someone), but frankly, there aren't many of them.

Talys wrote:

Because it's really hard to have that in a very complex game that caters to the veterans, who are more likely to have with vast (unit) resources. There is nothing wrong with a Baneblade being 525-640 points, *as long as the other side has ways to deal with them*. In fact, 640 is perfectly balanced, in my opinion, relative in costs to units like Stormclaw, Wraithknight, Hammernators, et cetera.

You can't have a game with THOUSANDS of possible playing pieces ranging in size from Gretchin to Imperial Knights, from powerful Psykers to lumbering units with the intelligence of "Hulk, Smash" and perfectly balance them in every scenario.

Can't is a strong word. Can't means its impossible. Balancing the units and options in 40k is a doable task. It'd be hard and take a while, but its more than workable. Given the right team of professionals, with a core of testers, supplemented by open testing and feedback, there's no reason the margin of balance and power can't be brought in well enough that player decisions are the primary reason for victory, rather than picking the strongest units or codex.

It'd help if the core rules were straightened out, so that figuring out power levels between assault and shooting is a more simplified process.

There's no reason why some units are hilariously underpowered and others are ridiculously overpowered. It boils down simply to laziness and/or incompetence.

 Blacksails wrote:
here's no reason why some units are hilariously underpowered and others are ridiculously overpowered. It boils down simply to laziness and/or incompetence.

And what's worse about it, GW are actively hurting themselves. These sorts of imbalance issues dramatically affect what sorts of models people buy. Things like Dark Eldar scourges were generally only purchased before the release of the new codex for modelling reasons; the rules for the models themselves were generally seen as inferior. Now the new codex comes out and they're a much better unit, people start buying more, but then other units that used to be fairly good come out worse (wyches, beastpacks, etc.). It just creates this impression that either GW has little idea what they're actually doing with the rules, or are purposely manipulating units as to boost sales. Either way, it's not a great plan IMO, and is probably hampering the company's long-term growth.

GW seems to recognize this, a lot of their new boxsets have a number of "poor" units, which seems to be for the purpose of moving those units. But if GW would just put some (hard) effort into balancing the game, then they wouldn't have the problems of models not selling due to rules reasons. It would be just because the models themselves are poor.

I would buy the theory about them changing rules to promote sales if they were consistent about it. With things like the Heldrake and Maulerfiend both being new kits, but one being dramatically better on the table shows that GW really just plays darts with rules and points cost.

Then again, this is the same company that nerfed Chaplains and buffed Librarians because the guys in the studio felt the Chaplain was overpowered.

But yes, it really is just a combination of incompetence and laziness, and it is hurting them. I'm curious if things like the End Times and the Tyranid release can pull them back from last years' numbers. I'm leaning towards no, seeing as last year saw the release of a lot of really big and usually good selling stuff, whereas Fantasy has fallen off the popularity wagon, and Nids don't sell as well Codex Marines or even Guard.

yeah the Khorne Lord of Skulls shows clearly that points are not really used with forethought, as its cost is clearly fluffy. Also simply put Pyrovores and Mandrakes both got new models at one point and terrible rules, or Helbrutes etc.

Beyond that Perfect balance is borderline impossible. Better balance is easily doable, especially with GWs new digital releases. Simply release free beta test rules to the public and process the feedback about unit performance.

Oh I agree with you Blacksails- all evidence points to GW playing darts with the rules, or at least making decisions solely off what the staff think is important. It explains all the inconsistencies, and why GW can't seem to hit projects that people have been clamoring for over many years (i.e. Adeptus Mechanicus [now getting attention from Forgeworld], Genestealer cults, etc.)

As far as the End Times stuff goes, I can't say. Given last year was a noticeable drop even with all of the biggest-and-best being deployed, I feel like even an improved project (in terms of the Ends Times) isn't enough to pull enough people back in. The costs are just too high, starting up WHFB comes with a huge risk if you're not able to find players. 40k at least has the popularity going for it, but I feel like GW has put significant dents in that, as the negative attitudes towards the game seem to be everywhere I go (that and significantly decreased sales/floor space/focus/etc.).

Mhmm.

Its unfortunate really, because a lot of the fixes are fairly simple. No one is going to agree 100% on everything, but you can get a whole lot closer balance wise, and still achieve even fluffier crunch through better rules. There's no reason why Unbound should be a thing if GW even thinks their game is remotely along the line of being narrative oriented. Then again, Unbound is pretty universally awful for just about anything.

I dunno. Its hard to take them seriously when you read the fluff about say, Space Marine elite choices. Your termies, Sternguard and Vanguard are all described as being totally awesome and badass, and how they're dropped behind enemy lines or in the thickest fighting to secure an important objective.

Yet they don't score/have objective secured. But your scouts do.

As far as I'm concerned, that's a pretty big disconnect between fluff and crunch.

The more I think about 40k, the more I find problems with it. Between the balance, the sloppy writing, and the weird crunch meets fluff awkwardness, it just gets you down a little. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy rolling dice with friends, but nothing about the game itself really strikes me as particularly enjoyable.

One thing I'm sure of though, is that it has nothing to do with the players and everything to do with the creators.

I look back at 40k like this:

Rogue Trader - Fascinating, but unplayable. Material spread out all over the place.

2nd Edition - Finally a comprehensive set easy for everyone to start. Colorful. Spent a lot of time playing this game WITH FRIENDS. Usually playing with friends is a lot more fun than playing with strangers.

3rd Edition - Was like, WTF for years. But looking back, understood that it needed to happen, but maybe it swung too far from 2nd. BUT, it had the greatest number of years of support, and the most expansion of new armies of any other edition, while the latest versions don't really survive long enough to re-do all of the codexes for that edition. That says something. I think 40k blew up in popularity during this time. And it went totally dark too, and hasn't gone back.

4th Edition - I don't really know. Started losing interest.

5th Edition - I dropped out entirely.

6th Edition - Got me interested because of the DV set. Still think its great. But I look at how ambitious GW is with all of the models they are producing and the rules are buckling from trying to stuff them all in there.

7th Edition - Even more of the same above.

I think part of the issue is that everyone has different play styles, what they deem logical for models to do and how they would act, and the rules themselves. If you flip back through 2nd Edition or 3rd Edition rulebooks, you'll see its very light on the rules. I never had an issue working out disagreements with friends (and with 2nd Edition we had a little bible noting our final house rules). But the last two editions are pretty complicated rules for your average gamer to enjoy. Nothing is worse than doing something, then forgetting something that would have affected your decision, if you knew it at all.

GW has done some brilliant things. Sometimes that gets lost on the mess its created. But they keep trying to push the envelope on what they can do with 40k and keep players excited, but for those who enjoyed simplier times, its easy to complain.

I have no interest in buying or playng against Wraithlords, Forge World models, etc, not just do to cost, but also the scope within the game. I mean, I am pretty sure the Baneblade model is over 12 inches long, which means my model with a bolt pistol cannot shoot the length of it. I have issues with things like that, and the smaller the game, the easier it is to forget these things, but in bigger ones, the ones GW encourages, I just find myself shaking my head over.

And I look at the models GW has released since everything got upgraded in 3rd Edition and how well the Land Raider, Space Marines, etc have stood the test of time and its amazing. I see no reason to replace the Land Raider III, its brilliant as is. I think thats cool. However, the mechanics the model is played in is just silly sometimes.

I have no real answer though. With the number of models and stats back in RT-2nd Edition, a six-sided dice was probably fine. But now, I just think the system needs to move to a d10. I know many wont like that idea.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also want to add that, when a codex is designed during a current ruleset, the balance and costs for units is associated with what the rules are at the time. When the next edition comes out, if could have an effect on units who may now be over/under priced, which sucks.

So imagine a ruleset that favors CC. A CC model is worth 10 points. Its a great CC unit. Now you move to a new ruleset where CC is harder to get into and maybe even win, and shooting has the advantage, but you are still paying 10 points for the model which is now less effective, when it prob should get knocked down a couple of points. This is what I think bothers me the most with GW pumping out new editions. Just take your time, do it right, promise you'll update the armies, and keep it alive for awhile.

I have no interest in buying 7th. I have no faith this edition will survive any longer than 6th, and when it doesn't, and I see all the newer 8th Edition limited edition rulesets go up, I'll wonder how the guys who bought the previous versions feel.

insaniak wrote:

Speaking of things that were said in old White Dwarf articles... When Epic 40K was released, the studio guys explained the new 'firefight' mechanic as being repesentative of what was essentially a 40K battle happening in the middle of the overall conflict. The idea was that your games of 40K aren't intended to necessarily reflect the whole engagement. They're just a snapshot of a small part of it. The Epic battle was the full shebang.

Within that context, it's perfectly reasonable for a 1500 point army to include nothing but Wraithknights. They're not the only units in the whole battle... just the only units currently taking part in the part of the battle being represented by your current game of 40K.

I suppose, technically, that makes sense...

WayneTheGame wrote:

40k doesn't have that. Most superheavies require you to actually build an army to deal with them, or they will walk all over you because, to quote a popular video game meme, you are not prepared.

The blame for that lies 100% on GW for not balancing them correctly because they have this cool idea that a superheavy should demolish anything it's set against, and make it like that.

Very doubtful. The Baneblade was, reportedly, a liability until a big points reduction, and a joke about it still is the page image for TVTropes' "awesome but impractical" article.

Also, the Space Marine scale (as in the game Space Marine, because the internet ruined the word "epic" permamently) was/is three infantry platoons = about 10 battle tanks = three superheavies = one titan. Armies can easily field three battle tanks, so superheavies are technically perfectly to scale. (Titans aren't though) .

AnomanderRake wrote:The thing I miss most about earlier editions is the internal balance within Codexes, really. In 3e and 4e (I didn't play 2e, can't remark there) your basic Troops units were reasonably efficient (if not the most efficient) ways to accomplish certain goals, with a lot of the new kits that showed up in 5e/6e it feels like somewhere along the line taking two minimum Troops units so you can take more Monstrous Creatures/Flyers stopped being the WAAC/munchkin thing to do and started being an accepted normal way to play the game.

Very true. I suspect the basics began to slip; until 5th, twin-linked BS4 was quite rare outside Lascannons (which gained roughly one extra hit over six turns) and Heavy Bolters (minimal impact), whereas the BS2 Orks had everything twin-linked because sticking another gun to their gun is an Ork's idea of improving their aiming skills. Now twin-linked BS4 is so common it's questionable how useful "to hit" rolls actually are. Armour saves have a similar problem.

Talys wrote:
Because it's really hard to have that in a very complex game that caters to the veterans, who are more likely to have with vast (unit) resources.

'It's really hard' is not an excuse for supposedly professional games designers to do a half-assed job.

Seriously, if you buy something other than a wargame and discover that it doesn't word properly, would you dismiss the problem on the basis that making that thing is hard?

Why should we accept it for 40K when we wouldn't accept it for anything else?

You can't have a game with THOUSANDS of possible playing pieces ranging in size from Gretchin to Imperial Knights, from powerful Psykers to lumbering units with the intelligence of "Hulk, Smash" and perfectly balance them in every scenario.

Then the answer is to either hire new writers who can do that, or narrow the focus of the game to something that the existing writers are capable of doing properly.

Again, excusing shoddy product on the basis that it's hard to do it properly is not the answer. Particularly not for the company that claims to be the best at what it does.

We don't even need perfect balance in every scenario, some things can be excused or overlooked, no wargame is perfect. But there are just so many issues that are either huge or longstanding, or both, with numerous easy solutions, that have largely been ignored, all the while GW keeps finding new things by constantly expanding the scope and scale of the game.

That's the problem, there's no good attempt to fix many issues (and lots of others that never should have made it in that are plainly obvious to most players at a quick two second glance), while they constantly add new issues.

This is to say nothing of GW's lame FAQ/Errata, where they give the appearance of actually going out of their way to put out junk.

It's hard is not a excuse, if it was no one would complete a project ever.


If a computer programmer can create Dawn of War and through time fix it so that it works well.

Then there is no reason that the Developement team cannot balance their own game.

 Blacksails wrote:
I would buy the theory about them changing rules to promote sales if they were consistent about it. With things like the Heldrake and Maulerfiend both being new kits, but one being dramatically better on the table shows that GW really just plays darts with rules and points cost.

I could believe (not saying it's true, just I could believe it) that the rules writing is a lazy well to sell more models.

Yes, new things often have poor rules, however one thing about GW models is they don't go down in price, so as long as a new codex prompts people to buy something it doesn't massively matter to them.

Things like video games and movies there's great motivation to sell them quickly on release, because that's when the price is the highest. Most things you want to sell out within a certain time so it's not taking up floor space in stores, that's not really true of 40k where (these days at least) models can go 10+ years without an update.

So when a new release drops, the consumers who see something new and shiny and must have it will buy the new models early on without even thinking how it'll perform on the table, the people who want to stay on the cutting edge of the competition will buy whatever models (new or old) will let them do that. Of course, as I mentioned, it's lazy because I doubt they actually put any effort in to strategically shuffling the balance, but it wouldn't surprise me if they understand that shuffling the balance can make them more money.

Not saying that's definitely what's happening, just saying it's easy enough to assign malicious intent if you want to do so and it wouldn't surprise me if GW know they can make money off shuffling rules instead of improving rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

Talys wrote:
You can't have a game with THOUSANDS of possible playing pieces ranging in size from Gretchin to Imperial Knights, from powerful Psykers to lumbering units with the intelligence of "Hulk, Smash" and perfectly balance them in every scenario.

Then the answer is to either hire new writers who can do that, or narrow the focus of the game to something that the existing writers are capable of doing properly.

Again, excusing shoddy product on the basis that it's hard to do it properly is not the answer. Particularly not for the company that claims to be the best at what it does.

A large point of an abstract rules system is to allow you to balance the range of scales you can have within a game.

Even something like gretchin and imperial knights COULD be balanced against each other. They can't in the current rules because the IK can't be hurt by gretchin. But if you changed the rules so that gretchin could hurt the IK, but the IK just had a bucket load of wounds then you could balance them against each other. That's actually somewhat how Epic 40k balanced hordes vs super heavies.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Even something like gretchin and imperial knights COULD be balanced against each other. They can't in the current rules because the IK can't be hurt by gretchin. But if you changed the rules so that gretchin could hurt the IK, but the IK just had a bucket load of wounds then you could balance them against each other. That's actually somewhat how Epic 40k balanced hordes vs super heavies.

Why should they be?

Why should an army of farmers with pitchforks be able to defeat a military unit whose armor can't be damaged by pitchforks? Why should a ground infantryman with a pistol have even a fractional chance against a gunship beyond the pistol's range?

Why must a game system force balance, and take away the possibility of asymmetric warfare, when that adds rich complexity? Maybe the farmers need to distract the tank platoon, and win if they a unit is able to destroy a fuel depot. Maybe the infantry need to reach and hold a fortification until reinforcements arrive.

All I'm saying is, just because model A is 10 points, and model B is 500 points doesn't mean that in every case, 50 of A can defeat 1 of B. Case in point: how many infantry does it take to sink a submerged nuclear sub?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

Talys wrote:
Because it's really hard to have that in a very complex game that caters to the veterans, who are more likely to have with vast (unit) resources.

'It's really hard' is not an excuse for supposedly professional games designers to do a half-assed job.

Seriously, if you buy something other than a wargame and discover that it doesn't word properly, would you dismiss the problem on the basis that making that thing is hard?

Why should we accept it for 40K when we wouldn't accept it for anything else?

You can't have a game with THOUSANDS of possible playing pieces ranging in size from Gretchin to Imperial Knights, from powerful Psykers to lumbering units with the intelligence of "Hulk, Smash" and perfectly balance them in every scenario.

Then the answer is to either hire new writers who can do that, or narrow the focus of the game to something that the existing writers are capable of doing properly.

Again, excusing shoddy product on the basis that it's hard to do it properly is not the answer. Particularly not for the company that claims to be the best at what it does.

As a system tries to allow for more freedom, more possibilities of imbalance occur. I will take the freedom, in exchange for playing with adults that responsibly use this to create interesting battles rather than jerks that just want to say, "haha you suck".

I accept imperfection in practically all video games now. Can we say Diablo 3 and Battlefield 4? There was never a s buggy a game than BF4.... I accept imperfection in government, in bad movies and in takeout food. I accept imperfect relationships, family, and business dealings. Actually... life is pretty much just a tradeoff of pros and cons, and I just happen to think that the 40k world and crappy GW policies, happen to have enough marks on the plus side for me to enjoy their product and keep throwing them money. As I said... this is the case with so many video games I love now that it isn't even funny.

Talys wrote:
Why should they be?

Because it's a game and games should be balanced. There's no point to a game where you show up and have zero chance of competing. Also I'm not saying gretchin should be the perfect balance of imperial knights in a brawl, just that I think gretchin should be able to hurt an IK.

Why should an army of farmers with pitchforks be able to defeat a military unit whose armor can't be damaged by pitchforks? Why should a ground infantryman with a pistol have even a fractional chance against a gunship beyond the pistol's range?

Lets keep things in context here. There's no farmers with pitchforks. Even gretchin have guns, some are probably wandering around with blow torches. Even the lowliest models in 40k are well above "farmers with pitchforks". And we also aren't talking about gunships, I'm talking about Imperial Knights. A gunship that is beyond the pistol's range should not (and does not) take part in the scale of battle that 40k occurs at.

No, a gretchin should not be able to hurt an emporer class battle ship... but then in the context of a 40k game a gretchin will not be shooting at an emporer class battleship so the comparison is not necessary.

I've always found it odd that something like an Imperial Knight could walk in to a swarm of 100 hormagaunts and emerge unscathed. Surely the hormagaunts would start climbing up the Knight and start clawing at the exposed cables and hoses, they'd start scratching at the panel seams to try and get in and kill the pilot.

There's a whole heap of practical and realistic reasons why small things should be able to hurt big things. It's just 40k has chosen the system where an IK has 6 "wounds" but can only be wounded by heavy weapons. You could just as easily make an argument for an IK having 60 wounds but can be hurt by anything (except heavy weapons do more wounds per hit).

You need to think outside the box 40k has created and realise the way 40k does things is not the only way to achieve giant robots fighting against a horde of infantry.

Why must a game system force balance, and take away the possibility of asymmetric warfare, when that adds rich complexity?

One, I never said to force symmetric balance. Two, I don't think the extreme unbalanced rock-paper-scissors of 40k actually adds "rich complexity".

Maybe the farmers need to distract the tank platoon, and win if they a unit is able to destroy a fuel depot. Maybe the infantry need to reach and hold a fortification until reinforcements arrive.

I didn't mean to imply "balance" had to mean "equal chance of killing each other". Of course, infantry should be better at holding ground, heavy armour should be like mobile bunkers. I simply offer the suggestion that moving to a system where little things can, to some extent, hurt big things, would improve the overall balance of the game. So if someone showed up with a spammy armour army and someone else showed up with a spammy horde army you actually have an interesting game. Especially since the way 40k rules are going is to encourage spammy lists.

Case in point: how many infantry does it take to sink a submerged nuclear sub?

Your case in point is not representative of a game of 40k. The submerged sub is like a battleship in orbit... they do not interact directly with infantry on the ground so your case in point is irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Talys wrote:
As a system tries to allow for more freedom, more possibilities of imbalance occur.

Only if the designers let it.

Talys wrote:
I accept imperfection in practically all video games now. Can we say Diablo 3 and Battlefield 4? There was never a s buggy a game than BF4.... I accept imperfection in government, in bad movies and in takeout food. I accept imperfect relationships, family, and business dealings. Actually... life is pretty much just a tradeoff of pros and cons, and I just happen to think that the 40k world and crappy GW policies, happen to have enough marks on the plus side for me to enjoy their product and keep throwing them money. As I said... this is the case with so many video games I love now that it isn't even funny.

Nobody is asking for perfection. What they're asking for is some sign that GW are making some sort of effort.

After 20+ years and 6 revisions (6 and a half, if you count the Trial Assault and Vehicle rules from 3rd ed), it's not unreasonable for players to expect that by now the majority of the kinks should have been worked out of the system.

Instead, 7th edition happened.

 insaniak wrote:

Talys wrote:
I accept imperfection in practically all video games now. Can we say Diablo 3 and Battlefield 4? There was never a s buggy a game than BF4.... I accept imperfection in government, in bad movies and in takeout food. I accept imperfect relationships, family, and business dealings. Actually... life is pretty much just a tradeoff of pros and cons, and I just happen to think that the 40k world and crappy GW policies, happen to have enough marks on the plus side for me to enjoy their product and keep throwing them money. As I said... this is the case with so many video games I love now that it isn't even funny.

Nobody is asking for perfection. What they're asking for is some sign that GW are making some sort of effort.

After 20+ years and 6 revisions (6 and a half, if you count the Trial Assault and Vehicle rules from 3rd ed), it's not unreasonable for players to expect that by now the majority of the kinks should have been worked out of the system.

Instead, 7th edition happened.

We have several examples of games on the market now with rulesets that are in their 2nd edition and have been for a long time because there is no need to change anything, or who are moving into their 3rd editions and are making tweaks to the game which they are talking openly to fans about and they are getting only positive responses from because they are simply identifying the problems and fixing them rather than GW's method of shift a bunch of stuff sideways.

Now these game still do have minor problems but they are just that, minor. The argument that nothing will ever be perfect only holds up if you're seeing the majority of your customers and potential customers completely satisfied.