87416
Post by: Krusha
I used to play 40k back in 3rd and 4th edition, then got back into it just after 7th edition came out.
There have been some pretty radical changes to the game in that time. It's not all bad, and I still enjoy playing the game. But it does seem to me that GW no longer accepts responsibility for balancing the game.
In 2nd edition (I believe) you had restrictions on how many points you could spend on certain units, which was designed to prevent you from spamming. This was seen as insufficient, and that era (alongwith 4th and 5th edition fantasy) was referred to disparagingly as "herohammer".
3rd edition saw the arrival of the Force Organisation Chart, which was designed to force you to rely on troops to win games, while characters and heavier units were there for support. Forgeworld units were strictly to be used with your opposing player's consent because they hadn't been balanced to the same extent as the regular Codex units.
Coming back to 40K in 7th edition, it seems like most of these balancing restrictions have been thrown out of the window. It is now extremely easy to spam uber-units (e.g. by using an "unbound" list), and there is no real restriction on Forgeworld units anymore - they just say "yes, you need your opponent's consent, JUST LIKE YOU ALWAYS NEED IT FOR ANY UNIT". You can also get superheavies via the standard citadel miniature line now, and there are no point restrictions on how large the army must be in order to take one.
Tactical advice consists mainly of advice on what units to bring rather than how to use them, and that advice is usually to spam a powerful unit of your own so that your opponent's counters to that unit will be overwhelmed unless he specifically designs his list to counter it. It all just turns into rock-paper-scissors. I still enjoy casual games at my FLGS, but a lot of tournament lists seem extremely boring for this reason. It shouldn't be the case that you have to play Spamhammer 40,000 (in the grim darkness of the far future there is only spam) if you want a chance of winning. If the old restrictions were still in place, there would not be such a discrepancy between fun lists and effective lists. I have fiercely resisted the temptation to get a 4th battlewagon for my Orks because I want miniature variety, even though I know it would probably be a good idea.
GW claim to have done this in order to give players "freedom", and any and all concerns about balance are answered with "oh, well, just don't play against [insert unit/army here] then #playerconsent". The problem with this is that you come off like a whiny bad sport if you ask your opponent not to use a certain unit or army that you have trouble with when that unit or army is perfectly legal. It would be different if it were a 4th edition game where, for example, your opponent wanted to use a Forgeworld unit that was clearly designated as OPTIONAL.
IMHO it should be the other way round: GW should say "these are the rules for the game, and we have designed those rules to create balance, but if you want to experiment with removing certain restrictions to replicate a scenario or whatever (e.g. an unbound army), that's perfectly fine as long as your opponent consents". This maintains player freedom without unduly penalising people for using balanced, take-all-comers armies.
I suppose the ultimate answer to this is that GW are, as they say, a models company, not a rules company, so the rules are inevitably designed to make you want to buy the models they want you to buy (e.g. superheavies and flyers). The game is also unlike a computer game where they can just tweak it using patches to address balance issues, as you can be looking at several years (or even several editions) between codices.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
You are correct about GW putting no effort into game balance. Whatever the reasons may be they very clearly do not consider balance or rule quality to be important.
You are wrong about previous editions being balanced. There have always been major balance issues and complaints that GW doesn't do enough to fix them.
You are wrong about FW rules having anything to do with game balance. They never did, and including them by default did nothing besides remove a stupid division between one set of books published by GW and a different set of books published by GW.
58003
Post by: commander dante
Some people were like that when the riptide was released,however...
Riptides tend to kill themselves frequentley
Riptides are usally in a corner/at the back of the table and can be scared off
But eldar,thats just OP
87416
Post by: Krusha
 Peregrine wrote:You are wrong about previous editions being balanced. There have always been major balance issues and complaints that GW doesn't do enough to fix them.
Well, I wouldn't say they were completely balanced, but at least you had to win using troops and tactics rather than spamming imperial knights. At least they TRIED, is what I am saying. They didn't just say "oh well, player's consent".
You are wrong about FW rules having anything to do with game balance. They never did, and including them by default did nothing besides remove a stupid division between one set of books published by GW and a different set of books published by GW.
Wasn't this the reasoning behind making them "optional" in the past?
89883
Post by: Wonderwolf
 Krusha wrote:
IMHO it should be the other way round: GW should say "these are the rules for the game, and we have designed those rules to create balance, but if you want to experiment with removing certain restrictions to replicate a scenario or whatever (e.g. an unbound army), that's perfectly fine as long as your opponent consents". This maintains player freedom without unduly penalising people for using balanced, take-all-comers armies.
Like that ever worked.
Have you ever actually tried bringing some unbound/allied/fun-list to a pick-up game/organised gaming event in 4th or 5th edition?
40K-players are too small-minded for this to ever work without the rules being explicit about people having this freedom, and explicitly encouraging it. And even so, it's still a pain to field unbound. Still far too many events don't allow it (and FW-fans think they have it rough, ha!!).
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Krusha wrote:Well, I wouldn't say they were completely balanced, but at least you had to win using troops and tactics rather than spamming imperial knights.
Who cares what FOC slot was spammed? Spamming overpowered troops is no more fun than spamming any other type of unit, and doesn't require any more tactics. Also, "only troops score" was only a rule in 5th and 6th editions, and other editions had lists that abused overpowered non-troops ("herohammer" certainly wasn't about overpowered tactical marines).
Wasn't this the reasoning behind making them "optional" in the past?
No. FW units were never unbalanced relative to the rest of the game. They've never explicitly said why the "permission required" thing was included originally, but the best speculation I've seen is that when GW first started the FW brand and gave rule-writing power to people outside of the "main" department they said something like "if someone calls us to complain about getting beat by a Baneblade we're ending this little experiment". And so the FW rules were made "with permission only" so that they would only be used in games where both players are happy with them and unlikely to be upset about GW's new brand.
87416
Post by: Krusha
Wonderwolf wrote:
Like that ever worked.
Have you ever actually tried bringing some unbound/allied/fun-list to a pick-up game/organised gaming event in 4th or 5th edition?
40K-players are too small-minded for this to ever work without the rules being explicit about people having this freedom, and explicitly encouraging it. And even so, it's still a pain to field unbound. Still far too many events don't allow it (and FW-fans think they have it rough, ha!!).
40k players would be resistant to unbound armies because of concerns about game balance, which IMO is perfectly reasonable. If two players really want to play some kind of scenario-based game then the option is still open to them. If the rules explicitly permit you to take whatever you want, then the guy who takes a balanced, take-all-comers army is at a disadvantage. He must therefore make a decision between balance and actually winning games.
89883
Post by: Wonderwolf
Krusha wrote:
40k players would be resistant to unbound armies because of concerns about game balance, which IMO is perfectly reasonable. If two players really want to play some kind of scenario-based game then the option is still open to them. If the rules explicitly permit you to take whatever you want, then the guy who takes a balanced, take-all-comers army is at a disadvantage. He must therefore make a decision between balance and actually winning games.
There are and always have been plenty of "legal" and "bound" lists that are extremely unbalanced. With unbound, it is clearly within the player's responsibility to ensure both sides have fun.
The real problem are the people who assume that any and all ways to play the game within the (more restrictive) rules are fair game, no matter how little their opponent enjoys the experience, because the "but it's legal"-argument is still far too often (and always falsely) put up by people to screen themselves from taking responsibility and owning up to their antisocial behaviour.
87416
Post by: Krusha
Peregrine wrote:
Who cares what FOC slot was spammed? Spamming overpowered troops is no more fun than spamming any other type of unit, and doesn't require any more tactics. Also, "only troops score" was only a rule in 5th and 6th editions, and other editions had lists that abused overpowered non-troops ("herohammer" certainly wasn't about overpowered tactical marines).
It seems to me that SOME attempt at game balance is better than none at all. So even if some armies have OP troops that can be spammed, at least it's not "anything goes" on all unit types.
62560
Post by: Makumba
how many under 90kg MAA fighters are there in the no weight limit division in UK? Because playing a non uber build in a world where unbound is ok, would be probably just as common.
The problem is not that something is legal, but the fact that it is done offten enough for it be a problem. If let say FW suddenly made an army that is super broken at 1500pts, but costs twice as much in $ to make, no one would even bothe. But when GW makes draigo wing the problem is huge. Because the army is cheap, well for w40k, and pops up everywhere.
That is also why the I wont play you argument is so weak. It only works when people owning good armies are few, or if everyone has milions of models. But the chance of that is much smaller then people buying a 1500 army and trying to have fun with that.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Krusha wrote:It seems to me that SOME attempt at game balance is better than none at all.
But it isn't an attempt at game balance. A game with spammed overpowered troops is no more balanced than one with spammed overpowered fast attack units. The end result is exactly the same regardless of which FOC slot the overpowered spam happens to occupy.
87012
Post by: Toofast
Yes they have. They've also abdicated any kind of responsibility for writing a coherent ruleset and issuing timely and relevant FAQs. They aren't a rules company, remember? However, they'll happily take your $135+ for the required rules. God forbid you want a fortification, forge world model, etc. Then you're looking at $200+ for rules. If you don't like the rules, you're just playing the game "wrong", you need to forge the narrative harder, eat more pretzels and drink more beer, fix the rules yourself through pre game discussions (arguments)... Did I miss any?
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
 Toofast wrote:Yes they have. They've also abdicated any kind of responsibility for writing a coherent ruleset and issuing timely and relevant FAQs. They aren't a rules company, remember? However, they'll happily take your $135+ for the required rules. God forbid you want a fortification, forge world model, etc. Then you're looking at $200+ for rules. If you don't like the rules, you're just playing the game "wrong", you need to forge the narrative harder, eat more pretzels and drink more beer, fix the rules yourself through pre game discussions (arguments)... Did I miss any?
You missed 'learn 2 play' too.
77909
Post by: monders
commander dante wrote:
Some people were like that when the riptide was released,however...
Riptides tend to kill themselves frequentley
Riptides are usally in a corner/at the back of the table and can be scared off
But eldar,thats just OP
So now Riptides aren't all that after all?
That's all everyone was crying about last year. Storm in a teacup, much like the OUTRAGE at the new Eldar codex?!
89259
Post by: Talys
Toofast wrote:Yes they have. They've also abdicated any kind of responsibility for writing a coherent ruleset and issuing timely and relevant FAQs. They aren't a rules company, remember? However, they'll happily take your $135+ for the required rules. God forbid you want a fortification, forge world model, etc. Then you're looking at $200+ for rules. If you don't like the rules, you're just playing the game "wrong", you need to forge the narrative harder, eat more pretzels and drink more beer, fix the rules yourself through pre game discussions (arguments)... Did I miss any?
I want to buy rules where you buy them. $1000+ if you want 'em all  At least, I think so. Maybe I exaggerate, but I'm also including Imperial Armour, because it's practically impossible to play totally devoid of Forge World these days.
35310
Post by: the_scotsman
Honestly I think the best spam protection in 40k right now (which, admittedly, does not work for 100% of cases cough cough bikespamlists) is Maelstrom. That alone gives bound armies a significant advantage over stuff like knight spam, or unbound lists.
81025
Post by: koooaei
the_scotsman wrote:Honestly I think the best spam protection in 40k right now (which, admittedly, does not work for 100% of cases cough cough bikespamlists) is Maelstrom. That alone gives bound armies a significant advantage over stuff like knight spam, or unbound lists.
Knights have obsec now if you take 3-5.
9370
Post by: Accolade
 koooaei wrote:the_scotsman wrote:Honestly I think the best spam protection in 40k right now (which, admittedly, does not work for 100% of cases cough cough bikespamlists) is Maelstrom. That alone gives bound armies a significant advantage over stuff like knight spam, or unbound lists.
Knights have obsec now if you take 3-5.
But yes OP, 40k is now just about collecting models and high price books. And I hope you like the books, because there's a good chance they'll be invalidated in 1-2 years, replaced with something nearly identical. So if you're into $50 shelf decorators, then this new 40k is for you! 
85298
Post by: epronovost
GW games were always relatively poorly balanced by themselves. The 7th eddition of 40K is probably the worst of them all for GW is trying to move 40K into a «one size fits all» type of game where you can do pretty much all kinds of battle and scenario with the models you want and armies you want. It's a relatively smart move if you want to sell more miniatures, but it forces any kind of tournament to impose lots of tweak and clear house rules for it to become more fonctionnal. Then again, 40K was never designed to be a tournament style board game. Personnaly, I think the biggest balance issue doesn't come from unit selection, Forge World, Superheavies, or any perticular unit point cost. but from terrain choice, scenario and special rules you can add yourself.
81025
Post by: koooaei
Well, they were doing pretty good until recently. The end of 6- th and start of 7- th was very promising and lots of people returned back to 40k. Eldar and tau ruined 6- th. Now it's the same time of the cycle for 7- th i guess
But it's not all that bad, really. Just don't go too serious in all that competitiveness. It's a game of moveing toy soldiers and having fun. Don't like some unit? Homerule it out to be on appropriate level. Noone i know actually buys 40k rules. If they cost like 10-15 dollars than maybe...but not as is. It's not the correct price to pay for what you get.
84752
Post by: Nithaniel
I'm very similar to the OP in that I started with 40k as a kid and returned to the game in 4th edition. never played much for 5th and 6th and returned in 7th. The game changed so much but I think the game is more fun now than its ever been before.
It is my opinion that GW has abdicated responsibility for game balance. The game prioritises fluff over rules balancing for the better enjoyment of the masses. For competitive gamers that abdication of responsibility can only be taken over by the players and in tournament formats thats replaced by the TO.
If you think the game is unbalanced its up to you to balance it or pass that on to a higher power in game organising.
34243
Post by: Blacksails
 Nithaniel wrote:The game prioritises fluff over rules balancing for the better enjoyment of the masses.
How does it prioritize fluff?
How does that make a better game for the masses?
61618
Post by: Desubot
 Blacksails wrote: Nithaniel wrote:The game prioritises fluff over rules balancing for the better enjoyment of the masses.
How does it prioritize fluff?
How does that make a better game for the masses?
It prioritizes the person with the biggest wallet and the biggest ego to throw that money around.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Except that it doesn't. It just makes bad rules that are both unfluffy and lacking in balance.
9370
Post by: Accolade
 vipoid wrote:
Except that it doesn't. It just makes bad rules that are both unfluffy and lacking in balance.
Yeah, if fluff was prioritized, Space Marines would cost 100 points a piece and lay waste to other armies, and the number of guardsmen/orks/tyranids you would need for a game would be in the thousands.
I also don't see how the vast swathes of random charts could equate to anything other than lazy game design.
40k prioritizes buying as many miniatures as possible. If you don't buy enough, you're losing the game.
34243
Post by: Blacksails
 Desubot wrote:
It prioritizes the person with the biggest wallet and the biggest ego to throw that money around.
Clearly your narrative forging abilities are greater than mine.
84752
Post by: Nithaniel
Desubot wrote: Blacksails wrote: Nithaniel wrote:The game prioritises fluff over rules balancing for the better enjoyment of the masses.
How does it prioritize fluff?
How does that make a better game for the masses?
It prioritizes the person with the biggest wallet and the biggest ego to throw that money around.
I came from a background of playing MtG. It is comparative to 40k in cost in terms of total spend however it is supported in competitive play. But it is also a game environment where the money bags players have the ability to dominate competitive and casual gaming scenes until the rest of the world is able to catch up. The balancing factor in this competitive environment is that a new expansion is released 3-4 times a year. 40k is no longer supported in competitive play and arguably never was. The implementation of things like tactical objectives improves the gameplay from a casual gamers perspective and destroys it (or at least de-stabilises) from a comp perspective.
Releasing new rules and new codex / models regularly mitigates this however it hurts comp gamers with limited disposable incomes severely.
But I stand by my point that the changes in the game systems go a few tentative steps towards leveling the playing field for casual gamers.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
Nithaniel wrote: Desubot wrote: Blacksails wrote: Nithaniel wrote:The game prioritises fluff over rules balancing for the better enjoyment of the masses.
How does it prioritize fluff?
How does that make a better game for the masses?
It prioritizes the person with the biggest wallet and the biggest ego to throw that money around.
I came from a background of playing MtG. It is comparative to 40k in cost in terms of total spend however it is supported in competitive play. But it is also a game environment where the money bags players have the ability to dominate competitive and casual gaming scenes until the rest of the world is able to catch up. The balancing factor in this competitive environment is that a new expansion is released 3-4 times a year. 40k is no longer supported in competitive play and arguably never was. The implementation of things like tactical objectives improves the gameplay from a casual gamers perspective and destroys it (or at least de-stabilises) from a comp perspective.
Releasing new rules and new codex / models regularly mitigates this however it hurts comp gamers with limited disposable incomes severely.
But I stand by my point that the changes in the game systems go a few tentative steps towards leveling the playing field for casual gamers.
It really doesn't improve anything for casual players. If anything casual players are hit hardest by the shoddiness of GW rules.
61618
Post by: Desubot
Nithaniel wrote: Desubot wrote: Blacksails wrote: Nithaniel wrote:The game prioritises fluff over rules balancing for the better enjoyment of the masses.
How does it prioritize fluff? How does that make a better game for the masses?
It prioritizes the person with the biggest wallet and the biggest ego to throw that money around.
I came from a background of playing MtG. It is comparative to 40k in cost in terms of total spend however it is supported in competitive play. But it is also a game environment where the money bags players have the ability to dominate competitive and casual gaming scenes until the rest of the world is able to catch up. The balancing factor in this competitive environment is that a new expansion is released 3-4 times a year. 40k is no longer supported in competitive play and arguably never was. The implementation of things like tactical objectives improves the gameplay from a casual gamers perspective and destroys it (or at least de-stabilises) from a comp perspective. Releasing new rules and new codex / models regularly mitigates this however it hurts comp gamers with limited disposable incomes severely. But I stand by my point that the changes in the game systems go a few tentative steps towards leveling the playing field for casual gamers.
While my comment was really generalized banter with a smidge of truth to it. You can still have a massive ego or a TON of money and still be a casual player. They will still want to buy the new shinies because they can, or a whole new army or whatever flavor of the month. and it will suck for whoever has to fight them, even in a casual sense. GW couldnt care less about the ANY player. all they care about is getting people to buy things with the least amount of effect. plain and simple as that. (oh that note. damnit they are making very pretty shiny things lately and it makes me mad because i want to hate them)
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
Indeed. As a 'casual' player, it was the game imbalances that kicked me out.
84752
Post by: Nithaniel
 ImAGeek wrote:
It really doesn't improve anything for casual players. If anything casual players are hit hardest by the shoddiness of GW rules.
This is arguable. I think most casual players are happy to come to arrangements where the rules fall down. However the rules fall down in very specific places that affect competitive gaming environments.
I think I am confusing the issues by using the term casual as a catch all term. As always my gaming environment is going to vary considerably from yours and everyone elses. I am lucky that I have access to a wide gaming group as well as lots of GW stores. There are some players who have to travel miles to play sporadically. Players that are collectors and/or lovers of the IP(storyline) largely are unaffected. new players generally develop their attitudes from their gaming groups. Comp players will always be severely affected.
but referring back to this post, Yes GW doesn't care. They care about their profit margins and their shareholders. Its always gonna fall back on you to get what you can out of the game. I love to come onto dakka and read the threads because it helps us to vent our frustrations. But I love to read the threads on tactics, storyline, house rules development etc. and then go away and play with battlescribe listbuilding and go out and throw some dice and create some wacky play experiences that are the perfect blen\d of strategy, on the fly tactics, randomness and adapting to said randomness and a bit of roleplaying thrown in. You have to find your fun. If you want comp then reserve 40k for the hell of it fun and play other games.
I'm looking forward to Maelstrom's edge because I think its gonna fill the niche that GW doesn't.
Find your fun
87012
Post by: Toofast
the_scotsman wrote:Honestly I think the best spam protection in 40k right now (which, admittedly, does not work for 100% of cases cough cough bikespamlists) is Maelstrom. That alone gives bound armies a significant advantage over stuff like knight spam, or unbound lists.
Drop pod spam and scatter bike spam dominate maelstrom. I play both armies and can count my maelstrom losses on 1 hand with them.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
GW openly considers itself a model company. Recent rules releases have, sadly, cemented that idea as GW went from trash to utterly unusuable trash. Codex: Eldar, just to name the most recent peak.
GW most likely knows that their competitors release vastly superior ruleset and thus fully stopped putting any effort in their rules department anymore.
61618
Post by: Desubot
 Sigvatr wrote:GW openly considers itself a model company. Recent rules releases have, sadly, cemented that idea as GW went from trash to utterly unusuable trash. Codex: Eldar, just to name the most recent peak.
GW most likely knows that their competitors release vastly superior ruleset and thus fully stopped putting any effort in their rules department anymore.
Its sad because it could be.
The game it self isnt thaaaaaaat bad.
The bones are still there its just all this extra fat that makes the game wonky.
also the terrible points costing based entirely on "feelz" which makes me really sad.
also the random = balanced mantra needs to be taken out to the back yard :/
89259
Post by: Talys
Nithaniel wrote: I came from a background of playing MtG. It is comparative to 40k in cost in terms of total spend however it is supported in competitive play. But it is also a game environment where the money bags players have the ability to dominate competitive and casual gaming scenes until the rest of the world is able to catch up. The balancing factor in this competitive environment is that a new expansion is released 3-4 times a year.
I agree completely! MtG is a perfect game to get moms, sisters, grandmas and girlfriends into. It takes almost no time to learn, and the pictures are pretty  But casual and competitive decks don't mix any better than in 40k. When my aunt plays MtG, she plays with every card she owns IN ONE DECK. She insists on it because she doesn't want any card to feel bad, because you know, MtG cards have feelings too. Sometimes, she can go for 80 cards without draw a single freaking land. But in the competitive scene, to have the "full MtG experience", you really need to have enough cards -- including extremely rare cards -- that allow you to build pretty much any deck you want, to experiment, and to have multiple playable decks all at the same time. It's actually very expensive to do. One may argue, "but you can just buy the cards you want" -- this is true, but it is not. No serious MtG player will do this, because all it lets you do is build a couple of netdecks and as the creepy guy in SHIELD said, "Progress requires experimentation". In the same way, my girlfriend plays Orks and simply fields all the models she thinks are cool, without any regard for effectiveness. She's happy with a win, lose or draw, but if you try to curb stomp her with 5 Wraithknights, she'll just come over and knee you in the balls. She is a riot to game with, though, and all my buddies are happy to accommodate if she happens to be in the mood. Generally speaking, in my opinion, 40k is not a good fit for people with very limited incomes or very limited time. I'm not trying to be an elitist snob. It's just that this game takes a lot of miniatures, the hobby supplies are costly, the hobby itself is time consuming, and every few years there's an army reboot in such a seismic way that you're likely to need a major reinvestment, unless you pretty much have bought everything along the way. In which case, you STILL might need to spend a bunch of money, because you suddenly need (or want) a lot more of unit X that you only had 1 of before; and unit Y that you had 30 of is suddenly poop. Unless, of course, you play 7e Eldar -- almost everything is solid enough that not much has to go onto the shelf! Nithaniel wrote:This is arguable. I think most casual players are happy to come to arrangements where the rules fall down. However the rules fall down in very specific places that affect competitive gaming environments.
Well, especially regular groups. They'll just make up the rules they want, and go with it. Friendly groups tend to play rather than argue. Nithaniel wrote: Yes GW doesn't care. They care about their profit margins and their shareholders.
Once, I too thought this, but no more. If GW actually just cared about profit margins and shareholders, they'd design the game that the market demands. Instead, what they actually do, is write a game and make miniatures that they think is cool, regardless of whether it is optimal for the market. GW plays 40k in a way that harkens back to Chainmail (who is old enough to remember that? ) -- roleplaying scenarios and campaigns, with miniatures. I've said it before: GW has strong AD&D roots in its DNA. GW doesn't really care if the market doesn't want it; it's confident that there is enough of a market that wants their stuff enough that they'll just do what they damn well please, and either take it and make it your own, or leave it and do something else. No truer words ever were said, when it comes to gaming and hobby Automatically Appended Next Post: Desubot wrote: Sigvatr wrote:GW openly considers itself a model company. Recent rules releases have, sadly, cemented that idea as GW went from trash to utterly unusuable trash. Codex: Eldar, just to name the most recent peak. GW most likely knows that their competitors release vastly superior ruleset and thus fully stopped putting any effort in their rules department anymore.
Its sad because it could be. The game it self isnt thaaaaaaat bad.
Meh. Like I said, I think GW just does what it wants to, the world be damned. They care more about keeping their vision for the game (which is not very tournament friendly OOB) and the people who think the way they do about tabletop wargames, than they do about making everyone else happy (and the game more profitable). I think GW puts a huge effort into faction books. They certainly pump out enough of them, with tons of art and fluff, and well, rules, GW style. The only question is -- is that your thing, or can you or do you want to make it your own, because if you don't, you'll never be happy with 40k. I don't think in the next 7 editions there will be a set of rules that is "fair" or balanced that makes everyone happy. It's like, the thought process is: "Eldar are supposed to be powerful. So we'll just make them powerful! Oh, well, they're more powerful than Orks? Well of course they are. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE. They did rule the galaxy for millions of years, you know. Why should the Orks have anything but the most desparate chance?" That actually makes for pretty good fluff and narrative (after all, they were an ancient race that could erase stars at a snap of the fingers). It just makes for a lousy game for the Ork player trying to win. It's like building a historical recreation of Desert Shield, with US forces on one side, and Iraqi forces on the other. Where is the balance, dammit. Why do the Iraqis lose 100% of the time?!
94984
Post by: kburn
 Talys wrote:
It's like, the thought process is: "Eldar are supposed to be powerful. So we'll just make them powerful! Oh, well, they're more powerful than Orks? Well of course they are. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE. They did rule the galaxy for millions of years, you know. Why should the Orks have anything but the most desparate chance?"
That actually makes for pretty good fluff and narrative (after all, they were an ancient race that could erase stars at a snap of the fingers). It just makes for a lousy game for the Ork player trying to win.
It's like building a historical recreation of Desert Shield, with US forces on one side, and Iraqi forces on the other. Where is the balance, dammit. Why do the Iraqis lose 100% of the time?!
Historical doesn't pit 2 armies against each other, and see who loses. More often than not, its unequal forces, but with one trying to achieve a certain objective within a certain timeframe. For example, The iraqi forces win if they kill more than 5 US troops, or if the US troops cannot achieve objective by turn 3.
A good way to rebalance the game is by imposing the following rules on an eldar player. In fact, its the only way I'll play them these days:
Turn 1 tabling: Minor eldar win
Turn 2 tabling: Draw
Turn 3 tabling minor win for opponent
Turn 4 tabling: major win for opponent
turn 5 onward: massive humiliation for eldar player
Getting curbstomped for 3 hours is not "forging a narrative" It's just satisfying the eldar player's ego, with no fun for anyone else.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Has GW abdicated responsibility for game balance?
Yes.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
I have conflicted feelings about GW.
The CSM codex is an insult to what they are in the lore. Their model quality is also inconsistent. I really am not interested in giving GW more of my money.
I like 30k a lot and I am pushed towards it steadily. FW does a far better job at writing rules than GW are and their models are splendid. Expensive, but extremely good. Worth my money. Money I spend on FW, though, still goes to GW, and they are happy as long as cash rolls in...
3750
Post by: Wayniac
kburn wrote: Talys wrote: It's like, the thought process is: "Eldar are supposed to be powerful. So we'll just make them powerful! Oh, well, they're more powerful than Orks? Well of course they are. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE. They did rule the galaxy for millions of years, you know. Why should the Orks have anything but the most desparate chance?" That actually makes for pretty good fluff and narrative (after all, they were an ancient race that could erase stars at a snap of the fingers). It just makes for a lousy game for the Ork player trying to win. It's like building a historical recreation of Desert Shield, with US forces on one side, and Iraqi forces on the other. Where is the balance, dammit. Why do the Iraqis lose 100% of the time?!
Historical doesn't pit 2 armies against each other, and see who loses. More often than not, its unequal forces, but with one trying to achieve a certain objective within a certain timeframe. For example, The iraqi forces win if they kill more than 5 US troops, or if the US troops cannot achieve objective by turn 3. A good way to rebalance the game is by imposing the following rules on an eldar player. In fact, its the only way I'll play them these days: Turn 1 tabling: Minor eldar win Turn 2 tabling: Draw Turn 3 tabling minor win for opponent Turn 4 tabling: major win for opponent turn 5 onward: massive humiliation for eldar player Getting curbstomped for 3 hours is not "forging a narrative" It's just satisfying the eldar player's ego, with no fun for anyone else.
That's why I lament the loss of the Mission Cards from 2nd edition. Each player had their own thing that they needed to accomplish during the game. That's what 40k needs and that would make it more narrative. Games shouldn't be this just line up and destroy each other or roll for random nonsense, it should be themed battles. So if a Dark Angels army is facing an Eldar army and there's some cool piece of terrain in the middle, bam the narrative is the Dark Angels are trying to capture this Eldar relic and the Eldar are trying to defend it - if the Dark Angels hold it by Turn 4 they win, otherwise the Eldar player wins as the Dark Angels have to retreat when reinforcements arrive. A truely casual game would have a section of the rules that focus on and gives good examples of how to come up with narrative scenarios for the game, not just say here's a bunch of random charts have at it cheers. Instead, it's some random crap that's supposed to form a narrative but really doesn't. It's almost like they wanted to do one of those random NPC generators like in older D&D books to give a basic concept and have you flesh it out, but failed miserably.;
85425
Post by: office_waaagh
 Ashiraya wrote:I have conflicted feelings about GW.
The CSM codex is an insult to what they are in the lore. Their model quality is also inconsistent. I really am not interested in giving GW more of my money.
I like 30k a lot and I am pushed towards it steadily. FW does a far better job at writing rules than GW are and their models are splendid. Expensive, but extremely good. Worth my money. Money I spend on FW, though, still goes to GW, and they are happy as long as cash rolls in...
I guess this confuses me? They make a game that other people like, but isn't to your taste. Or they put out a codex for a faction that doesn't meet your expectations. And you aren't happy with the models.
Then, they make a game you like better, with models you like better, and factions you like better. So now there's something that suits your tastes, and the people that like the other game still have something that suits theirs. I am really only seeing good things here. But the tone of your post makes it sound like you don't like giving GW any money, even when they make something you like. Surely, the way to get them to do more of what you like is to "speak with your wallet" as it were?
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
 office_waaagh wrote: Ashiraya wrote:I have conflicted feelings about GW.
The CSM codex is an insult to what they are in the lore. Their model quality is also inconsistent. I really am not interested in giving GW more of my money.
I like 30k a lot and I am pushed towards it steadily. FW does a far better job at writing rules than GW are and their models are splendid. Expensive, but extremely good. Worth my money. Money I spend on FW, though, still goes to GW, and they are happy as long as cash rolls in...
I guess this confuses me? They make a game that other people like, but isn't to your taste. Or they put out a codex for a faction that doesn't meet your expectations. And you aren't happy with the models.
Then, they make a game you like better, with models you like better, and factions you like better. So now there's something that suits your tastes, and the people that like the other game still have something that suits theirs. I am really only seeing good things here. But the tone of your post makes it sound like you don't like giving GW any money, even when they make something you like. Surely, the way to get them to do more of what you like is to "speak with your wallet" as it were?
He doesn't like giving GW money because they're a horrible company that has disdain for independent stores and their own customers?
95278
Post by: Knytmare
I've just recently come back to 40k after something like a 5 year hiatus and have been browzing these forums the last few weeks seeing what is new and such but all I keeps seeing is people crying about balance. The game was never balanced, but then in real life war is never balanced someone always has better guns, or more guys, or better tactics or just pure simple luck. The game is supposed to be fun some times you win sometimes you lose. Me and my friends who played in the past made the game more fun by taking standard missions and giving them background stories and we had our warlords with unique names and background stories for them. Hell sometime we played way unbalanced games like an ambush on a tank convoy led by a baneblade. But I guess it's human nature to only feel like you are having fun if you are winning. But not everyone can win all the time. Take the good take the bad and make a good story of it. I for one have always played a Khorne army, and I have lost more times than I can count but then the games where I get lucky and manage to pull out a victory just seem so much better. Anyways sorry about the long rant. Just wanted to put my .02 cents out there.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
Knytmare wrote:I've just recently come back to 40k after something like a 5 year hiatus and have been browzing these forums the last few weeks seeing what is new and such but all I keeps seeing is people crying about balance. The game was never balanced, but then in real life war is never balanced someone always has better guns, or more guys, or better tactics or just pure simple luck. The game is supposed to be fun some times you win sometimes you lose. Me and my friends who played in the past made the game more fun by taking standard missions and giving them background stories and we had our warlords with unique names and background stories for them. Hell sometime we played way unbalanced games like an ambush on a tank convoy led by a baneblade. But I guess it's human nature to only feel like you are having fun if you are winning. But not everyone can win all the time. Take the good take the bad and make a good story of it. I for one have always played a Khorne army, and I have lost more times than I can count but then the games where I get lucky and manage to pull out a victory just seem so much better. Anyways sorry about the long rant. Just wanted to put my .02 cents out there.
You contradict yourself.
You say war is not balanced but then say a game is meant to be fun. Which is it?
40k isn't a war. (Not even remotely, trust me.) It's a game and should be balanced to ensure a fair and fun game.
You could forge narratives just as good with a well written rule set.
87012
Post by: Toofast
War isn't supposed to be balanced or fun. GAMES are, at least reasonably so. I'm not expecting perfect balance like chess. Something better than 1000 monkeys banging away at keyboards could produce would be nice though.
85425
Post by: office_waaagh
Toofast wrote:War isn't supposed to be balanced or fun. GAMES are, at least reasonably so. I'm not expecting perfect balance like chess. Something better than 1000 monkeys banging away at keyboards could produce would be nice though.
Maybe 40k isn't the game for you then? At least, it seems not designed for the type of play that you enjoy. As a number of people have mentioned, more than most games 40k is dependent on the group of people you play with and everyone's willingness to co-operate with one another's fun. If you prefer finely balanced, competitive games, maybe 30k is better? I can't speak to this as I've not played it, but a number of people have recommended it to me on this basis. 40k is designed with a narrative focus (more like D&D), with maximum flexibility deemed more important than rigid balance.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
office_waaagh wrote:40k is designed with a narrative focus (more like D&D), with maximum flexibility deemed more important than rigid balance.
No it isn't. It's "designed" to be a minimum-effort game where GW spends as little as possible on creating the rules and generally treats it like one of those games you get on the back of a cereal box. The problems that make it bad for competitive play are also problems in casual/narrative/etc games.
85425
Post by: office_waaagh
 MWHistorian wrote:He doesn't like giving GW money because they're a horrible company that has disdain for independent stores and their own customers?
I guess this is a matter of personal opinion. I've never got this sense. Their games are fun, their models are (mostly) very well made, their customer service is some of the best I've ever dealt with, and the stores are fun places to hang out without there being pressure to buy stuff. Their pricing is transparent, there aren't any fake sales (where stuff is permanently "on sale"), and I've always appreciated that everything is priced in round dollars rather than with .99 at the end. There aren't any pandering or obsequious advertising campaigns. They've created a highly evocative and interesting fictional universe, and the Black Library keeps it expanding and attracts some top talent. So I've no complaints, really. I can't speak to their treatment of independent stores, but the stores are still carrying their stuff so it can't be all that bad.
So if they have disdain for me, they've a funny way of showing it. They seem to express their contempt by making lots of things that I like, and then selling those things to me. I guess I wish more companies felt such disdain.
71108
Post by: Rumbleguts
I would say, yes, they have abdicated responsibility for game balance. The whiplash from Tyranids, SM, Grey Knight and Orc codices to Necron and Eldar was severe.
They are also responsible for writing poorly worded rules and failing to communicate with their customers who want answers for game rules. It really feels as if they don't care if people have actual problems understanding what the rules intend.
I loath with all my being their codices, special codices, datafaxes, formations only available from this new campaign book, etc as nothing more then a blatant money grab. If the codices were paperbacks, without much of the photos, at $30, $35 dollars, I would be tempted to buy more to read up on what other armies can do. But at what they want? No way. I have an Blood Angels army I haven't fielded in forever, and probably never will, won't even buy the codex for it since I don't feel like spending $60 for book it takes two or three hours, max, to read through.
For the most part I don't mind the cost of the miniatures at all. They tend to be high quality. I do get irate at the dual kits (tyrannocyte/malceptor kit as example) that require me to pay for a bunch of bits for a second model that I cannot build. I have boxes of bits, some I can make a bit of use of as terrain parts, but the rest just cost the buyer money. What is even worse is when one of the two choices of a kit are so bad, you would never field it.
84752
Post by: Nithaniel
Peregrine wrote:
No it isn't. It's "designed" to be a minimum-effort game where GW spends as little as possible on creating the rules and generally treats it like one of those games you get on the back of a cereal box. The problems that make it bad for competitive play are also problems in casual/narrative/etc games.
Its clear that many people dislike the rules for failing to meet individual ruling points (or lack therof) scattered throughout a very large complex ruleset. But what they do have is a 350+ pg rulebook with impeccable design quality and production value and about 20 armies with associated codex and supplements and digital offerings as well as faq's and erratas and the certainty of new army books to come such as daemonkin et al.
To liken all this to minimum effort game design and to suggest they spend as little as possible on cereal box rules is deliberately misleading and pessimistic. Its not to the standard I want it to be but I believe its currently to the highest standard its ever been!
There are definitely better miniature games out there. Some have better models, some have inifinitely better rulesets and some even have both but none have the scope and variety, the player base or the media machine behind it to produce a varied and detailed fluff to back it up.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Nithaniel wrote:But what they do have is a 350+ pg rulebook with impeccable design quality and production value
Which game are you talking about here? It clearly isn't 40k.
To liken all this to minimum effort game design and to suggest they spend as little as possible on cereal box rules is deliberately misleading and pessimistic.
No, it's entirely accurate criticism. They don't playtest, they don't spend any effort making sure that their rules are clear and functional, and there's no real sign that the rules go through any development beyond the author coming up with some random ideas and putting them on paper. If you really wanted to you could probably write the entire rules content of GW's releases for the next year in a single afternoon.
87416
Post by: Krusha
Peregrine wrote:
But it isn't an attempt at game balance. A game with spammed overpowered troops is no more balanced than one with spammed overpowered fast attack units. The end result is exactly the same regardless of which FOC slot the overpowered spam happens to occupy.
See I disagree on this.
1) We are not merely talking about OP units per se. Some units would not be OP if there were restrictions on how many you could take, or how large your army had to be first. They would only become OP if you could spam them, because your opponent would be unlikely to be able to muster the weaponry to kill them without specifically tailoring his list.
2) A game in which ONE category of units contains some OP units is, by definition, less balanced than one in which you can take whatever you bloody well like from ANY slot. E.g. even if Necron Warriors were OP then I would still prefer that to 5 imperial knights.
The problem I have with the argument that it's down to us, as hobbyists, to refrain from using certain OP units/combinations of units that would not be "fun" for our opponents is that it defeats the object of the game. It defeats the point of designing an army. Ok, maybe this is all we can do in the circumstances... But I still believe primary responsibility lies with GW.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
MWHistorian wrote: office_waaagh wrote: Ashiraya wrote:I have conflicted feelings about GW.
The CSM codex is an insult to what they are in the lore. Their model quality is also inconsistent. I really am not interested in giving GW more of my money.
I like 30k a lot and I am pushed towards it steadily. FW does a far better job at writing rules than GW are and their models are splendid. Expensive, but extremely good. Worth my money. Money I spend on FW, though, still goes to GW, and they are happy as long as cash rolls in...
I guess this confuses me? They make a game that other people like, but isn't to your taste. Or they put out a codex for a faction that doesn't meet your expectations. And you aren't happy with the models.
Then, they make a game you like better, with models you like better, and factions you like better. So now there's something that suits your tastes, and the people that like the other game still have something that suits theirs. I am really only seeing good things here. But the tone of your post makes it sound like you don't like giving GW any money, even when they make something you like. Surely, the way to get them to do more of what you like is to "speak with your wallet" as it were?
He doesn't like giving GW money because they're a horrible company that has disdain for independent stores and their own customers?
Bingo. GW is matching the 'evil corporation' trope so well so it's almost a caricature. I do not feel very happy feeding them money and encouraging that, even though they have a subsystem I like.
89259
Post by: Talys
WayneTheGame wrote:
That's why I lament the loss of the Mission Cards from 2nd edition. Each player had their own thing that they needed to accomplish during the game. That's what 40k needs and that would make it more narrative. Games shouldn't be this just line up and destroy each other or roll for random nonsense, it should be themed battles. So if a Dark Angels army is facing an Eldar army and there's some cool piece of terrain in the middle, bam the narrative is the Dark Angels are trying to capture this Eldar relic and the Eldar are trying to defend it - if the Dark Angels hold it by Turn 4 they win, otherwise the Eldar player wins as the Dark Angels have to retreat when reinforcements arrive. A truely casual game would have a section of the rules that focus on and gives good examples of how to come up with narrative scenarios for the game, not just say here's a bunch of random charts have at it cheers.
Instead, it's some random crap that's supposed to form a narrative but really doesn't. It's almost like they wanted to do one of those random NPC generators like in older D&D books to give a basic concept and have you flesh it out, but failed miserably.;
We do this kind of thing like... almost every time we play. It is much more satisfying than I deploy, you deploy, CHARGE!
There are 6-8 of us that get together every couple of weeks. What we'll do is set up separate game tables (at home, not store), and when we're done, we'll swap tables (and missions/scenario, with maybe minor changes). The game tables are pretty elaborate in terms of setup, and this dramatically cuts down on the overhead of time lost between games. We use little carts to keep our fallen on, too, so when it comes to deploy for game #2 or game #3, it's quick and easy. Automatically Appended Next Post: Krusha wrote:The problem I have with the argument that it's down to us, as hobbyists, to refrain from using certain OP units/combinations of units that would not be "fun" for our opponents is that it defeats the object of the game. It defeats the point of designing an army. Ok, maybe this is all we can do in the circumstances... But I still believe primary responsibility lies with GW.
Therein lies the disconnect. Many players feel it is GW's responsibility to create a fair, balanced system that minimizes rules lawyering and overpowered, spammy lists. I'm not suggesting this is unreasonable.
GW feels that it's their responsibility to create a world of models and fluff, plus a framework to play in, and players' responsibility to find ways to have fun with it, to sort things out (or even just outright rewrite rules they don't like) in an amiable way.
GW sees their own rules as guidelines; some of their customers see the rules as gospel.
60662
Post by: Purifier
Talys wrote:GW sees their own rules as guidelines; some of their customers see the rules as gospel.
It's a big ruleset to learn. Once I've memorised it all, I'd like to be able to go to another store that plays the same game without having to learn and remember how their game rules differ from mine, and when I'm in the next one, how theirs differ from my first two.
There is no way to defend the shoddy rules of GW without being an appologist. Because they seriously need to appologise for them.
If they are of the opinion that their rules aren't what we should be playing with, and the rulesbooks are mostly for the design and pretty pictures, then they would release them without rules. That way we could get some proper unofficial rules that wouldn't have to compete with the canon, which everyone knows it can't. No matter how good your unofficial rules are, they will always be "the unofficial rules."
Everyone would rather learn the ones that have the biggest chance of getting them games elsewhere.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Talys wrote:
GW sees their own rules as guidelines; some of their customers see the rules as gospel.
What? You mean some fools actually think that rules should be rules? What morons! 
But then, perhaps they were mislead when GW accidentally misspelt "Overpriced pile of crap suggestions and convoluted nonsense" as "Rulebook".
62560
Post by: Makumba
GW sees their own rules as guidelines; some of their customers see the rules as gospel.
If the rules are so unimportant to GW, then why does the starter rules pack for an army without ally or supplements of any kind cost around 200$.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Makumba wrote:GW sees their own rules as guidelines; some of their customers see the rules as gospel.
If the rules are so unimportant to GW, then why does the starter rules pack for an army without ally or supplements of any kind cost around 200$.
Pretty much this. They sell rules for more than everybody else, why should you pay that much for guidelines when every other company charges less for actual rules? The problem to me is that 40k is almost 100% dependent on what your local group is like. The locals around me want to play 1850 point games constantly and pretend that they can play 40k competitively, which is about as full 180 as you can get from how 40k seems to be intended to be played. If they had a small group playing casual, narrative style games, well that might be more tempting to get into because I like that part. But I already play a competitive, well thought out game (Warmachine) that's infinitely better for being a competitive, well thought out game than 40k is or ever was; with the 40k crowd around here there's no reason to frustrate myself by playing 40k in a bad way when I can play a better game in a good way, even if I do like the models and the fluff. People constantly ignore the fact that good, solid rules benefits everybody. The casual/narrative/fluffbunny players aren't unduly punished for liking X unit instead of Y unit. The powergamer/competitive/ WAAC players don't have such a free reign to break the game. Everybody wins. Yet for some reason people seem to think that because 40k is bad for competitive play, it must be good for casual play as if it's a black and white situation. It's not. Games can (and should) be both, but focusing (as far as the level of detail and clarity) on the competitive game for the rules ensures that the rules are tight and well-written, which in turn benefits the casual group as well.
81025
Post by: koooaei
What are you talking about? I thought rules are free.
The more garbage the rules are and the more they cost - the more...freer they are
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Nithaniel wrote: To liken all this to minimum effort game design and to suggest they spend as little as possible on cereal box rules is deliberately misleading and pessimistic. Its not to the standard I want it to be but I believe its currently to the highest standard its ever been!
...what? GW deliberately cuts stuff from codices and sells it seperately to increase profit. That's about the lowest you can get customer-wise. Rules see no playtesting at all, proof-reading is lackluster and maybe doesn't even go beyond Microsoft Office auto-correct levels. Automatically Appended Next Post: koooaei wrote:What are you talking about? I thought rules are free.
The more garbage the rules are and the more they cost - the more...freer they are
YARRRRRRRRRRR!
29408
Post by: Melissia
Peregrine wrote:You are correct about GW putting no effort into game balance. Whatever the reasons may be they very clearly do not consider balance or rule quality to be important.
You are wrong about previous editions being balanced. There have always been major balance issues and complaints that GW doesn't do enough to fix them.
You are wrong about FW rules having anything to do with game balance. They never did, and including them by default did nothing besides remove a stupid division between one set of books published by GW and a different set of books published by GW.
This is basically what I was going to type.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
The problem isn't FW or anything, it's just that the rules aren't balanced in a way that things can be approximately even for the sake of a game.
Historical games are often lopsided, this is true, but most of the more recent historical games also have points to be able to do an even matchup if you aren't doing a refight, and historical games by their nature requires discussion and planning of what battle you want to do and the like.
40k doesn't encourage anything, which is part of the problem. It's fine to do a lopsided game but you need to decide a custom scenario for it instead of just using the stuff in the book, but there are no real guidelines for that either. That's what I think they are missing. If 40k is meant to be casual and laid back, then they need to have a book that shows how to play it in that way so people have a reference for making their own scenarios or linked narratives.
79467
Post by: DanielBeaver
Peregrine wrote:There have always been major balance issues and complaints that GW doesn't do enough to fix them.
That's definitely true, and I think it was forgiven more in the past because game design in the 80's and 90's was less sophisticated and so almost every game you played had significant balance issues (that applies broadly to things like Board Games, Tabletop RPG's, and Video Games). The last 30 years have been a real flourishing in the industry not just in terms of growth, but also in terms of advancing the art of good game design. GW has also advanced in that time... in the business of modeling (compare rogue-trader era models to modern stuff). In terms of game design, not so much.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Don't you know that 40K is a "beer and pretzels" game? Funny how the GW game "designers'" definition of what that means is wide off the mark of what most people would think.
84752
Post by: Nithaniel
GW is a games company that makes a successful profitable game who's sales currently eclipse that of probably all its competitors combined. If you had a company that continued to make a profit massive profits why would you change it? Yes you have people online constantly lamenting the poor rules quality but you have thousands of customers that continue to buy the product. They are probably sitting there reviewing the sales for 7th edition and thinking this thing is still selling well.
Expecting a publicly listed company that continues to make a profit to change its operation is sadly gonna lead to more an more frustration. By all means stop buying and look at other game systems where you CAN find your fun. GW will only change when their profits fall close to break even. Until that happens nothing will change.
I'm not an apologist for them and I can see the flaws of 40k but I still love the game warts and all and i'll continue until I stop having fun.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Nithaniel wrote:GW is a games company that makes a successful profitable game who's sales currently eclipse that of probably all its competitors combined. If you had a company that continued to make a profit massive profits why would you change it? Yes you have people online constantly lamenting the poor rules quality but you have thousands of customers that continue to buy the product. They are probably sitting there reviewing the sales for 7th edition and thinking this thing is still selling well.
Expecting a publicly listed company that continues to make a profit to change its operation is sadly gonna lead to more an more frustration. By all means stop buying and look at other game systems where you CAN find your fun. GW will only change when their profits fall close to break even. Until that happens nothing will change.
I'm not an apologist for them and I can see the flaws of 40k but I still love the game warts and all and i'll continue until I stop having fun.
Have you actually read the income reports? They're only making a profit because they've cut the corporate structure to the bone....or did you think that the move to one-man stores were just because they had too much money laying around and it made sense?
Don't get me wrong. I make fund of GW a great deal, because it's easy and they keep making it easier, but I've owned stock at various points. On paper, they're a great investment but that's mainly due to the fact that they will pay a dividend at all costs.
Kirby's one redeeming quality is that he is able to find a way to keep the company in the black as it circles the drain. He makes terrible decisions at a corporate level and even on a moral level (hiring his wife, with zero experience, to head up the website redesign) and he completely fails to see how the company could make a profit AND a great product but he knows how to min/max the revenue sheets.
34243
Post by: Blacksails
Nithaniel wrote:If you had a company that continued to make a profit massive profits why would you change it?
Because there is always room for improvement, and in GW's case, making a better balanced, more cogent ruleset would only help them.
Further, recently they've been making less money. While its still a lot, a downward trend should always be avoided.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
Yeah it's not a case of 'if it ain't broke don't fix it', it's more 'it's broken but we cba to fix it, just stick some tape over it'.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
The thing I think is most funny - is people that have thousands of dollars of FW always seem to think FW is balanced. It's always been codex plus 1 and always had better options than what you can field in codex. This might be the first time in history with new eldar that FW is actually outclassed by a codex unit in the WK. Just wait until the FW WK start coming out. lol.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
 Xenomancers wrote:The thing I think is most funny - is people that have thousands of dollars of FW always seem to think FW is balanced. It's always been codex plus 1 and always had better options than what you can field in codex. This might be the first time in history with new eldar that FW is actually outclassed by a codex unit in the WK. Just wait until the FW WK start coming out. lol.
It's not been that way at all. There's some strong FW stuff sure. But there's also a lot of crap. Basically the same as GW stuff, it's all over the place. FW is just as balanced as GW is.
34243
Post by: Blacksails
Xenomancers wrote:The thing I think is most funny - is people that have thousands of dollars of FW always seem to think FW is balanced. It's always been codex plus 1 and always had better options than what you can field in codex. This might be the first time in history with new eldar that FW is actually outclassed by a codex unit in the WK. Just wait until the FW WK start coming out. lol.
FW is no more or less balanced than what's in standard GW books. For every FW you can point out and yell ' OP!', there's at least another in a GW book. Same goes for the terrible, underwhelming units.
FW at least has the sensibility to release units in experimental rules first and often tone them down. How and where they get feedback from, I'm not sure, but its a small step up from GW.
Plus, basic common sense that 30k has in army list construction is entirely gone from 40k. Percentage restriction on LoW, no Unbound, variety in FOCs, and slot manipulation all point towards FW having a better understanding of game design and balance.
*Edit* fething Geek.
14secs.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
Mwahaha. Yours was a better answer though.
4139
Post by: wuestenfux
But it does seem to me that GW no longer accepts responsibility for balancing the game.
This is a true misconception.
What are the reasons behind?
11860
Post by: Martel732
Toofast wrote:the_scotsman wrote:Honestly I think the best spam protection in 40k right now (which, admittedly, does not work for 100% of cases cough cough bikespamlists) is Maelstrom. That alone gives bound armies a significant advantage over stuff like knight spam, or unbound lists.
Drop pod spam and scatter bike spam dominate maelstrom. I play both armies and can count my maelstrom losses on 1 hand with them.
Play me. I'll wipe up your pods. Scatter bikes, though, are a problems.
89259
Post by: Talys
Martel732 wrote:Play me. I'll wipe up your pods. Scatter bikes, though, are a problems.
Actually, funny you should say that. I got beat bad by skitarii in pods last night. Those can be freakin mean. I have annihilated scatterbike spam and scatterbike + 2 and +3 wraithknights with a smattering of other things with vanilla Marines, and Marines plus assassins. Automatically Appended Next Post: WayneTheGame wrote:Makumba wrote:GW sees their own rules as guidelines; some of their customers see the rules as gospel.
If the rules are so unimportant to GW, then why does the starter rules pack for an army without ally or supplements of any kind cost around 200$.
Pretty much this. They sell rules for more than everybody else, why should you pay that much for guidelines when every other company charges less for actual rules?
Obviously, if you don't like the guidelines, you shouldn't buy them. The problem seems to be that a lot of people just wish GW would be a different company than it is, and won't accept that have never written a miniature game in the format that they want, nor will they likely ever. Anyone who has nostalgia for a GW of yesteryear when things were nicely balanced and the hobby was cheap... well, never was 40k balanced, and it was always an expensive hobby. Yeah, there are more books now, and bigger models, but realistically most people don't buy *every* book anymore. What is amusing is that there are people who are infuriated by the crowd that doesn't really care that GW products are expensive, or poorly balanced, and still spend exorbitant amounts of money on the hobby and game over other, less expensive, more balanced options, for whatever personal reasons of preference. They just don't understand, "I think that expensive, poorly balanced game is just more fun." WayneTheGame wrote:The problem to me is that 40k is almost 100% dependent on what your local group is like. The locals around me want to play 1850 point games constantly and pretend that they can play 40k competitively, which is about as full 180 as you can get from how 40k seems to be intended to be played. If they had a small group playing casual, narrative style games, well that might be more tempting to get into because I like that part. But I already play a competitive, well thought out game (Warmachine) that's infinitely better for being a competitive, well thought out game than 40k is or ever was; with the 40k crowd around here there's no reason to frustrate myself by playing 40k in a bad way when I can play a better game in a good way, even if I do like the models and the fluff.
On the first part, we totally agree. 40k is completely dependent on having good people to play with. However, in my opinion, EVERY tabletop / board game requires this. I have a very low tolerance for playing with total strangers these days, because my gaming time is limited, and I'd rather spend it with people I like. On the competitive end, I disagree. Warmachines, 40k, and chess, and checkers have one thing in common: some people are just smarter than other people and more clever. They're just better players. The problem is, in a small pool of players, if you're really clever, even if everything is balanced, the game sucks competitively, because you'll always win. If you're on the other end of the spectrum, you'll always lose. And neither is very fun. Not only is there no matchmaking, but your competitive pool is so small that finding someone of equal skill and experience as you is not easy. The only way to balance against skill is to increase the level of chance, and that isn't a great direction for a strategy game. I find my fun play wargames more as planned scenarios -- with a nonrandom objective as you would in real life -- and also adjusting each game for the skill level and army list of my opponent. I neither wish to win nor lose 10 games in a row. WayneTheGame wrote:People constantly ignore the fact that good, solid rules benefits everybody. The casual/narrative/fluffbunny players aren't unduly punished for liking X unit instead of Y unit. The powergamer/competitive/ WAAC players don't have such a free reign to break the game. Everybody wins. Yet for some reason people seem to think that because 40k is bad for competitive play, it must be good for casual play as if it's a black and white situation. It's not. Games can (and should) be both, but focusing (as far as the level of detail and clarity) on the competitive game for the rules ensures that the rules are tight and well-written, which in turn benefits the casual group as well.
Indeed, better balance would benefit everyone. But a balanced game doesn't equal a fair game, and in Warmachines, you also can't just play the models you happen to like, though -- like Codex Craftworlds -- most everything can be used somewhere (in combination with the right other models), and you can still remain competitive. I don't think 7e suffers from a lack of clarity. The rules that are ambiguous that haven't been FAQ'd are very few now. It really affects the hypercompetitive types much more though. The casual group, or more accurately, the group that finds its fun in things other than just winning, really **doesn't care** one way or the other. When one person says, no, this rule works this way, the other person is most likely to just say, "Oh, okay." and move on. It truly doesn't matter who is right.
33816
Post by: Noir
 wuestenfux wrote: But it does seem to me that GW no longer accepts responsibility for balancing the game.
This is a true misconception.
What are the reasons behind?
I would guess GW rules would be the reason. Don't need to look any harder then that.
Oh... also their FAQ.
89259
Post by: Talys
Incidentally, I have found -- whether in the 90s or now -- 40k was most enjoyed by people with copious amounts of time and money.
There were about 10 -15 years in my life where 40k really took a back seat because I simply didn't have the time to model what I wanted to play, and I always felt like I wasn't giving models my best effort, because I was in a rush to get them done (to play).
The game is a lot more fun when, within at least 2-3 factions, you can field whatever you feel like, and adding to the army is just another vehicle or squad. And, when a new faction is not a rush to get out onto the table because you have other things you can play and try. The codex nerf/buff cycle also doesn't hit you as hard, because eventually what is bad will become good again.
For a really long time, I have modeled 90% because I like the models and 10% for effectiveness, and from a hobby perspective, that is infinitely more satisfying, but it is pretty hard to make that work unless you have gobs of time.
I guess what I'm saying is that 40k doesn't make a very good casual or occasional hobby.
61775
Post by: ClassicCarraway
Noir wrote: wuestenfux wrote: But it does seem to me that GW no longer accepts responsibility for balancing the game.
This is a true misconception.
What are the reasons behind?
I would guess GW rules would be the reason. Don't need to look any harder then that.
Oh... also their FAQ.
But are the core rules the source of the perceived balance issues or are the individual codex rules the problem?
Up until Necrons, people were saying that we were seeing a shift in how GW writes rules, as the 7th edition codexes had been pretty nicely balanced against each other and internally. Then came Necrons, which threw that notion away, but after that, we had Khorne Daemonkin and Skittari, both relatively balanced externally and internally. Finally, we got hit over the head with the OP nonsense that is Codex: Craftworld Eldar. I've not read the new IK codex, but given that Knights are pretty expensive AV units, I'd imagine that they are no more or less balanced than the 6th edition version (which most people tended to think wasn't really bad at all).
Codex creep has been a problem since 2nd edition and is usually the source of complaints. I doubt it will ever go away, but it normally boils down to a few rotten apples spoiling the whole barrel. For whatever reason, some armies get a shine from the writers and it throws the game into turmoil.
9370
Post by: Accolade
I think it's really the cost of rules that have become the greatest problem. With higher costs comes higher and higher expectations. It can be argued that GW's miniatures have kept pace with value, but the rules certainly have not. IMO, that is why rule complaints have continued to worsen, even as some of the books have been more measured in their balance within the game. ON top of that, having releases where the armies are really unbalanced (i.e. Necrons and Eldar) upsets things that much worse
Then you have the high rate of rules recycling, coupled with the fact that new rules aren't done to actually improve the books, and there is very little to be had by buying these $50 books. It's a waste of money even if you spend your free time driving a Tesla and throwing money at pet charity projects.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
 Accolade wrote:I think it's really the cost of rules that have become the greatest problem. With higher costs comes higher and higher expectations. It can be argued that GW's miniatures have kept pace with value, but the rules certainly have not. IMO, that is why rule complaints have continued to worsen, even as some of the books have been more measured in their balance within the game. ON top of that, having releases where the armies are really unbalanced (i.e. Necrons and Eldar) upsets things that much worse
Then you have the high rate of rules recycling, coupled with the fact that new rules aren't done to actually improve the books, and there is very little to be had by buying these $50 books. It's a waste of money even if you spend your free time driving a Tesla and throwing money at pet charity projects.
Agreed, but I'd also throw in competition.
Before, competition was few and of lesser quality. Now the other games out there are amazing and show what good rules writing can be. It's not a monopoly anymore.
33816
Post by: Noir
 ClassicCarraway wrote:Noir wrote: wuestenfux wrote: But it does seem to me that GW no longer accepts responsibility for balancing the game.
This is a true misconception.
What are the reasons behind?
I would guess GW rules would be the reason. Don't need to look any harder then that.
Oh... also their FAQ.
But are the core rules the source of the perceived balance issues or are the individual codex rules the problem?
Up until Necrons, people were saying that we were seeing a shift in how GW writes rules, as the 7th edition codexes had been pretty nicely balanced against each other and internally. Then came Necrons, which threw that notion away, but after that, we had Khorne Daemonkin and Skittari, both relatively balanced externally and internally. Finally, we got hit over the head with the OP nonsense that is Codex: Craftworld Eldar. I've not read the new IK codex, but given that Knights are pretty expensive AV units, I'd imagine that they are no more or less balanced than the 6th edition version (which most people tended to think wasn't really bad at all).
Codex creep has been a problem since 2nd edition and is usually the source of complaints. I doubt it will ever go away, but it normally boils down to a few rotten apples spoiling the whole barrel. For whatever reason, some armies get a shine from the writers and it throws the game into turmoil.
If you mean the main rule book, no it not balanced.
If you mean the core of move, shoot, assault, then yes it can be balanced. GW even shown they can make good fun seni-balanced rules using it. They just don't try anymore to do that. Oh, and up until Necron GW was not making a codex that auto-smacked the other codex, if you look at the units in the codex you know there is no real balance between the units. Or point cost would make since.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
I reject the premise of this thread.
In order to abdicate responsibility for balance, GW would have had to have assumed responsibility for it in the first place.
I believe "abandon all pretense at maintaining balance" would probably be more accurate at this point.
9370
Post by: Accolade
MWHistorian wrote: Accolade wrote:I think it's really the cost of rules that have become the greatest problem. With higher costs comes higher and higher expectations. It can be argued that GW's miniatures have kept pace with value, but the rules certainly have not. IMO, that is why rule complaints have continued to worsen, even as some of the books have been more measured in their balance within the game. ON top of that, having releases where the armies are really unbalanced (i.e. Necrons and Eldar) upsets things that much worse
Then you have the high rate of rules recycling, coupled with the fact that new rules aren't done to actually improve the books, and there is very little to be had by buying these $50 books. It's a waste of money even if you spend your free time driving a Tesla and throwing money at pet charity projects.
Agreed, but I'd also throw in competition.
Before, competition was few and of lesser quality. Now the other games out there are amazing and show what good rules writing can be. It's not a monopoly anymore.
This is certainly true. I know years ago I wouldn't even consider a wargame that wasn't 40k. Now I realize just how many options there are out there, and how many options GW has gotten rid of with the goal of selling Apocalypse 40k.
Azreal13 wrote:I reject the premise of this thread.
In order to abdicate responsibility for balance, GW would have had to have assumed responsibility for it in the first place.
I believe "abandon all pretense at maintaining balance" would probably be more accurate at this point.
I think 3rd-5th GW had a pretense of balance because armies were still single entities, and they had to make them decent enough or risk losing sales of the whole faction. Now everything is just an ally, so GW could care less if the individual books work because it's all about maximizing sales for the one super-army.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
ImAGeek wrote: Xenomancers wrote:The thing I think is most funny - is people that have thousands of dollars of FW always seem to think FW is balanced. It's always been codex plus 1 and always had better options than what you can field in codex. This might be the first time in history with new eldar that FW is actually outclassed by a codex unit in the WK. Just wait until the FW WK start coming out. lol.
It's not been that way at all. There's some strong FW stuff sure. But there's also a lot of crap. Basically the same as GW stuff, it's all over the place. FW is just as balanced as GW is.
If you ignore the junk in both GW and FW and only focus on the strong units you see the balance issues much better.
89259
Post by: Talys
Accolade wrote:
I think 3rd-5th GW had a pretense of balance because armies were still single entities, and they had to make them decent enough or risk losing sales of the whole faction. Now everything is just an ally, so GW could care less if the individual books work because it's all about maximizing sales for the one super-army.
Sorry, but this is the line of thinking just makes me shake my head. It's like people have drawn a total memory blank on things like razorback spam and Grey Knights. 3e-5e or 6e was NOT more balanced or clear. Maybe players were less extreme in a local scene. Maybe during 3e, there was less "look on the internet for an optimal build to show your friends how superior you are" -- but the rules were definitely more ambiguous, and the game had just as much imbalance (more!!!) as it has today.
40k has ALWAYS been about building a super-army and/or collecting a crap ton of toy soldiers, and showcasing it to your buddies by playing out some futuristic (laughably improbable) battle. But I mean, who didn't know that going in? Automatically Appended Next Post: Xenomancers wrote: ImAGeek wrote: Xenomancers wrote:The thing I think is most funny - is people that have thousands of dollars of FW always seem to think FW is balanced. It's always been codex plus 1 and always had better options than what you can field in codex. This might be the first time in history with new eldar that FW is actually outclassed by a codex unit in the WK. Just wait until the FW WK start coming out. lol.
It's not been that way at all. There's some strong FW stuff sure. But there's also a lot of crap. Basically the same as GW stuff, it's all over the place. FW is just as balanced as GW is.
If you ignore the junk in both GW and FW and only focus on the strong units you see the balance issues much better.
It depends if you're talking about FW 40k or 30k. I have never played 30k, mostly because the aesthetic is not really my thing and my playgroup isn't much interested, but I constantly hear good things about it. Keep in mind, it's about even bigger armies, though, more money for rules, and much more expensive models.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Xenomancers wrote:If you ignore the junk in both GW and FW and only focus on the strong units you see the balance issues much better.
And those balance issues apply equally regardless of which book GW published the rules in.
80999
Post by: jasper76
Peregrine wrote: Xenomancers wrote:If you ignore the junk in both GW and FW and only focus on the strong units you see the balance issues much better.
And those balance issues apply equally regardless of which book GW published the rules in.
FW units seem designed to plug weaknesses in the corresponding army's regular 40k codex. Like, your army is no good at this? No worries! Here's a FW unit to plug that hole.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
 jasper76 wrote:FW units seem designed to plug weaknesses in the corresponding army's regular 40k codex. Like, your army is no good at this? No worries! Here's a FW unit to plug that hole.
This is not true at all.
664
Post by: Grimtuff
Peregrine wrote: jasper76 wrote:FW units seem designed to plug weaknesses in the corresponding army's regular 40k codex. Like, your army is no good at this? No worries! Here's a FW unit to plug that hole.
This is not true at all.
Nah, the ally rules do that function just fine. 
89259
Post by: Talys
Peregrine wrote: jasper76 wrote:FW units seem designed to plug weaknesses in the corresponding army's regular 40k codex. Like, your army is no good at this? No worries! Here's a FW unit to plug that hole.
This is not true at all.
Except the Sicarn Battle Tank -- which should be a standard plastic kit dammit. And the Knight Castigator (before we had the new kit with skyfire) 
9370
Post by: Accolade
Talys wrote: Accolade wrote:
I think 3rd-5th GW had a pretense of balance because armies were still single entities, and they had to make them decent enough or risk losing sales of the whole faction. Now everything is just an ally, so GW could care less if the individual books work because it's all about maximizing sales for the one super-army.
Sorry, but this is the line of thinking just makes me shake my head. It's like people have drawn a total memory blank on things like razorback spam and Grey Knights. 3e-5e or 6e was NOT more balanced or clear. Maybe players were less extreme in a local scene. Maybe during 3e, there was less "look on the internet for an optimal build to show your friends how superior you are" -- but the rules were definitely more ambiguous, and the game had just as much imbalance (more!!!) as it has today.
40k has ALWAYS been about building a super-army and/or collecting a crap ton of toy soldiers, and showcasing it to your buddies by playing out some futuristic (laughably improbable) battle. But I mean, who didn't know that going in.
I did not know 40k was an imbalanced mess going in to 3rd, but as you said maybe there was less rules gimickyness at that point (during the great rules purge that was 3rd). But you can keep your "more knowedgable-than-thou" head-shaking to yourself, I TOO remember 5th edition Grey Knights that came at the end of 5th, yes they were poorly balanced, but I think they were indicative of where GW was taking 40k with 6th and beyond. And I don't think that Grew Knight book, which was only a tiny portion of 5th itself, has to represent that entire edition.
Armies weren't literally unbeatable the way they can be now. Now you have D-strength armies wiping out anything they encounter and whole armies of super heavies where half of your army may be entirely unable to hurt their opponents.
There is a difference between the game being unbalanced and certain armies being favored and a game where there is absolutely no concept of balance between armies, and things wildly swinging one way or the other.
And I will say this again since it bears repeating- recycling the rules at faster rates makes this unbalance much, much worse. Were GW not trying to wring you for $135 for basic rules that can last a couple years if lucky, it wouldn't matter that much. But their rules are the highest in the industry by a massive margin.
80999
Post by: jasper76
 Grimtuff wrote: Peregrine wrote: jasper76 wrote:FW units seem designed to plug weaknesses in the corresponding army's regular 40k codex. Like, your army is no good at this? No worries! Here's a FW unit to plug that hole.
This is not true at all.
Nah, the ally rules do that function just fine.
I agree with this. Allies cheese make the added punch offered by FW units a bit less notable.
95409
Post by: FenixPhox
Peregrine wrote:You are correct about GW putting no effort into game balance. Whatever the reasons may be they very clearly do not consider balance or rule quality to be important.
I can tell you as an employee of a shop that recently started carrying GW product that when we were first talking to them they made sure to let us know that they considered themselves a miniature company, NOT a game company. To them the game played with their models is secondary to the models and sales of the models the game is played with.
89259
Post by: Talys
Interestingly, I happened upon a Bell of Lost Souls article on 40k balance just now. It's actually pretty well written. I will quote two passages from it: This is from 3e, and written by Andy Chambers in 1998 and pretty much explains the Games Workshop philosophy. “The first and most fundamental principles of wargaming rules: They are loose, wooly affairs which never detail exactly what you want to know in any given situation. “Why” I hear you chorus, “Isn’t that your job you charlatan?” (you may want to use stronger terminology here). It’s because wargaming isn’t played on a gridded-out playing area with a set number of strictly defined pieces. Wargaming is about colour, movement and breathing life into the armies you lovingly amass and then drive headlong into your opponent. The number of variables in a normal miniatures game is simply staggering if you consider the diversity of terrain, armies, playing area, dice rolls, points values and all the rest of it.”
So – the date is 1998, and the Overlord Andy Chambers is telling you you won’t get a fully boxed off airtight ruleset. Hold that in mind – we may have forgotten that over the years…
See: it is about "color, movement, and breathing life into the armies you lovingly amass and then drive headlong into your opponent", dating nearly to the beginning of the modern game system. Stop blaming it on GW employees of today being less competent than GW employees of yesteryear, or because of corporate greed or incompetence or mismanagement. The rules are what they are because this is the vision and philosophy of 40k as set forth nearly 20 years ago, a period which people seem to look back upon fondly. You may choose to disagree or dislike it, of course, but there you have it. The conclusion is also very good. It points out that Games Workshop actually has given players exactly what they asked for. In 5e, which some seem reminisce for, players wanted faster release schedules. Wraithknights and Imperial Knights fly off the shelf because people WANT big stompy robots, just like they wanted flyers some years back. There is an imbalance in the codexes. If this imbalance is beyond your ability to deal without serious mental angst I haven’t got much to suggest. Have you tried using the battle missions? Have you tried planetfall? Have you thought about a fortification or an ally? Is there a super heavy that fits in your army fluff so you are not doing some unlikely fist bump with the necrons?
You see the reason I ask this is that the designers and GW seem to be doing something we wanted back at the time of 5th ed. Yes, you heard me, GW is doing what its customers wanted. We wanted a quicker release schedule, et voila. The sandbox of 40K has never been so varied so, to mix my metaphors, if you are like the French at Waterloo, and as described by Lord Wellington ‘come on in the same old way’ then in all likelihood you are going to be ‘seen off in the same old way’. If eternal war 1.5k isn’t floating your boat, change it up.
Embrace the inherent unbalance of 40K. It is not balanced, it never has been balanced and it never will be – neither is it intended to be and we were told this almost 2 decades back. But you know those square things with little dots on? Those are dice. There is a random aspect to 40K and there is a random aspect to war. The randomness and imbalance of 40K equally affects your opponent, so look for ways to mitigate and risk manage this aspect. You will find then that balance is just your starting point, to make sure bantam weight doesn’t fight super heavy weight. It is the handrail before jumping off into the grim dark future of the 41st millennium and if you can’t accept this I hope you are more fulfilled by pre-paints with 3 factions and the flat table space of a galaxy far far away, or using your super combo to kill the opposition warcaster. I for one will be trying to smash Eldar warts, D and all.
The full article is here, and worth a read. http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/05/40k-deep-thought-the-more-you-try-to-balance.html
11860
Post by: Martel732
Makes me want to never play this game again. Thanks.
9370
Post by: Accolade
I will post the top comment from that article, since the article itself represents just Larry Vela and his opinions on 40k, which I feel largely equate to " GW can do no wrong" (he also wrote the article about "Why GW doesn't need to listen to its customers")
There is an issue if you have to start every pick up game with questions on how your opponent built their force so you know what to bring or if you should play them or not... Most games in the past when I asked pre game questions they were usually about terrain set ups or if they wanted to play a scenario. If I asked about their army it was curiosity NOT so I know which of my three forces to bring or if I should even play them (or shake their hand and say good game because I have no real hope of winning).
Like you said game balance is impossible, but a company should always try to get there... often close enough is enough to satisfy the majority of players.
Considering how much 40K players pay for their rules ($85 rule book + $50 Codex + $20-$50 supplements) GW should strive harder to make a better and more balanced game. Especially when you consider much smaller companies with much tighter and more balanced rules (IE they worked much harder on them than GW does) are giving away their rules for free.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Accolade wrote:I will post the top comment from that article, since the article itself represents just Larry Vela and his opinions on 40k, which I feel largely equate to " GW can do no wrong" (he also wrote the article about "Why GW doesn't need to listen to its customers") There is an issue if you have to start every pick up game with questions on how your opponent built their force so you know what to bring or if you should play them or not... Most games in the past when I asked pre game questions they were usually about terrain set ups or if they wanted to play a scenario. If I asked about their army it was curiosity NOT so I know which of my three forces to bring or if I should even play them (or shake their hand and say good game because I have no real hope of winning).
Like you said game balance is impossible, but a company should always try to get there... often close enough is enough to satisfy the majority of players.
Considering how much 40K players pay for their rules ($85 rule book + $50 Codex + $20-$50 supplements) GW should strive harder to make a better and more balanced game. Especially when you consider much smaller companies with much tighter and more balanced rules (IE they worked much harder on them than GW does) are giving away their rules for free.
Exactly right. I get that GW is trying to hearken back to the olden days of historical gaming, of Featherstone and Bath et all where they were all day affairs that you talked about and planned out and then enjoyed. I really do understand that. But 40k is too far in the opposite direction. There's no real guidance for that stuff. It's just random charts and assorted bullgak to give the illusion. For the price of the rules, they could at least be better written and at least try to get basic balance down. Sure, you can't compare a Space marine to a Guardsman, but you have problems where within the same fething book there's a unit that's so bad that only an idiot would take it, and a unit so good that you have to purposely decide to gimp yourself to not take it. If they want the historical vibe, then they need to stop putting out freeform rules and ONLY put out campaign packs. Then they can write stuff like that to their heart's content because in the fluff the Battle for Omicron Persei VIII was three tactical squads and an Imperial Knight versus 100 Orks or whatever, and it's okay that it's unbalanced because it's a historical scenario. Except they don't do that. They try to cater to everybody and fail miserably. Even modern historical games don't do that. Hail Caesar or Bolt Action for example, let you play imbalanced scenarios but the rules are at least good enough and there are enough victory conditions that you aren't just overwhelmed. If I wanted to play out Thermopylae, sure the Spartans are going to be outnumbered, but they don't have to beat the Persians to win the scenario. It's okay to have imbalance there if the victory conditions are like, Spartans win if they have any unit alive at the end of Turn 4, otherwise Persians win. That can still be a good game even with such an imbalance. 40k doesn't do that, and if they want to continue hyping this narrative bullgak, they need to do something like that to alleviate the problems. Give a book that has ideas for a narrative campaign, a real one not some trivial crap like the Space Wolf and Blood Angel ones they put out that were a few scenarios with the figures in the box, I mean something like the Crusade of Fire book with half the book being talking about coming up with a campaign and how they decide things, and the other half being the example campaign with the scenarios and laying everything out so it serves as an example and guide for how to do the kinds of leagues and campaigns that GW seems to want people to play. A GW-ified version of Tony Bath's Ancient Wargaming or Donald Featherstone's Wargaming Campaigns, basically. I'd even buy that just to read, even without playing.
80999
Post by: jasper76
WayneTheGame wrote:they need to do something like that to alleviate the problems. Give a book that has ideas for a narrative campaign, a real one not some trivial crap like the Space Wolf and Blood Angel ones they put out that were a few scenarios with the figures in the box, I mean something like the Crusade of Fire book with half the book being talking about coming up with a campaign and how they decide things, and the other half being the example campaign with the scenarios and laying everything out so it serves as an example and guide for how to do the kinds of leagues and campaigns that GW seems to want people to play.
I certainly wish there was more of this in 40k. Our group ends up making this kind of campaign/scenario stuff up ourselves, though we have used books like Damnos and other Apoc books for scenario ideas.
One of the things that was so cool about Lord ot the Ring SBG was the wealth of scenario material out for it, and most of them were very well designed.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Talys wrote:Stop blaming it on GW employees of today being less competent than GW employees of yesteryear
Why? That's actually how it is. All I see in that quote from Andy Chambers is whining and crying about how nobody should point out that the rules suck instead of doing his job and making a better game. That's simply laziness and incompetence. But the main difference is that back in 1980 this might have been a bit understandable since the tabletop gaming hobby wasn't as well developed and GW didn't have as much experience with their games. Now there's simply no excuse for failing to make a better game. We know more about game design, and GW has a lot more experience with their games.
or because of corporate greed or incompetence or mismanagement.
Are you seriously denying that GW's corporate greed and incompetence have hurt their products?
In 5e, which some seem reminisce for, players wanted faster release schedules.
We wanted faster release schedules without sacrificing quality. But that's not what we got. Instead we have a faster release schedule enabled by spending minimal time and effort on writing the books, and splitting up codices into several smaller books.
Wraithknights and Imperial Knights fly off the shelf because people WANT big stompy robots, just like they wanted flyers some years back.
People wanted flyers and big stompy robots. People did NOT want those units to have utterly broken and anti-fun rules.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Peregrine, there's obviously enough people who don't care to keep GW afloat. Since this hot mess is CLEARLY GW's preference, we're probably stuck.
51365
Post by: kb305
Talys wrote: Nithaniel wrote:
I came from a background of playing MtG. It is comparative to 40k in cost in terms of total spend however it is supported in competitive play. But it is also a game environment where the money bags players have the ability to dominate competitive and casual gaming scenes until the rest of the world is able to catch up. The balancing factor in this competitive environment is that a new expansion is released 3-4 times a year.
I agree completely! MtG is a perfect game to get moms, sisters, grandmas and girlfriends into. It takes almost no time to learn, and the pictures are pretty But casual and competitive decks don't mix any better than in 40k. When my aunt plays MtG, she plays with every card she owns IN ONE DECK. She insists on it because she doesn't want any card to feel bad, because you know, MtG cards have feelings too. Sometimes, she can go for 80 cards without draw a single freaking land.
But in the competitive scene, to have the "full MtG experience", you really need to have enough cards -- including extremely rare cards -- that allow you to build pretty much any deck you want, to experiment, and to have multiple playable decks all at the same time. It's actually very expensive to do. One may argue, "but you can just buy the cards you want" -- this is true, but it is not. No serious MtG player will do this, because all it lets you do is build a couple of netdecks and as the creepy guy in SHIELD said, "Progress requires experimentation".
In the same way, my girlfriend plays Orks and simply fields all the models she thinks are cool, without any regard for effectiveness. She's happy with a win, lose or draw, but if you try to curb stomp her with 5 Wraithknights, she'll just come over and knee you in the balls. She is a riot to game with, though, and all my buddies are happy to accommodate if she happens to be in the mood.
Generally speaking, in my opinion, 40k is not a good fit for people with very limited incomes or very limited time. I'm not trying to be an elitist snob. It's just that this game takes a lot of miniatures, the hobby supplies are costly, the hobby itself is time consuming, and every few years there's an army reboot in such a seismic way that you're likely to need a major reinvestment, unless you pretty much have bought everything along the way. In which case, you STILL might need to spend a bunch of money, because you suddenly need (or want) a lot more of unit X that you only had 1 of before; and unit Y that you had 30 of is suddenly poop.
Unless, of course, you play 7e Eldar -- almost everything is solid enough that not much has to go onto the shelf!
Nithaniel wrote:This is arguable. I think most casual players are happy to come to arrangements where the rules fall down. However the rules fall down in very specific places that affect competitive gaming environments.
Well, especially regular groups. They'll just make up the rules they want, and go with it. Friendly groups tend to play rather than argue.
Nithaniel wrote:
Yes GW doesn't care. They care about their profit margins and their shareholders.
Once, I too thought this, but no more. If GW actually just cared about profit margins and shareholders, they'd design the game that the market demands.
Instead, what they actually do, is write a game and make miniatures that they think is cool, regardless of whether it is optimal for the market. GW plays 40k in a way that harkens back to Chainmail (who is old enough to remember that? ) -- roleplaying scenarios and campaigns, with miniatures. I've said it before: GW has strong AD&D roots in its DNA. GW doesn't really care if the market doesn't want it; it's confident that there is enough of a market that wants their stuff enough that they'll just do what they damn well please, and either take it and make it your own, or leave it and do something else.
No truer words ever were said, when it comes to gaming and hobby
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Desubot wrote: Sigvatr wrote:GW openly considers itself a model company. Recent rules releases have, sadly, cemented that idea as GW went from trash to utterly unusuable trash. Codex: Eldar, just to name the most recent peak.
GW most likely knows that their competitors release vastly superior ruleset and thus fully stopped putting any effort in their rules department anymore.
Its sad because it could be.
The game it self isnt thaaaaaaat bad.
Meh. Like I said, I think GW just does what it wants to, the world be damned. They care more about keeping their vision for the game (which is not very tournament friendly OOB) and the people who think the way they do about tabletop wargames, than they do about making everyone else happy (and the game more profitable).
I think GW puts a huge effort into faction books. They certainly pump out enough of them, with tons of art and fluff, and well, rules, GW style. The only question is -- is that your thing, or can you or do you want to make it your own, because if you don't, you'll never be happy with 40k. I don't think in the next 7 editions there will be a set of rules that is "fair" or balanced that makes everyone happy.
It's like, the thought process is: "Eldar are supposed to be powerful. So we'll just make them powerful! Oh, well, they're more powerful than Orks? Well of course they are. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE. They did rule the galaxy for millions of years, you know. Why should the Orks have anything but the most desparate chance?"
That actually makes for pretty good fluff and narrative (after all, they were an ancient race that could erase stars at a snap of the fingers). It just makes for a lousy game for the Ork player trying to win.
It's like building a historical recreation of Desert Shield, with US forces on one side, and Iraqi forces on the other. Where is the balance, dammit. Why do the Iraqis lose 100% of the time?!
I think it's pretty much this. The rules are made by a bunch of old british farts who dont care and are also stuck in their ways. they also probably dont have the same frame of reference younger people have (frame of reference we gained from video games and such).
50532
Post by: Zagman
Pointing to Grey Knights in 5th as proof the edition was terribly balanced it a bit problematic, GK was the second to last codex of the edition followed by Necrons, both were heralds of the new edition. GK brought us the Brotherhood of Psykers, Power Weapons(Soon to be AP3) on everything, Over costed Storm Raven(BA was first, but costed appropriately as a Flyer), the Dreadknight(first 90x120mm MC), etc. One of 5th's biggest failing was GK was BA+1 and BA was SM+1 and vehicles were too durable. I still remember some of the closest, most enjoyable, and best games from 5th edition, 6th and 7th have effectively killed of 40k in my city. I really wish we would have had every codex updated for 5th edition, and not had GK and Necrons powered up for 6th.
52675
Post by: Deadnight
Accolade wrote:
I did not know 40k was an imbalanced mess going in to 3rd, but as you said maybe there was less rules gimickyness at that point (during the great rules purge that was 3rd). But you can keep your "more knowedgable-than-thou" head-shaking to yourself, I TOO remember 5th edition Grey Knights that came at the end of 5th, yes they were poorly balanced, but I think they were indicative of where GW was taking 40k with 6th and beyond. And I don't think that Grew Knight book, which was only a tiny portion of 5th itself, has to represent that entire edition.
Armies weren't literally unbeatable the way they can be now. Now you have D-strength armies wiping out anything they encounter and whole armies of super heavies where half of your army may be entirely unable to hurt their opponents.
There is a difference between the game being unbalanced and certain armies being favored and a game where there is absolutely no concept of balance between armies, and things wildly swinging one way or the other.
He's right though.
Iron warriors and siren prince lists were pretty damned close to 'literally unbeatable' back in their day, and would bro fist the grey Knights and eldar for sheer over the top brutality. Iron Warriors on their own all but killed fourth edition. Other lesser contenders in fifth were things like long fang spam and imperial guard leaf blower. Fifth was pretty terrible in terms of balance, to be entirely honest.
Even further back in third, you had the lunacy of craft world eldar (ulthwe seer councils, alaitoc disruption tables, said hann ctm spam, and all with starcannonsa on everything and it's monkey), blood Angels and their 'on a 1 I go faster' assault you in the face and roll up a flank on turn 1 army lists. D-strength is kind of irrelevant - that's symptomatic of an arms race, nothing more. The fundamental imbalance was always there. Back in the day, when the biggest weapon you've got is a power fist and a lascannon, three wraithlords were the de facto equivelant. Half your army being unable to hurt anything in theirs? Yup, nothing new im afraid.
58139
Post by: SilverDevilfish
 Zagman wrote:One of 5th's biggest failing was GK was BA+1 and BA was SM+1 and vehicles were too durable.
The majority of 5e may as well been called Marine Training Exercises.
9370
Post by: Accolade
Deadnight wrote:He's right though.
Iron warriors and siren prince lists were pretty damned close to 'literally unbeatable' back in their day, and would bro fist the grey Knights and eldar for sheer over the top brutality. Iron Warriors on their own all but killed fourth edition. Other lesser contenders in fifth were things like long fang spam and imperial guard leaf blower. Fifth was pretty terrible in terms of balance, to be entirely honest.
Even further back in third, you had the lunacy of craft world eldar (ulthwe seer councils, alaitoc disruption tables, said hann ctm spam, and all with starcannonsa on everything and it's monkey), blood Angels and their 'on a 1 I go faster' assault you in the face and roll up a flank on turn 1 army lists. D-strength is kind of irrelevant - that's symptomatic of an arms race, nothing more. The fundamental imbalance was always there. Back in the day, when the biggest weapon you've got is a power fist and a lascannon, three wraithlords were the de facto equivelant. Half your army being unable to hurt anything in theirs? Yup, nothing new im afraid.
With the wraithlords, were they literally unable to be harmed by weapons of certain strength, or was it just damn unlikely? It's an honest question, 3rd is something I admit I'm much more shakey on that 4th and 5th. I'm focused on the difference between "highly, highly unlikely" and "don't roll, because it is absolutely impossible."
I will concede to you and Talys that the game has always had a lot of imbalance. However, I think the scale at which we're seeing the imbalance- as you termed, with the arms race- is hitting a tipping point for people when it comes to deciding to start/continue playing 40k. I disagree that D-strength is irrelevant, it is to me the final steps of GW just completely saying "eff it" and dumping everything into their 28mm skirmish game.
The difference between the Rhino Rush of 3rd and the Knight Titan army of today is how much more freaking money it takes to build an army. You get curbstombed by a couple of wraithlords, you can buy more powerfists and lascannons, that's really not that much money. You get curbstomped by an AdLance Knight army, you have to make some really massive changes to your army to compete.
My issues always really boil down to the same thing: 40k is way too expensive. It's great that the game apparently has a collection of yacht-riding gentlemen who take the rising prices as a chance to showcase their own financial superiority, but the ubiquity of the game is being eroded at the fastest rate it has even been. Great for tabletop gaming overall, but I think it is silly to not admit that GW has these big problems that it is creating for itself.
Were the rules not (a) unbelievable expensive, and (b) on their seventh iteration, I very much doubt the complaints would be half this bad. But GW is clearly showing that their rules are a vehicle for revenue generation. And if they're going to charge an arm and a leg for them, they damn-well better be worth the cost.
53371
Post by: Akiasura
Deadnight wrote: Accolade wrote:
I did not know 40k was an imbalanced mess going in to 3rd, but as you said maybe there was less rules gimickyness at that point (during the great rules purge that was 3rd). But you can keep your "more knowedgable-than-thou" head-shaking to yourself, I TOO remember 5th edition Grey Knights that came at the end of 5th, yes they were poorly balanced, but I think they were indicative of where GW was taking 40k with 6th and beyond. And I don't think that Grew Knight book, which was only a tiny portion of 5th itself, has to represent that entire edition.
Armies weren't literally unbeatable the way they can be now. Now you have D-strength armies wiping out anything they encounter and whole armies of super heavies where half of your army may be entirely unable to hurt their opponents.
There is a difference between the game being unbalanced and certain armies being favored and a game where there is absolutely no concept of balance between armies, and things wildly swinging one way or the other.
He's right though.
Iron warriors and siren prince lists were pretty damned close to 'literally unbeatable' back in their day, and would bro fist the grey Knights and eldar for sheer over the top brutality. Iron Warriors on their own all but killed fourth edition. Other lesser contenders in fifth were things like long fang spam and imperial guard leaf blower. Fifth was pretty terrible in terms of balance, to be entirely honest.
It was doing fine until the 2 6th edition codexes came out while in 5th. When 6th launched, Grey knights, at least, were calmed down. The Bakery was still a thing though. Iron warriors were never really as strong as the siren bomb, and chaos got a 4th edition dex. Eldar have been strong for 2 dexes in a row, and were strong for most of their life.
Deadnight wrote:
Even further back in third, you had the lunacy of craft world eldar (ulthwe seer councils, alaitoc disruption tables, said hann ctm spam, and all with starcannonsa on everything and it's monkey), blood Angels and their 'on a 1 I go faster' assault you in the face and roll up a flank on turn 1 army lists. D-strength is kind of irrelevant - that's symptomatic of an arms race, nothing more. The fundamental imbalance was always there. Back in the day, when the biggest weapon you've got is a power fist and a lascannon, three wraithlords were the de facto equivelant. Half your army being unable to hurt anything in theirs? Yup, nothing new im afraid.
In every edition, a lot of dexes had strong builds. Chaos 3.5 dex was really out of control (It was called siren bomb, not prince btw. Did you mean lash prince? That was a later edition and wasn't nearly as bad), and was absurdly op. This is true.
But the rhino rush, eldar, nids, and even orks could compete against it (I didn't play other armies in 3rd, won't comment on them). Its true that, for many codexes, the internal balance was bad, leading to the one true build, but at least the external balance was closer than it is now.
Though, for eldar, I have not heard Saim Hann and Alaitoc described as good. Ulthwe seer council and Biel tan were the power builds, but you could play with any craftworld. Iyanden was a bit of a struggle but it was doable against the vast majority of builds.
In 4th, Eldar were really strong, but any dex could compete against them. Sometimes it was a 60 40 match up, sometimes slightly worse, but it wasn't 80 20 or 90 10 like you see now. This is partially due to flyer rules, and super heavies, but it's also because of the 2+ rerollable and invisibility. A 2++ was unheard of in 3-5 outside of dark eldar, who could lose it at least. And it was still considered to be really good, even with that weakness.
In 3rd and 4th, at least for marines, there was usually a hidden powerfist along with plasma guns. Wraithlords couldn't assault a group of tactical marines at full strength and expect to win, the unit had a weakness. Nids usually ran a MC swarm and could tangle with them, Nobz had klaws. Eldar, true, some units couldn't touch them but eldar are supposed to be hyper specialized so that seemed balanced.
What you are doing is, essentially, saying "every fighting game has always had top tier characters and lower tiers. It's always been the same, why complain?", but there is a huge difference between meta knight in SSBB and Diddy Kong in SSB4.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
I don't see how past failures excuse present ones.
Perhaps people are just tired of the crappy rules and terrible imbalances.
Nothing new, yes, but maybe it's just gotten old.
89259
Post by: Talys
@Accolade - I'm not trying to be condescending (I also didn't write the BoLS article). I'm just pointing out that going back to Rogue Trader, and specifically quoted in 3e rules by the architect of the modern game, GW has been clear that it's about collections clashing, not about balance. I'm not asking anyone to agree with this, I'm just asking for people to stop making RT through 5e to be something that it wasn't, and to stop making it seem like GW has shifted course from 3e or 5e (or that either of those editions were any more fair).
GW may not work the way you like, but they are true to their own vision of what an enjoyable game should be about, and again, I'm not defending them or trying to change anyone's mind about 40k.
85399
Post by: The Home Nuggeteer
At this point i am not even sure what GW even wants at this point, everything points in different directions.
34243
Post by: Blacksails
Wasn't there a main writer on the team that drove the editions up to 5th in order to better support tournament/competitive/balanced play?
I get that RT/2nd were far more the realm of a pseudo RPG wargame, but 3rd-5th sounds like that mindset was moving away from unstructured or unbalanced gameplay in favour of making a more accessible game for all player types.
Someone with more years playing 40k or knows more about their history and people behind the company can help clarify, please and thanks!
89259
Post by: Talys
Peregrine wrote: Talys wrote:Stop blaming it on GW employees of today being less competent than GW employees of yesteryear
Why? That's actually how it is. All I see in that quote from Andy Chambers is whining and crying about how nobody should point out that the rules suck instead of doing his job and making a better game. That's simply laziness and incompetence. But the main difference is that back in 1980 this might have been a bit understandable since the tabletop gaming hobby wasn't as well developed and GW didn't have as much experience with their games. Now there's simply no excuse for failing to make a better game. We know more about game design, and GW has a lot more experience with their games.
Well, Peregrine, I have a different perspective as you. Even going back to the 90s, I spent countless hours (at least hundred) painting my armies. Seeing as some of my armies don't see a tabletop for years while I work on them -- and I fully understand the rules might be totally different by the time I am satisfied with my battleforce -- my primary goal is not to have a supercompetitive game where I'm just out there to stomp or be stomped. Instead, I'm rather proud of my wee toy soldiers, and I'm excited to play them out with my buddies, who are also wowed by my little men. The goal is to put them in interesting scenarios, based on 40k fluff and canon; if the space marines lose a hopeless battle to the Eldar, that doesn't diminish me or my army in the least. It was still fun to do, and I do not feel diminished or an idiot for investing my time in my army.
I suspect there are other like-minded players who care more about the playing the game and reveling in the awesomeness of the models than they are in exploiting the latest, curb-stomping netlist; for these people, balance is simply not THE deciding factor on where to spend their time.
Now, to Andy Chambers balance comments: it's really, really hard to balance an ecosystem with units, terrain, and fortifications as complex as 40k, because not everyone plays the same way. Certain units may excel on foothills and be junk in a maze of city buildings. Those Eldar jetbikes? Garbage in an urban board where there are no straight lines exceeding 12". Wraithknights, Imperial Knights, and other Titans? Junk on a busy fortification-rich board, where there are very limited spaces that are large enough for a Titan base.
Granted, GW seems to be particularly bad at balancing certain factions (like Eldar and Necron). They seem to go out of their way to make these factions really strong -- which I guess, goes with the lore, that for millions of years, these species dominated the galaxy, and have technology far exceeding other younger races. But yes, I concede, this makes for bizarre gaming. After all, following the lore, the game could begin with, "Alaitoc forces teleport out and the Warhost triggers a supernova. Your army has been evaporated!". The game ends, but that would still fit the lore...
I'm happy to concede that there are lots of people (maybe even the majority) who don't share my viewpoint. That's just fine. I am not trying to convince them to play 40k, and if I ran into someone who wanted to play a tabletop wargame in competitive pickup games, I would actively try to convince them AGAINST 40k, because they probably wouldn't have a good time. Since the game hasn't been a good fit for this crowd since... well, since the game was invented, it probably won't be for another really long while, if ever. I just am baffled by the nostalgia of " 40k used to be awesome and now it's wrecked".
Also: does anyone really get into 40k thinking it is balanced game, cheap game or cheap hobby? If so, I pity them.
Peregrine wrote:Are you seriously denying that GW's corporate greed and incompetence have hurt their products?
Nah, they're as greedy as the next corporation. Which is really fine by me. I don't need corporations to be great world citizens. Ironically, however, I have made the argument before that GW is more true to its vision than it is to its corporate greed. I don't believe GW is **incapable** of better balance; I think that better balance contradicts its vision of a scifi universe in which the ancient civilizations are more powerful, and to the detriment of its corporate bottom line (because it's a customer losing position), it keeps these factions in alignment with their fluff.
Peregrine wrote:We wanted faster release schedules without sacrificing quality. But that's not what we got. Instead we have a faster release schedule enabled by spending minimal time and effort on writing the books, and splitting up codices into several smaller books.
Books aside, a lot of people complain about how fast new models pop. This baffles me, because for any particular faction, the new models are a trickle.
Books specifically, even if every set of books were a huge improvement over the last, there would still be a huge number of people upset at the release cycle. Heck, IK is a huge improvement over the first version (which was junk, if you call a spade a spade), and people are unhappy about its release. Nobody even gives GW credit for including practically everything you need between the White Dwarf and the beautiful booklet in in the box with the new knight.
Peregrine wrote:People wanted flyers and big stompy robots. People did NOT want those units to have utterly broken and anti-fun rules.
Evidently, nobody cares about flyers much anymore, and there are pretty good mechanisms for taking out big stompy robots with fewer points.
Most of the anti-fun comes from people who go, "Flyrants are good, so I only want to play Flyrants" -- it doesn't come from Flyrants being impossibly powerful.
89631
Post by: Tack
Yeah I joined the game at the start of 5th and got hooked, but I can't deal with them seemingly merging Apocalypse and standard into one ruleset.
Nowadays I go to Casual tournaments and there's people there with full Knight armies, which are combined arms detachments- because whilst everyone has something to take out A knight, not many people are ready for 4.
This works the Least in ladder games because the single person who devotes their army to titanslaying is then completely unable to deal with any other, more normal army- yet those who field standard armies are completely unable to win against a large enough sea of superheavies.
I'm not advocating the earlier codexes- they all have had flaws, but there seems to be an upward trend in Cheese as the editions have moved forward.
4th it was just the fish of fury- now there's invisibility, superheavies, Grey Knights and unbound.
--
The thing that pisses me off the most about it is that it's done now. As much as I rant and rave and want the Knights to go back inyo apocalypse here they belong, it isn't happening because if they do, every Knight player will complain. As they should- they cost hundreds.
But like any profitable venture, GW only listen to the people buying their stuff, and the people buying their stuff LOVE the Pay2Win option.
GG, leave the hobby, find friends who'll play houserules, or go out and spend $400 to become viable.
89259
Post by: Talys
Blacksails wrote:Wasn't there a main writer on the team that drove the editions up to 5th in order to better support tournament/competitive/balanced play? I get that RT/2nd were far more the realm of a pseudo RPG wargame, but 3rd-5th sounds like that mindset was moving away from unstructured or unbalanced gameplay in favour of making a more accessible game for all player types. Someone with more years playing 40k or knows more about their history and people behind the company can help clarify, please and thanks!
Andy Chambers is essentially the grand architect of modern 40k. He had the final say on all things 2e, 3e, and 4e, Necromundia, and Adeptus Titanicus, and had the title of 40k Overfiend For the last 10 years or so he has been the Creative Director of Blizzard Entertainment and worked on WarCraft, Diablo, and StarCraft. I've been a fan since Rogue Trader, and I've always enjoyed the pseudo- RPG wargame aspect of 40k.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
In RT there were RPG elements.
After that it was a wargame.
If there are RPG elements in modern 40k, they aren't supported by the actual rules.
Also, Talys, I get where you're coming from, but you must realize that better rules would not hinder your enjoyment of the game and would actually allow far more people to enjoy the game more. It's a win win.
Yes, it might be GW's vision, but its a crappy vision.
89259
Post by: Talys
MWHistorian wrote:In RT there were RPG elements.
After that it was a wargame.
If there are RPG elements in modern 40k, they aren't supported by the actual rules.
Also, Talys, I get where you're coming from, but you must realize that better rules would not hinder your enjoyment of the game and would actually allow far more people to enjoy the game more. It's a win win.
Yes, it might be GW's vision, but its a crappy vision.
I agree with you. They should just balance the game better, fluff be damned. I agree with Andy Chambers' position that the game can't be perfectly balanced, but it can be balanced better than it is now.
By the way, interesting factiod... in the original Rogue Trader book, it actually tells you how they create point values for models (for a wargame). What throws it all out the window is the Special Rules. And psychic powers.
34243
Post by: Blacksails
Talys wrote:
Andy Chambers is essentially the grand architect of modern 40k. He had the final say on all things 2e, 3e, and 4e, Necromundia, and Adeptus Titanicus, and had the title of 40k Overfiend For the last 10 years or so he has been the Creative Director of Blizzard Entertainment and worked on WarCraft, Diablo, and StarCraft.
I've been a fan since Rogue Trader, and I've always enjoyed the pseudo- RPG wargame aspect of 40k.
Right, but Chambers also worked on BFG, which was a better balanced game than stock 40k (improved significantly by the fan made 2010 FAQ, however), and 3rd through 5th marched along a clear path of better core rules and balance for the likes of tournaments and random pick up games.
I can swear I remember reading some other quotes from the big designers stating along those lines.
Regardless, 5th edition was a very, very different game than what 7th is now. I never played 4th or 3rd, but my time on the internet shows that 3rd and 4th held more in common with 5th than 6th or 7th. Considering 3rd through 5th covers 14 years of 40k's lifespan, a majority of players experienced one of those editions, and now many are left confused where GW turned everything upside down on them.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
I'm pretty sure Rick Priestley would have something to say about Andy Chambers being the grand architect of anything 40K while he was working at GW, but meh, there a lot of things Talys remembers that don't quite gel with my recollection of the previous editions, so maybe it's a transatlantic thing.
34243
Post by: Blacksails
89259
Post by: Talys
 Azreal13 wrote:I'm pretty sure Rick Priestley would have something to say about Andy Chambers being the grand architect of anything 40K while he was working at GW, but meh, there a lot of things Talys remembers that don't quite gel with my recollection of the previous editions, so maybe it's a transatlantic thing.
Nah, I totally understand where you're coming from. There wasn't as much list abuse even though it was possible (and even though I would argue the game was just as unbalanced). I actually didn't play a ton of 3e/4e, as that was a period of my life where I was working a lot more hours than I do now
I never remembered any edition being as "competitive" in the sense that people went out of their way to abuse lists to the maximum extent possible as after some point in 5e. But hey, those are just my observations in one local meta.
I also understand the arms race resistance, while concurrently loving new, big, complicated models. Large metal models were never popular here (hard to assemble and transport), but plastic vehicles seemed alarmingly arms race-wish. A lot of people really wanted 40k to be infantry-centric, with terminators being big units and dreadnoughts being the largest sized units
Anyways, I wasn't trying to defend GW, more trying to explain them and their mindset. I think it's dumb not to evolve with the times, even if there are a subset of customers (like me) that will be happy either way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
42342
Post by: Smacks
I had an idea a while ago that GW could include some "fixed" army lists for each race, as an alternative game "mode" to unbound. The lists would specify exactly what units and weapons make up the force, with very few options for customization. The idea being that each "fixed" list could be playtested and balanced in a more controlled way, then be "approved" for tournament play against other fixed lists (regardless of the actual points value).
While it sounds oppressive at first, it would have a lot of great benefits.
1: It would be much easier for the developers to balance (rather than trying to balance the whole game unbound, which might not even be possible).
2 It would make life much easier for tournament organizers, and for pick up gamers.
3: It would allow every race, and a much greater variety of units to be viable at a tournament level. Since every faction would have at least one (but possibly many) approved lists.
4: It would take some of the heavy focus off "list building" in strategy discussions, and get people talking about how to actually deploy and maneuver with each army.
5: It would allow players and TOs to be much more familiar with the rules and capabilities of each army. (harder to cheat)
6: It would be good for new players, since they could collect a list that includes models they like, without having to worry about it sucking.
7: It might encourage greater customization in terms of painting and modeling, as people look for new ways to make their army "unique".
8: It would remove barriers for new players (and some old) to get into the competitive scene, as they won't get instagibed by some cheese list in the first round.
9: We might see a lot more fluffy lists at tournaments.
X: I think it would be good for GW. I know I would be much more likely to buy a one click army, and even a second army if I knew there was a whole tournament scene built around that box.
It also wouldn't have to be the end of list building. You could still have something like "fixed list + 500pts" pick up games and tournaments, which would allow people to work in more units around a more balanced "take all comers" core. And of course for everything else there is always unbound.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Zagman wrote:Pointing to Grey Knights in 5th as proof the edition was terribly balanced it a bit problematic, GK was the second to last codex of the edition followed by Necrons, both were heralds of the new edition. GK brought us the Brotherhood of Psykers, Power Weapons(Soon to be AP3) on everything, Over costed Storm Raven( BA was first, but costed appropriately as a Flyer), the Dreadknight(first 90x120mm MC), etc. One of 5th's biggest failing was GK was BA+1 and BA was SM+1 and vehicles were too durable. I still remember some of the closest, most enjoyable, and best games from 5th edition, 6th and 7th have effectively killed of 40k in my city. I really wish we would have had every codex updated for 5th edition, and not had GK and Necrons powered up for 6th.
SR is still overcosted, just not as badly.
89259
Post by: Talys
 Smacks wrote:I had an idea a while ago that GW could include some "fixed" army lists for each race, as an alternative game "mode" to unbound. The lists would specify exactly what units and weapons make up the force, with very few options for customization. The idea being that each "fixed" list could be playtested and balanced in a more controlled way, then be "approved" for tournament play against other fixed lists (regardless of the actual points value). While it sounds oppressive at first, it would have a lot of great benefits. 1: It would be much easier for the developers to balance (rather than trying to balance the whole game unbound, which might not even be possible). 2 It would make life much easier for tournament organizers, and for pick up gamers. 3: It would allow every race, and a much greater variety of units to be viable at a tournament level. Since every faction would have at least one (but possibly many) approved lists. 4: It would take some of the heavy focus off "list building" in strategy discussions, and get people talking about how to actually deploy and maneuver with each army. 5: It would allow players and TOs to be much more familiar with the rules and capabilities of each army. (harder to cheat) 6: It would be good for new players, since they could collect a list that includes models they like, without having to worry about it sucking. 7: It might encourage greater customization in terms of painting and modeling, as people look for new ways to make their army "unique". 8: It would remove barriers for new players (and some old) to get into the competitive scene, as they won't get instagibed by some cheese list in the first round. 9: We might see a lot more fluffy lists at tournaments. X: I think it would be good for GW. I know I would be much more likely to buy a one click army, and even a second army if I knew there was a whole tournament scene built around that box. It also wouldn't have to be the end of list building. You could still have something like "fixed list + 500pts" pick up games and tournaments, which would allow people to work in more units around a more balanced "take all comers" core. And of course for everything else there is always unbound.
Make it easier -- just play Kill Team One of the stores locally that I don't visit often has a group that loves Kill Team. If you aren't familiar, a KT detachment is 0-2 troops, 0-1 elite, and 0-1 FA. There are other restrictions like, only models with 3 wounds or less, there must be at least 4 non-vehicle models, and any vehicles must have total AV (add them all together) of 33 or less. Oh, no flying units too, and a lot of the specials are changed (like, you can't ever spawn another model by any means). Probably some major other things I forgot. It's much more skirmishy too, because other than list creation, every model is its own unit in the game; no unit cohesion, you can deploy them anywhere you want, they shoot separately, et cetera. It's not really my "thing" because I prefer the big battles on big tables, but it is definitely a fun game with potential -- in the next edition of 40k, it should be integrated into core rules as a possible ruleset/play mode. By nerfing a bunch of the really powerful stuff, and essentially eliminating anything really big and scary, you de-escalate the game to a point where it's just a much smaller scale.
68484
Post by: LordBlades
Assuiming you take the 'it's all about putting models on the tablenot about balanced rules' at face value rather than just a lousy apology fir incompetence/crappy marketing maneuvers, why does GW use point costs then?
If you're still supposed to talk it through with your opponent beforehand and 1850 points of Eldar will always be better than 1850 points of Dark Angls, doesn't that defeat the base point of point costing (balancing against a common metric)?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Talys wrote:I suspect there are other like-minded players who care more about the playing the game and reveling in the awesomeness of the models than they are in exploiting the latest, curb-stomping netlist; for these people, balance is simply not THE deciding factor on where to spend their time.
What's your point? The fact that some people aren't hurt as much as others by poor balance doesn't mean that the poorly balanced game is good. A balanced game helps everyone, and failure to provide one is incompetent game design.
Now, to Andy Chambers balance comments: it's really, really hard to balance an ecosystem with units, terrain, and fortifications as complex as 40k, because not everyone plays the same way. Certain units may excel on foothills and be junk in a maze of city buildings. Those Eldar jetbikes? Garbage in an urban board where there are no straight lines exceeding 12". Wraithknights, Imperial Knights, and other Titans? Junk on a busy fortification-rich board, where there are very limited spaces that are large enough for a Titan base.
Well yes, of course it's hard. But since when is "it's too difficult" an excuse when you're talking about spending $100+ on rulebooks just to start playing the game? A good game designer accepts the difficulty and invests the required effort to make a balanced game. An incompetent rule author like GW employs says "it's too hard" and doesn't even try.
Also: does anyone really get into 40k thinking it is balanced game, cheap game or cheap hobby? If so, I pity them.
Of course they do. If you see 40k in a store and don't spend time researching its flaws you might expect it to be a balanced game, since the other games you've played have been balanced and that's what's expected in the gaming industry. Your assumption would be wrong, of course, but you might not discover that until you've already invested a lot of money.
I don't believe GW is **incapable** of better balance; I think that better balance contradicts its vision of a scifi universe in which the ancient civilizations are more powerful, and to the detriment of its corporate bottom line (because it's a customer losing position), it keeps these factions in alignment with their fluff.
Then why do they keep getting units so badly wrong in ways that don't fit that concept? Some units from the "advanced ancient civilizations" are so weak that nobody ever uses them, while units from the "weaker" civilizations are blatantly overpowered. Remember the good old days of "leafblower" IG and the army of WWI tanks wiping "advanced civilizations" off the table in 2-3 turns of shooting?
The more likely explanation here is that GW simply doesn't care about writing good rules. If the rule author for the new Eldar codex gets a bit too excited and gives them D-weapons everywhere then that's what the final version is going to be. Nobody is going to playtest it and catch the mistake, because the rules don't matter.
4139
Post by: wuestenfux
Check the GW homepage.
In former days, there was a button ''Gaming''.
It has been replaced by ''Painting and Modeling''.
The gaming aspect plays obviously no longer a dominating role.
They want to reach collectors, painters and modelers.
But collectors collects usually just one item of each unit.
No spamming which is quite common for players.
62560
Post by: Makumba
It's much more skirmishy too, because other than list creation, every model is its own unit in the game; no unit cohesion, you can deploy them anywhere you want, they shoot separately, et cetera.
since new eldar dex it is more or less unplayable. no one can beat an army of jetbikes, when melee is out of the option and they outshot everything else, while points limits remove the option of surviving their shoting as an option to win a game.
87012
Post by: Toofast
wuestenfux wrote:Check the GW homepage.
In former days, there was a button ''Gaming''.
It has been replaced by ''Painting and Modeling''.
The gaming aspect plays obviously no longer a dominating role.
They want to reach collectors, painters and modelers.
But collectors collects usually just one item of each unit.
No spamming which is quite common for players.
Also, competitive players change up their list frequently. I bought $400 just in models when the new eldar codex came out. A collector could've bought the new release bundle and been happy. Competitive players are always going to be more profitable than casual players in any game.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Toofast wrote:Competitive players are always going to be more profitable than casual players in any game.
Not necessarily. Competitive MTG players rarely buy cards outside of the secondary market, while casual players are more likely to impulse buy some random packs. And competitive X-Wing players are only going to buy the best ships with specific lists in mind, while casual players are more likely to do things like buy 150 points of x-wings to make their fluffy "rogue squadron" list. Even in 40k the "competitive players are more profitable than casual players" rule isn't necessarily true, since a casual player who builds a 50,000 point Apocalypse army is going to spend way more than a competitive player who never plays above 1850.
The better rule would be the following: in a game like 40k painters are less profitable than casual players since they just want one of each thing for their display shelf and are less likely to buy whole armies.
42342
Post by: Smacks
Peregrine wrote:The better rule would be the following: in a game like 40k painters are less profitable than casual players since they just want one of each thing for their display shelf and are less likely to buy whole armies.
I don't think there are any hard and fast rules. Painters sometimes paint whole armies, and are just as likely to blow thousands on stuff like forgeworld. I think painters, gamers, and collectors are all equally addicted to plastic crack, and will (generally speaking) buy as much as they can afford, which will obviously depend on their situation. I think the important point was that gamers do spend money, and represent a significant portion of the customer base (especially for things like rules). They don't deserve to be forgotten about.
95409
Post by: FenixPhox
Smacks wrote:I had an idea a while ago that GW could include some "fixed" army lists for each race, as an alternative game "mode" to unbound. The lists would specify exactly what units and weapons make up the force, with very few options for customization. The idea being that each "fixed" list could be playtested and balanced in a more controlled way, then be "approved" for tournament play against other fixed lists (regardless of the actual points value).
While it sounds oppressive at first, it would have a lot of great benefits.
1: It would be much easier for the developers to balance (rather than trying to balance the whole game unbound, which might not even be possible).
2 It would make life much easier for tournament organizers, and for pick up gamers.
3: It would allow every race, and a much greater variety of units to be viable at a tournament level. Since every faction would have at least one (but possibly many) approved lists.
4: It would take some of the heavy focus off "list building" in strategy discussions, and get people talking about how to actually deploy and maneuver with each army.
5: It would allow players and TOs to be much more familiar with the rules and capabilities of each army. (harder to cheat)
6: It would be good for new players, since they could collect a list that includes models they like, without having to worry about it sucking.
7: It might encourage greater customization in terms of painting and modeling, as people look for new ways to make their army "unique".
8: It would remove barriers for new players (and some old) to get into the competitive scene, as they won't get instagibed by some cheese list in the first round.
9: We might see a lot more fluffy lists at tournaments.
X: I think it would be good for GW. I know I would be much more likely to buy a one click army, and even a second army if I knew there was a whole tournament scene built around that box.
It also wouldn't have to be the end of list building. You could still have something like "fixed list + 500pts" pick up games and tournaments, which would allow people to work in more units around a more balanced "take all comers" core. And of course for everything else there is always unbound.
This actually seems like a really cool idea. The shop I work at just started carrying 40k and we were trying to figure out how to do tournaments once we've built a player base, we might actually give this a try.
89259
Post by: Talys
Peregrine wrote: The better rule would be the following: in a game like 40k painters are less profitable than casual players since they just want one of each thing for their display shelf and are less likely to buy whole armies.
That's not true. First of all, a lot of 40k painters model entire armies (they might be playable, but often they would be a horrible army). Remember that Task Force Coetz or whatever in a recent White Dwarf? It has black, red and white Taurox Primes and Scions that looked awesome (made me want to go out and buy Taurox primes... but I resisted! lol...). But also, when I model for a faction I don't play, I still do entire squads, because even in a display case, 30 painted miniatures (in the same theme) look better than 1. It just takes 30 times longer Ok, not quite, but you get the idea I stopped playing Grey Knights ages ago, but still paint up GK Purgation, Interceptor and Paladin squad models when I feel like it. I have a couple of Dreadknights and a Hellbrute on my queue that I want to get around to, but I will probably never play them. They just look cool, and it's not like the next two will be modelled identically to the last two. Plus, I almost never field a Stormraven, anymore, yet I have 5 now - 1 GK, 1 Ultramarine, 3 Blood Angels -- and I'm working on a 4th BA one. I will admit that I have the 3 BA Stormravens for Angel's Fury, which I played like, twice, but there is no gaming reason for #4, other than just wanting to model one in a different way. It's not like my other 3 are awful or rush jobs. Drop pods -- I can't count how many I have in different paint schemes -- and Rhino-chassis vehicles, I keep painting those up to add to my collection, too. I also paint up cheap Space Marines models (clearance, snapfit, etc.) sometimes just to see what a paint scheme would look like. The model might never even get finished; just painted partway so that I can get an idea of what colors look like on plastic, or what a different highlight would achieve -- without using it on a "real" model. Automatically Appended Next Post: Smacks wrote: Peregrine wrote:The better rule would be the following: in a game like 40k painters are less profitable than casual players since they just want one of each thing for their display shelf and are less likely to buy whole armies.
I don't think there are any hard and fast rules. Painters sometimes paint whole armies, and are just as likely to blow thousands on stuff like forgeworld. I think painters, gamers, and collectors are all equally addicted to plastic crack, and will (generally speaking) buy as much as they can afford, which will obviously depend on their situation.
I think the important point was that gamers do spend money, and represent a significant portion of the customer base (especially for things like rules). They don't deserve to be forgotten about.
Yes, this
And, as has been pointed out by MWHistorian, a more balanced game does not harm anyone, including people to whom hobby is more important. It's not like the guy sculpting models has to take a break to go and help the guy writing the codex, right?
But anyhow, I think it's all wishful thinking. 40k was not, is not, and probably never will be a balanced wargame You can hope for it, pray for it, hate GW for it... I doubt it will change. We have 25+ years of history and 7 editions of a game that seem to indicate that.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Smacks wrote: Peregrine wrote:The better rule would be the following: in a game like 40k painters are less profitable than casual players since they just want one of each thing for their display shelf and are less likely to buy whole armies.
I don't think there are any hard and fast rules. Painters sometimes paint whole armies, and are just as likely to blow thousands on stuff like forgeworld. I think painters, gamers, and collectors are all equally addicted to plastic crack, and will (generally speaking) buy as much as they can afford, which will obviously depend on their situation.
I think the important point was that gamers do spend money, and represent a significant portion of the customer base (especially for things like rules). They don't deserve to be forgotten about.
A valid observation but it begs the question; why would a company knowingly reduce the attractiveness of its product to the wider market in order to cater to the whims of a smaller market? If you're gearing your entire business model to satisfy collectors and modelers while generating shoddy rules that push away an arguably larger gaming segment of the consumer base, you're going to lose market share and revenue. GW's last few years' financial records strongly indicate that the company can not functionally depend upon modelers and collectors for their business; as unhappy gamers walk away as a result of shoddy rules writing and an increased market presence of more viable options, revenue has declined at a fairly brisk pace. Yes, GW is factually making money but it's only through cost-cutting measures and to be quite honest, there isn't any fat left to trim and at a much lower rate than would be possible were they to actively support and promote their "game" products.
It continues to boggle me why they're leaving money on the table and, what's worse, letting existing revenue streams decline and die off as they ignore the game. I think that GW realizes that they're losing money and in danger of losing their spot as top-dog in the miniature wargamming marketplace, this is evidenced by the greatly increased release cycle, but they continue to show that the people running the company have no idea how to actually expand marketshare and seem to be just "throwing poop at the wall and hoping something sticks." I think 7th edition made some positive changes to the game but it was released too soon and with zero communication to the consumer so it disaffected a not insubstantial population or previously happy spenders (or only mildly disgruntled). This compounded with their continued silence on future releases fails to generate any buzz in the community (boards like Dakka are a microcosm); people just walk into a store one week and find out that their army is completely invalidated or seriously compromised and then walk away rather than spend several hundred dollars more in order to stay competitive in the local meta. They've become completely dependent upon White Dwarf as their marketing vehicle and then they only let people know what's coming a week in advance; this is practically unheard of in the wargaming industry or anywhere else for that matter.
Just a few thoughts. Automatically Appended Next Post: Talys wrote:
Yes, this
And, as has been pointed out by MWHistorian, a more balanced game does not harm anyone, including people to whom hobby is more important. It's not like the guy sculpting models has to take a break to go and help the guy writing the codex, right?
But anyhow, I think it's all wishful thinking. 40k was not, is not, and probably never will be a balanced wargame You can hope for it, pray for it, hate GW for it... I doubt it will change. We have 25+ years of history and 7 editions of a game that seem to indicate that.
Well, that's alright then. If we assume that GW has basically thrown in the towel when it comes to rules writing then the fact is that they'll continue to decline in marketshare and revenue until they become what upper management seems to desire, a boutique model company that happens to have some shoddy, thrown-together rules in case you need a reason to put your pretty models on a table...you know to display them and share them with your friends. Other games systems are growing marketshare at an accelerated rate and as more people who are interested in something beyond a grim-dark universe full of tired fantasy and sci-fi tropes but attached to a great collection of models, you'll continue to see GW shrink into obscurity.
62560
Post by: Makumba
It continues to boggle me why they're leaving money on the table and, what's worse, letting existing revenue streams decline and die off as they ignore the game. I think that GW realizes that they're losing money and in danger of losing their spot as top-dog in the miniature wargamming marketplace, this is evidenced by the greatly increased release cycle, but they continue to show that the people running the company have no idea how to actually expand marketshare and seem to be just "throwing poop at the wall and hoping something sticks." I think 7th edition made some positive changes to the game but it was released too soon and with zero communication to the consumer so it disaffected a not insubstantial population or previously happy spenders (or only mildly disgruntled). This compounded with their continued silence on future releases fails to generate any buzz in the community (boards like Dakka are a microcosm); people just walk into a store one week and find out that their army is completely invalidated or seriously compromised and then walk away rather than spend several hundred dollars more in order to stay competitive in the local meta. They've become completely dependent upon White Dwarf as their marketing vehicle and then they only let people know what's coming a week in advance; this is practically unheard of in the wargaming industry or anywhere else for that matter.
It could be two things. The owner is old, so maybe he doesn't care what happens in 5 or 10 years, or what was going on the last two editons, He just wanted to cash in as much as he could from a fairly good brand. The other option would be that somewhere in GW HQ, someone decided that warham is going to be a ferrari. Not a game, games are for kids. It is a hobby, and as far as a hobby cost goes, man can spend ton of cash on a pice of paper. So maybe their goal is to have single kits costing 200 or 300$+, and hope that they somehow lure in the collectors, and that those someone won't buy recasts, because who in their right mind would show off a fiat panda with a ferrari bodywork.
But anyhow, I think it's all wishful thinking. 40k was not, is not, and probably never will be a balanced wargame
But why can't it be at least fun, like it was in 5th or start of 6th ed ?
21196
Post by: agnosto
Makumba wrote:
It could be two things. The owner is old, so maybe he doesn't care what happens in 5 or 10 years, or what was going on the last two editons, He just wanted to cash in as much as he could from a fairly good brand. The other option would be that somewhere in GW HQ, someone decided that warham is going to be a ferrari. Not a game, games are for kids. It is a hobby, and as far as a hobby cost goes, man can spend ton of cash on a pice of paper. So maybe their goal is to have single kits costing 200 or 300$+, and hope that they somehow lure in the collectors, and that those someone won't buy recasts, because who in their right mind would show off a fiat panda with a ferrari bodywork.
I think that you're partially correct. Kirby is very good at manipulating numbers on paper to have kept GW in the black while they're hemorrhaging sales volume year on year. It actually speaks volumes that he's thus far been able to turn a situation that could easily have resulted in the implosion of the company into a sort of controlled dive. That said, he is old and very proud of being out of touch with consumers; one need only read his Chairman preambles to get a feel for how he feels about his customers.
One of the real problems that GW will have to address if they want to survive as a company for much longer is the current identity crisis that they're exhibiting. Some in higher management state that they're in the business of selling toys to kids but others like Kirby constantly compare the company to Apple and state that they're a collectible, boutique miniatures company. You can't be both, unless of course there are so many more rich kids in the UK than there are in every other country willing to throw hundreds of dollars down on analog products when 99% of the younger generation only care about digital products. It's interesting to watch the slow death of a company that I've cared a bit about over the years; I've owned a fair amount of stock off and on and even corresponded with Kirby and Wells on occasion. I had planned to attend an annual shareholders meeting at some point but sold my stock last year when the stock tanked; it's rebounded quite nicely since but it's sitting at an unsustainably high level right now which leads me to believe that one of the institutional investors is maneuvering to take in a big chunk with the next dividend and then sell off a fair amount of shares later.
Like I said, interesting; I'll be watching and I might swoop in when the stock inevitably tanks again and buy again if I feel that they're still in a position to continue paying out dividends and recover. I fully expect the next financial report to show a small uptick in sales since it will represent an established accelerated release schedule. If I'm wrong, and sales volume continues to slump, I'll not buy a single share because at that point GW will most certainly be in a death spiral that will more than likely see them out of business in 3-5 years. Time will tell and there's always a great deal that can happen to pull themselves out, if they have the will to do so.
17661
Post by: greenbay924
Honestly, this was the big reason for my exodus years ago. I just couldn't stand the lack of competitive support. WIth the outdated release schedule, and total imbalance in the tournament scene, it was enough to call it quits.
I do want to point out....GW is basically second to none in quality of their miniatures, it's for this reason alone I might be coming back in....just not as a competitive player, I have other systems for that now.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Not anymore. Once upon a time, yes, GW had the best miniatures on the market, bar none... but that hasn't been true for several years now.
53939
Post by: vipoid
The other issue is that GW doesn't just charge high prices for quality models - they also charge extortionate prices even for their poor quality ones.
Worse still they charge premium prices for models that bar required en massse.
I mean, their potatoe-faced guardsmen are, what, about £18 for 10 models? And you'll need 50 of them for a mere 2 infantry platoons.
87405
Post by: bibotot
Don't worry. If somebody is playing Unbound, just ask them politely not to bring too many crazy stuffs.
If somebody plays Necron with Decurion though, tell them to feth off.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
34243
Post by: Blacksails
bibotot wrote:
If somebody plays Necron with Decurion though, tell them to feth off.
That's a healthy attitude to have.
*Edit* I swear to all that is good and fluffy, if one more person ninja's me by less than 30secs, I will find you and downgrade your internet.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
vipoid wrote:Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
I laughed way too hard at this.
62560
Post by: Makumba
bibotot wrote:Don't worry. If somebody is playing Unbound, just ask them politely not to bring too many crazy stuffs.
If somebody plays Necron with Decurion though, tell them to feth off.
yeah, because that works. What next forcing people to let you use FW, because your army doesn't work wihtout it ?
95409
Post by: FenixPhox
Makumba wrote:bibotot wrote:Don't worry. If somebody is playing Unbound, just ask them politely not to bring too many crazy stuffs.
If somebody plays Necron with Decurion though, tell them to feth off.
yeah, because that works. What next forcing people to let you use FW, because your army doesn't work wihtout it ?
I would just politely remind people that it's a game and games are supposed to be enjoyable for all players.
42793
Post by: xSoulgrinderx
There seems to be a lot of crying about now, and a lot less keeping head up and eyes forward.
DO YOU SEE THE SIZE OF THIS GAME.
Forge world is making a Warlord titan... guys, this is the direction GW is going. Bigger, no, le, even Titanic.....
Point is you cant balance it yet because they havent made the Imperator or the Emperor model.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
 xSoulgrinderx wrote:There seems to be a lot of crying about now, and a lot less keeping head up and eyes forward.
DO YOU SEE THE SIZE OF THIS GAME.
Forge world is making a Warlord titan... guys, this is the direction GW is going. Bigger, no, le, even Titanic.....
Point is you cant balance it yet because they havent made the Imperator or the Emperor model.
that makes no sense.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Don't drink and type people!
42793
Post by: xSoulgrinderx
Azreal13 wrote:Don't drink and type people!
My bad, got a little to blazed. Made sense in my head. Damn you Colorado
MWHistorian wrote: xSoulgrinderx wrote:There seems to be a lot of crying about now, and a lot less keeping head up and eyes forward.
DO YOU SEE THE SIZE OF THIS GAME.
Forge world is making a Warlord titan... guys, this is the direction GW is going. Bigger, no, le, even Titanic.....
Point is you cant balance it yet because they havent made the Imperator or the Emperor model.
that makes no sense.
What I meant to mean by this, is that, currently there is no balance yes. But, I believe this is done intentionally. The size of the game is expanding and with it boundaries for rules will be blown out. With the release of new models such as the better knights, gargantuan creatures, and the Warlord, we will see new swings in "balance". I think they ( GW and FW) are going to let things settle after they drop all these heavy additions, then figure out balance and game play. Models and money first, then gameplay second.
50532
Post by: Zagman
Interesting concept, except GW has never once in the history of 40k put out a balanced rule set, hoping they'll fix it after they blow it up is foolish, he'll it's been multiple editions and they don't seem to realize a Tactical Terminater is not worth 40pts.
I mean, they had like a six book consecutive run before Necron that was solid...l and then they ruined Necron with Decurian... And went another step further with Eldar...
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
What I meant to mean by this, is that, currently there is no balance yes. But, I believe this is done intentionally. The size of the game is expanding and with it boundaries for rules will be blown out. With the release of new models such as the better knights, gargantuan creatures, and the Warlord, we will see new swings in "balance". I think they ( GW and FW) are going to let things settle after they drop all these heavy additions, then figure out balance and game play. Models and money first, then gameplay second.
I understood what you meant, I mean that your theory makes no sense. They have had gargantuan things in the game for a while and they've never attempted to balance it before.
People thought that balance was going to be leveled out with 7th edition. We saw what happened with that with Necrons and Eldar. People keep saying "wait and GW will fix it." They never do.
44046
Post by: McGibs
With GW throwing around their IP license to pretty much every dick and jane with a development studio, I'm sort of shocked that they haven't just outsourced rules writing to other game companies.
How much of a swing would it really be to just get Fantasy Flight to handle all of the codexes and actual mechanical rules, and just have GW handle all the miniature business like they really want. FF writes great rules. They write a LOT of rules. They write a LOT of 40k rules. There's like 200 dark heresy books. Just do the same thing with codexes, and put pictures of citidel minis in them. Or at least partner up with their rules staff for the nuts and bolts and do joint-published books.
62560
Post by: Makumba
What I meant to mean by this, is that, currently there is no balance yes. But, I believe this is done intentionally. The size of the game is expanding and with it boundaries for rules will be blown out. With the release of new models such as the better knights, gargantuan creatures, and the Warlord, we will see new swings in "balance". I think they (GW and FW) are going to let things settle after they drop all these heavy additions, then figure out balance and game play. Models and money first, then gameplay second.
But that is super stupid. Who is going to play where entry army is 2000points or more, even now people decide to play warmahordes or inifnity over w40k, just because they don't have to buy 200$ in book at start? WFB had its huge armies and it didn't end well for it. There won't be any money if people stop buying their stuff.
89259
Post by: Talys
MWHistorian wrote: xSoulgrinderx wrote: What I meant to mean by this, is that, currently there is no balance yes. But, I believe this is done intentionally. The size of the game is expanding and with it boundaries for rules will be blown out. With the release of new models such as the better knights, gargantuan creatures, and the Warlord, we will see new swings in "balance". I think they ( GW and FW) are going to let things settle after they drop all these heavy additions, then figure out balance and game play. Models and money first, then gameplay second.
I understood what you meant, I mean that your theory makes no sense. They have had gargantuan things in the game for a while and they've never attempted to balance it before. People thought that balance was going to be leveled out with 7th edition. We saw what happened with that with Necrons and Eldar. People keep saying "wait and GW will fix it." They never do.
I think pink zebras will fall out of the sky before we see something that's "balanced". xSoulgrinderx is on the right track, though Fluff and fiction are also more important than gameplay to GW, IMO. The Narrative they Forge is that certain factions just suck and are designed to be fighting a hopeless battle  agnosto wrote: Well, that's alright then. If we assume that GW has basically thrown in the towel when it comes to rules writing then the fact is that they'll continue to decline in marketshare and revenue until they become what upper management seems to desire, a boutique model company that happens to have some shoddy, thrown-together rules in case you need a reason to put your pretty models on a table...you know to display them and share them with your friends. Other games systems are growing marketshare at an accelerated rate and as more people who are interested in something beyond a grim-dark universe full of tired fantasy and sci-fi tropes but attached to a great collection of models, you'll continue to see GW shrink into obscurity.
Nah, GW can't give up on what it never tried to do in the first place  As much as some peeps would like, I think it will be a long time before GW shrinks into obscurity. There are too many people (like me) who really don't care about "game balance" out-of-the-box, because these are non-issues in our play group. Would it be better if it were better balanced out of the box -- YES, of course! But that's like saying that my SUV would be better if the traffic navigation system worked worth a damn. Even though it doesn't (at least, not in my city), I'm still not going to get rid of my car and buy another car, even if that car does have a fantastic traffic plotting system.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
Fluff and fiction being more important for GW would be okay and all, if you didn't have to pay so bloody much for the rules to play the game.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
ImAGeek wrote:Fluff and fiction being more important for GW would be okay and all, if you didn't have to pay so bloody much for the rules to play the game.
Or if the rules actually followed the fluff. But I guess I'm supposed to be happy to pay $50+ for a rulebook so I can forge the narrative of my commander forgetting his skills every time he fights a new battle, or allying chaos demons and GK to fight against Ultramarines.
53939
Post by: vipoid
xSoulgrinderx wrote:
What I meant to mean by this, is that, currently there is no balance yes. But, I believe this is done intentionally.
If the lack of balance is intentional, then why bother with point costs? Why not just say "Take whatever you want to forge a narrative."?
89259
Post by: Talys
ImAGeek wrote:Fluff and fiction being more important for GW would be okay and all, if you didn't have to pay so bloody much for the rules to play the game.
I dunno, tbh. The most valuable thing to me is my time, so even if a game is really cheap and not fun, I wouldn't want to blow my time on it. I'd rather spend a money on something I enjoy, than much less on something that I don't.
Of course, the worst case scenario would be to pay a lot of money for something I don't enjoy
Peregrine wrote: ImAGeek wrote:Fluff and fiction being more important for GW would be okay and all, if you didn't have to pay so bloody much for the rules to play the game.
Or if the rules actually followed the fluff. But I guess I'm supposed to be happy to pay $50+ for a rulebook so I can forge the narrative of my commander forgetting his skills every time he fights a new battle, or allying chaos demons and GK to fight against Ultramarines.
For many years, our group played such that a surviving commander had the option of retaining their rolls (in RT, we allowed heroes that survived the ability to keep their random gear, too). We still do it if we're putting together a multi-battle campaign. The theory is that if a named hero like Mephiston dies, he doesn't REALLY die -- he just suffered a grave wound. As he is restored to his glory for the next battle, he finds his psychic abilities have shifted.
I think it's kind of cool, anyhow, to encourage heroes to NOT die -- even if there is a good strategic reason for it.
86779
Post by: ShaneTB
vipoid wrote: xSoulgrinderx wrote:
What I meant to mean by this, is that, currently there is no balance yes. But, I believe this is done intentionally.
If the lack of balance is intentional, then why bother with point costs? Why not just say "Take whatever you want to forge a narrative."?
It essentially says that in the rulebook, doesn't it?
I'll see if I can dig out the paragraph.
Edit #1: It was the last sentence I was thinking about. Anyway, here's what the rulebook says. I've spoilered it should I be accidentally breaking a forum rule (sorry if I have):
53939
Post by: vipoid
To be honest, all I see there is a load of spiel from the marketing department.
In any case, the point still stands - why bother with point costs if the game is intentionally unbalanced? I mean, balance is the entire point of having point costs at all.
86779
Post by: ShaneTB
vipoid wrote:To be honest, all I see there is a load of spiel from the marketing department.
In any case, the point still stands - why bother with point costs if the game is intentionally unbalanced? I mean, balance is the entire point of having point costs at all.
Right or wrong, as guidance.
GW believe that people are more invested in the models and fluff than the rules. So they prioritise. They're a model company first. Rules second. They're open about that.
I'm not defending this behaviour. I have a great time with 40k - only playing with friends - but I still see the flaws and have no interest in taking my army to the FLGS.
I do wish someone would put their foot down and tidy things up. However, that would be against the culture that GW displays and that's the hurdle I imagine exists.
62560
Post by: Makumba
ShaneTB wrote: vipoid wrote: xSoulgrinderx wrote:
What I meant to mean by this, is that, currently there is no balance yes. But, I believe this is done intentionally.
If the lack of balance is intentional, then why bother with point costs? Why not just say "Take whatever you want to forge a narrative."?
It essentially says that in the rulebook, doesn't it?
I'll see if I can dig out the paragraph.
Edit #1: It was the last sentence I was thinking about. Anyway, here's what the rulebook says. I've spoilered it should I be accidentally breaking a forum rule (sorry if I have):
But that has to do with reality as much as a McDonalds add saying their stuff is "food" and "tasty". You realy want to tell me that suddenly after so many years of w40k, suddenly it went from table top game to some sort of a table top LARP? And even if it did, and it was GW goal to change w40k that way. How do they expect all the people who played their game to react now. That is like changing a football game in to a dance off contest. There could be people that like the change, but how many and how many of fans that build the frenchise?
GW believe that people are more invested in the models and fluff than the rules.
But that was never the true. If it was stuff like vespids or ogryns would have close to same sells numbers as other units from the same army slot. But they do not. Why do falcons sell like hot cakes one edition and are unsellable on the second hand market the other minute. How many bikes sold before marine codex made them troops or how many non librarian or chaplain HQs were run in 4th ed. Do those 3-4 tyrants per tyranid player get bought because the models are so awesome and why do all of them have wings and same weapons.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Historical games do that and STILL manage to be decently balanced. So 40k still fails there. They seem to want the game to function similarly: pick a battle or make your own What If and pick armies to suit, balance be damned. But they still fail at doing that.
68484
Post by: LordBlades
ShaneTB wrote: vipoid wrote:To be honest, all I see there is a load of spiel from the marketing department.
In any case, the point still stands - why bother with point costs if the game is intentionally unbalanced? I mean, balance is the entire point of having point costs at all.
Right or wrong, as guidance.
Guidance for what? Since right now the point value has absolutely no correlation with anything the unit does or is on the table.
86779
Post by: ShaneTB
Makumba wrote:ShaneTB wrote: vipoid wrote: xSoulgrinderx wrote:
What I meant to mean by this, is that, currently there is no balance yes. But, I believe this is done intentionally.
If the lack of balance is intentional, then why bother with point costs? Why not just say "Take whatever you want to forge a narrative."?
It essentially says that in the rulebook, doesn't it?
I'll see if I can dig out the paragraph.
Edit #1: It was the last sentence I was thinking about. Anyway, here's what the rulebook says. I've spoilered it should I be accidentally breaking a forum rule (sorry if I have):
But that has to do with reality as much as a McDonalds add saying their stuff is "food" and "tasty". You realy want to tell me that suddenly after so many years of w40k, suddenly it went from table top game to some sort of a table top LARP? And even if it did, and it was GW goal to change w40k that way. How do they expect all the people who played their game to react now. That is like changing a football game in to a dance off contest. There could be people that like the change, but how many and how many of fans that build the frenchise?
I didn't say any of that. I posted the image to show what is in the rulebook for the benefit of the on-going conversation. It is marketing talk, yes, but it is also indicative of how the core team view 40k.
And 40k started as "table top LARP". I stopped playing when 3rd edition came out and start again with 7th. The heart of the game felt no different. But I don't play 40k with strangers; so my environment for this could be very different to yours.
Posting an image to show GW's current view doesn't mean I agree with it. It was to demonstrate that the culture of GW is the reason for the statistical imbalance between armies. Automatically Appended Next Post: Makumba wrote:
GW believe that people are more invested in the models and fluff than the rules.
But that was never the true. If it was stuff like vespids or ogryns would have close to same sells numbers as other units from the same army slot. But they do not. Why do falcons sell like hot cakes one edition and are unsellable on the second hand market the other minute. How many bikes sold before marine codex made them troops or how many non librarian or chaplain HQs were run in 4th ed. Do those 3-4 tyrants per tyranid player get bought because the models are so awesome and why do all of them have wings and same weapons.
Missed this bit.
This is GW's view. They said this to the audience at the last open day. It doesn't mean they're good at that either.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Like I was saying in another thread, if GW really is concerned with the narrative and stuff, they should put out a book that shows how to link battles, come up with scenarios, etc. and have an example one. A GW version of Donald Featherstone's Wargaming Campaigns, basically.
86779
Post by: ShaneTB
WayneTheGame wrote:Like I was saying in another thread, if GW really is concerned with the narrative and stuff, they should put out a book that shows how to link battles, come up with scenarios, etc. and have an example one. A GW version of Donald Featherstone's Wargaming Campaigns, basically.
They said they wanted to do this. But that was about nine months ago. Along with the increased release scheduled I don't see this happening soon, unfortunately.
Or perhaps those campaigns book were what become of it.
On a semi-related note, they are not interested in a character generator model i.e. rules so you can make your own special character.
53939
Post by: vipoid
ShaneTB wrote:
GW believe that people are more invested in the models and fluff than the rules. So they prioritise. They're a model company first. Rules second. They're open about that.
I'm not seeing how that relates to my point.
9370
Post by: Accolade
vipoid wrote:ShaneTB wrote:
GW believe that people are more invested in the models and fluff than the rules. So they prioritise. They're a model company first. Rules second. They're open about that.
I'm not seeing how that relates to my point.
Because rules are so secondary to GW that they charge $135 just for basics and another $50 for any fluff flavor you want. They have to demonstrate how little they care by charging 300% of the rest of the industry and then repackage books with less rules content and more recycled fluff. Duh.
86779
Post by: ShaneTB
vipoid wrote:ShaneTB wrote:
GW believe that people are more invested in the models and fluff than the rules. So they prioritise. They're a model company first. Rules second. They're open about that.
I'm not seeing how that relates to my point.
About points? Only GW knows the answer and they won't be sharing. I wanted to try and shed light on why they think certain ways. They want to give the players building blocks but that doesn't coalesce with the business model.
The points are there to be used. Except when you don't want to use them. It's an ambigiuty that results in circular arguments. Proper RPGs have very strict foundations to then 'narrate' upon. So GW are flawed here in not being clear.
The points across armies are not balanced. Want to be clear that I don't think otherwise. It's a combination of the D6 and codexi releasing independant to main rulebooks. Plus members of the team having personal favourite armies.
Which to people reading might seem an antithesis to my open enjoyment of the game. There's something about 40k that above other games I play keeps bringing me back. Got two straight days of it this weekend with friends.
I've probably not answered your question.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Accolade wrote: vipoid wrote:ShaneTB wrote:
GW believe that people are more invested in the models and fluff than the rules. So they prioritise. They're a model company first. Rules second. They're open about that.
I'm not seeing how that relates to my point.
Because rules are so secondary to GW that they charge $135 just for basics and another $50 for any fluff flavor you want. They have to demonstrate how little they care by charging 300% of the rest of the industry and then repackage books with less rules content and more recycled fluff. Duh.
Cost isn't indictive of priority. The main rulebook set is the cost of a console game. So that's fine for me. Pricing is personal so I can understand that's a lot to others.
Though the main rulebook set should come with some sort of mini codex that lets new players try armies straight out of the box, as it were.
9370
Post by: Accolade
There has to be priority there, the rules are being replaced at speeds faster than they ever have before by a huge margin. Heck, the new Imperial Knights codex was one year old before it was replaced with a new one.
The rules are now a vehicle to add revenue on top of miniatures. They aren't produced to provided an improved good (since balance means nothing), they're present just to get more cash out of the customer. You may have an infinite budget, that's great, but it doesn't change the fact t that the rules are becoming nothing more than a tack-on extra price providing little to no intrinsic value to the game. Unless of course you really enjoy reading most of the same stories over and over again. Do the other three short stories account for that $50 price tag (which represents a console game- the main rule book is $85, that is *not* a console game price).
86779
Post by: ShaneTB
Accolade wrote:There has to be priority there, the rules are being replaced at speeds faster than they ever have before by a huge margin. Heck, the new Imperial Knights codex was one year old before it was replaced with a new one.
The rules are now a vehicle to add revenue on top of miniatures. They aren't produced to provided an improved good (since balance means nothing), they're present just to get more cash out of the customer. You may have an infinite budget, that's great, but it doesn't change the fact t that the rules are becoming nothing more than a tack-on extra price providing little to no intrinsic value to the game. Unless of course you really enjoy reading most of the same stories over and over again. Do the other three short stories account for that $50 price tag (which represents a console game- the main rule book is $85, that is *not* a console game price).
I was referring to UK price. If the international prices don't much comparable products than I understand the frustration there. Especially as you're already invested with an army. This is an expensive hobby. No doubt.
The rules are written to match the new release schedule that has moved away from typical 'full' army releases to what we see now. It allows - perhaps - increased sales and more freedom internally to design smaller 'ally' armies. Of course profit drives this originally but I believe we've seen some neat small scale releases recently. Unless you're getting the new army you don't need the codex. And their codex is naturally extra profit for those that want to table the models. I don't see anything wrong with new armies like this. Replacing books within a year is questionable.
But to the topic purpose: Balance issues remain the same. In fact, it could be harder to control within the new release schedule.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Talys wrote:
Nah, GW can't give up on what it never tried to do in the first place As much as some peeps would like, I think it will be a long time before GW shrinks into obscurity. There are too many people (like me) who really don't care about "game balance" out-of-the-box, because these are non-issues in our play group.
Would it be better if it were better balanced out of the box -- YES, of course! But that's like saying that my SUV would be better if the traffic navigation system worked worth a damn. Even though it doesn't (at least, not in my city), I'm still not going to get rid of my car and buy another car, even if that car does have a fantastic traffic plotting system.
Yes, they never cared about game balance but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't. Times change, the expectations of consumers change and regardless of how many people you may think are of the same mind as you, GW financial records demonstrably prove that what they're currently doing does not work. Obviously if your play group was the sum total of all GW customers, or potential customers, GW would not be hemorrhaging cash but unfortunately, they are and the larger consumer base seems to be voting with their wallets.
Let me use your example and just say that instead of getting rid of the vehicle (i.e. the wargaming/modeling/painting hobby) you change navigation systems (i.e. games) to one that actually works. No reason to rage quit the entire hobby when it's just one company that's broken.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
Have you ever compared the cost of a SOB Cannoness to some of the crazy Eldar stuff out there?
89259
Post by: Talys
agnosto wrote: Talys wrote:
Nah, GW can't give up on what it never tried to do in the first place As much as some peeps would like, I think it will be a long time before GW shrinks into obscurity. There are too many people (like me) who really don't care about "game balance" out-of-the-box, because these are non-issues in our play group.
Would it be better if it were better balanced out of the box -- YES, of course! But that's like saying that my SUV would be better if the traffic navigation system worked worth a damn. Even though it doesn't (at least, not in my city), I'm still not going to get rid of my car and buy another car, even if that car does have a fantastic traffic plotting system.
Yes, they never cared about game balance but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't. Times change, the expectations of consumers change and regardless of how many people you may think are of the same mind as you, GW financial records demonstrably prove that what they're currently doing does not work. Obviously if your play group was the sum total of all GW customers, or potential customers, GW would not be hemorrhaging cash but unfortunately, they are and the larger consumer base seems to be voting with their wallets.
Let me use your example and just say that instead of getting rid of the vehicle (i.e. the wargaming/modeling/painting hobby) you change navigation systems (i.e. games) to one that actually works. No reason to rage quit the entire hobby when it's just one company that's broken.
I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying, man
9674
Post by: Olgerth Istaarn
"Abdicated responsibility" seems entirely too mature for what GW has done. "Stopped giving a crap" is more like it.
6th and 7th editions are basically this: "Screw your existing army and established norms, here are some new units, they are OP, buy them and field them however you like (unbound). FYI, in a month we are releasing more units that are even more OP. Buy them too."
I doubt they even play test anymore.
87416
Post by: Krusha
I get that GW are more focused on models and narrative than game balance, as they think that is what we are concerned about. To an extent, they are right. I also get that they have always exhibited this attitude to some degree. And I don't expect 40k to ever be truly balanced because they are always changing the rules to generate more revenue.
It just sounds to me like they no longer care AT ALL. At least in past editions they made SOME attempt to create balance by imposing restrictions and clarifying core vs optional rules. The balance between armies was there to reflect the flavour of the armies, e.g. a few elite marines vs hordes of lightly armoured Orks. I'm not saying it was always effective, but at least they TRIED. At least there was some kind of plan to deal with this issue. Even a game where you have some OP troops choices is more balanced than one in which anything goes. Nowadays, it just seems like they got tired of players moaning on internet forums, so instead they just said "fine, do what you want" and passed the buck from official rule writing to unwritten rules of player etiquette.
I dislike relying on "etiquette" to circumvent balance issues in the core rules because it places the onus on the guy who doesn't want to face 5 Imperial Knights to explain why he does not want to play against a perfectly legal army list, meaning that he comes off looking like a whiny bad sport who takes it too seriously. It also defeats the point of tactics and army design if you are supposed to intentionally nerf yourself.
You will never have perfect balance when they've got miniatures to sell and we've got choice over what models we take in our armies. But I still think they could do better.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Krusha wrote:I get that GW are more focused on models and narrative than game balance, as they think that is what we are concerned about. To an extent, they are right. I also get that they have always exhibited this attitude to some degree. And I don't expect 40k to ever be truly balanced because they are always changing the rules to generate more revenue.
It just sounds to me like they no longer care AT ALL. At least in past editions they made SOME attempt to create balance by imposing restrictions and clarifying core vs optional rules. The balance between armies was there to reflect the flavour of the armies, e.g. a few elite marines vs hordes of lightly armoured Orks. I'm not saying it was always effective, but at least they TRIED. At least there was some kind of plan to deal with this issue. Even a game where you have some OP troops choices is more balanced than one in which anything goes. Nowadays, it just seems like they got tired of players moaning on internet forums, so instead they just said "fine, do what you want" and passed the buck from official rule writing to unwritten rules of player etiquette.
I dislike relying on "etiquette" to circumvent balance issues in the core rules because it places the onus on the guy who doesn't want to face 5 Imperial Knights to explain why he does not want to play against a perfectly legal army list, meaning that he comes off looking like a whiny bad sport who takes it too seriously. It also defeats the point of tactics and army design if you are supposed to intentionally nerf yourself.
You will never have perfect balance when they've got miniatures to sell and we've got choice over what models we take in our armies. But I still think they could do better.
A thousand times, this. That's the biggest problem with this "negotiate with your opponent" bullgak. It makes the person who DOESN'T want to play against the Knights or FW stuff or OP list look like the jerk and not the person who wants to use the OP list in the first place. It empowers the powergamer, which should be the opposite that a "beer and pretzels" and "laid back, casual" game should be doing (not that I agree catering to that end is necessarily good either) and makes the people who are complaining (and rightly so IMHO) about let's say how OP the Eldar are look like whiners who don't want to play a perfectly legal army.
That's the opposite of what it's claiming to be.
95560
Post by: Baldeagle91
xSoulgrinderx wrote:There seems to be a lot of crying about now, and a lot less keeping head up and eyes forward.
DO YOU SEE THE SIZE OF THIS GAME.
Forge world is making a Warlord titan... guys, this is the direction GW is going. Bigger, no, le, even Titanic.....
Point is you cant balance it yet because they havent made the Imperator or the Emperor model.
God I remember back in 98, when the only titan I ever saw was made from a old washing machine (and just as tall!!).... Now everytime I go to a store everyone and their mother seems to be packing them!!
Anyway back on topic, I always had this feeling 3rd ed was simply made to address the craziness of the first 2 eds. As such it seemed very bare bones imo, relatively easy to understand but from my memory of the time a tad boring, nothing much crazy would happen.
I remember when I started collecting in 98 very little emphasis was placed on winning, the narrative was much more important. However I also remember the explosion of kids playing the game (which I was myself). Most kids don't like to loose and I tend to find a completive groups tend to turn a more fluff based player or collector to the same mindset. As a result I feel ever since third ed, that 40k has been getting increasingly competitive where GW never really intended on the game being played that way.
87416
Post by: Krusha
Speaking as a casual gamer who has never been to a tournament, I don't have a "win at all costs" attitude, but I want to at least have a fun game with a bit of carnage, even if I lose in the end.
I played a 2000 point game against skitari yesterday and it was a lot of fun, especially the fight against his knight paladin. It was fun because the knight was like an end of level boss on a Sega megadrive game - it had an epic fight with my nobz before I finally bombed it and rammed it to death. Gork smiled that day. However, I would have been tabled if I had to face a whole army of them.
Orks aren't exactly a top tier army, but even I don't use the most competitive build (as many wagons as you can squeeze in) because it's a bit boring and I want some model variety. When I got spanked by the Tau battlesuit army (the only time I have ever rage quit a game) I genuinely wondered how my opponent was even having fun.
I can also accept a certain amount of imbalance for the sake of making the narrative side interesting, e.g. I get that Commander Farsight hates Orks, so this is fluffy and fun even though it inevitably means they get a bonus against Orks which is technically unfair.
95585
Post by: flyingthruwater
I think that in a game like this, the player does have a certain responsability towards his opponent's enjoyment of the game. And I don't think that it is exclusive to Games Workshop at all.
Maybe it's because I play in a small gaming community so the last thing I want is to be 'that guy' and who suddenly can't find a game for love nor money. Therefore my opponent's enjoyment of a game is just as important to me as my own. So yes I could take a Van Saar Necromunda gang in the new campaign and have easily the most powerful gang within half a dozen games (barring some unlucky deaths or injuries) and happily table everyone a couple of times until no-one plays anymore. Then the whole thing collapses for everyone. Wargaming in my view was never a hobby to decide who was the best tactician (leave that to chess or something like that) it was (and still is for us) a very enjoyable way to spend a few hours with your like-minded friends. I don't want to send them home with their tails between their legs having had no fun at all..... They're my friends at the end of the day.
Incidentally I stopped playing 40k after the Imperial Guard Codex that gave them Orders.
"Great" thought I "at last my beloved Guardsmen may be useful rather than being something I take because I'm proud of the paintjob and try not to whimper too much while my opponent sweeps them away with a dustpan and brush" and for a month I was a happy wargamer.
Then the next Codex was Blood Angels that gave every sod a jump pack and I was repacking my army by turn 2.......
Once the game became a case of rock-paper-scissors and the game itself became an afterthought (I'm bringing Imperial Guard... Oh you're Tau are you?... I'll shake your hand now and instead find a worthwhile game for next week then.....) it lost all fun for me and I found other games.
Now we're playing 2ed 40k and haven't had as much fun with wargaming as this for a long time. But we write our lists with the intention of having a good fun game that goes to the wire. If it's looking one-sided early then we'll just tweak something in one or both of the armies and start the game over.
Sorry guys, rant over.....
8932
Post by: Lanrak
The players have a responsability to be polite and communicative about how they like to play the game with their opponent.
This is expected in all war games.
However, expecting the players to agree to interpret poorly worded rules in the same way.
And expecting players to be able to sort out all the balance issues in an agreed way, because the game developers could not be bothered to play test the game enough.
Is NOT expected in any other game other than 40k and WHFB.AFAIK.
E.A. has a similar amount of units in game to 7th ed 40k.It has far more complexity in the game play, yet managed to cover everything in less than 140 pages of rules .(Including all the army lists.)
GW plc do not care about game play any more, just selling the latest product to anyone who will buy it for the price they want to charge.
95585
Post by: flyingthruwater
Gentleman's agreements arise in other games I've played too, not just GW games. Flames of War being the main one to pop ino my head.
EG in that game the basic US Infantry Company can take up to 3 full artillery batteries plus an Aerial Observer to make sure you can always see what you want to splatter. But no-one wants to be 'that guy' outside of a tournament.
Or you don't spring a Tiger Kompanie on someone without prior warning lol.
My perspective is probably tempered by the fact that I've never played at a FLGS or GW, it's always been with friends or at a small wargaming club so competetiveness has always been limited to friendly banter.
And I've always been put off playing anywhere else as the chances of having to face an uber list 'o' doom increases dramatically. Sure everyone likes to win but I feel a line's been crossed when during list writing someone would think "bloody hell I'd HATE to face this list", then uses it anyway and to hell with his opponent's enjoyment.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
To be fair though FoW is basically Warhammer WW2, so it's no wonder it suffers from similar problems since it's meant to be the same kind of game.
Historical games do often need some agreement especially when refighting scenarios, but those rules also tend to be more balanced so it evens out e.g. if you're refighting Thermopylae the Spartan player is going to be way outnumbered but the scenario gives him a good chance of winning.
71534
Post by: Bharring
I remember the first time I fielded eHaley in WMH. I was new to the game, but was derided for fielding such an OP warcaster (learned why she was OP while using her that game).
40k is probably the worst of the lot, but its problems aren't unique to 40k.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
Bharring wrote:I remember the first time I fielded eHaley in WMH. I was new to the game, but was derided for fielding such an OP warcaster (learned why she was OP while using her that game).
40k is probably the worst of the lot, but its problems aren't unique to 40k.
I think its the level of unbalance that people have issues with.
71534
Post by: Bharring
I hope so.
I think we almost all agree that its far more unbalanced than most games. The only sticking points seem to be:
1) Some believe other games *don't* have this problem.
2) What to do about it.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
Bharring wrote:I hope so.
I think we almost all agree that its far more unbalanced than most games. The only sticking points seem to be:
1) Some believe other games *don't* have this problem.
2) What to do about it.
As for #2, House rule everything, which unfortunately wasn't possible in my case, (I rely on pick up games) so I chose to play the better balanced games instead and not reward poor rule writing that's geared more for selling models than playing an actual game.
53516
Post by: Chute82
Bharring wrote:I remember the first time I fielded eHaley in WMH. I was new to the game, but was derided for fielding such an OP warcaster (learned why she was OP while using her that game).
40k is probably the worst of the lot, but its problems aren't unique to 40k.
You don't see eHaley winning tournament after tournament. She is good but not that game breaking. You where new to the game and my guess was playing someone else new so that has a lot to do with your situation. Once you get a few games in against her you soon realize she dies just like every other caster.
50532
Post by: Zagman
GW has indeed abdicated responsibility for game balance. I've recently started working on a Balance Errata for 40k and the Codices. If you would like to chime in, paytest, stop on by. The more input the better! So far I have first drafts for Codes: Space Marines, Codex: Eldar Craftwords, and Codex: Necron.
Zagman's Masochistic Endeavor: A Balance Errata for 40k
53371
Post by: Akiasura
 Chute82 wrote:Bharring wrote:I remember the first time I fielded eHaley in WMH. I was new to the game, but was derided for fielding such an OP warcaster (learned why she was OP while using her that game).
40k is probably the worst of the lot, but its problems aren't unique to 40k.
You don't see eHaley winning tournament after tournament. She is good but not that game breaking. You where new to the game and my guess was playing someone else new so that has a lot to do with your situation. Once you get a few games in against her you soon realize she dies just like every other caster.
She's not even that good if you aren't playing scenario (which, as a new player, you shouldn't have been). Good against ranged lists, but bricks with pathfinder can cause her a lot of issues. She's certainly not as bad as her sister or Egaspy against new players (And her sister comes with the new army box  )
Bradigus is way worse, and even he can be dealt with after the teleport nerf circle got.
I've had a cryx player complain that skorne was OP before. It doesn't mean its true, and it doesn't mean its how the meta views it. Look at this forum, warseer, 3++, and any other, and you'll see constant complaining about the Eldar and Decurion. WMH doesn't have anything similar to that, and on the 2 occasions it did, those offending units received nerfs rather quickly.
53516
Post by: Chute82
Akiasura wrote: Chute82 wrote:Bharring wrote:I remember the first time I fielded eHaley in WMH. I was new to the game, but was derided for fielding such an OP warcaster (learned why she was OP while using her that game).
40k is probably the worst of the lot, but its problems aren't unique to 40k.
You don't see eHaley winning tournament after tournament. She is good but not that game breaking. You where new to the game and my guess was playing someone else new so that has a lot to do with your situation. Once you get a few games in against her you soon realize she dies just like every other caster.
She's not even that good if you aren't playing scenario (which, as a new player, you shouldn't have been). Good against ranged lists, but bricks with pathfinder can cause her a lot of issues. She's certainly not as bad as her sister or Egaspy against new players (And her sister comes with the new army box )
Bradigus is way worse, and even he can be dealt with after the teleport nerf circle got.
I've had a cryx player complain that skorne was OP before. It doesn't mean its true, and it doesn't mean its how the meta views it. Look at this forum, warseer, 3++, and any other, and you'll see constant complaining about the Eldar and Decurion. WMH doesn't have anything similar to that, and on the 2 occasions it did, those offending units received nerfs rather quickly.
Yes PP fixes their problems rather quickly, while GW ignores their rule problems and tell us to forge the narrative.
68484
Post by: LordBlades
There's also a difference between degrees of imbalance.
If you're telling somebody you're bringing a top list in WMH or X-Wing or a game with some balance, odds are they can adjust their list to provide a chchallenge.
Now try adjusting a let's say Dark Angels list when the opponent lets you know he's bringing a competitive Eldar list.
62560
Post by: Makumba
Now try adjusting a let's say Dark Angels list when the opponent lets you know he's bringing a competitive Eldar list.
You bring DA army that is actualy a count as necron or penta tyrant list?
60662
Post by: Purifier
Makumba wrote:Now try adjusting a let's say Dark Angels list when the opponent lets you know he's bringing a competitive Eldar list.
You bring DA army that is actualy a count as necron or penta tyrant list?
"Use a different army" is the opposite of proving a game's balance.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Akiasura wrote: Chute82 wrote:Bharring wrote:I remember the first time I fielded eHaley in WMH. I was new to the game, but was derided for fielding such an OP warcaster (learned why she was OP while using her that game). 40k is probably the worst of the lot, but its problems aren't unique to 40k.
You don't see eHaley winning tournament after tournament. She is good but not that game breaking. You where new to the game and my guess was playing someone else new so that has a lot to do with your situation. Once you get a few games in against her you soon realize she dies just like every other caster.
She's not even that good if you aren't playing scenario (which, as a new player, you shouldn't have been). Good against ranged lists, but bricks with pathfinder can cause her a lot of issues. She's certainly not as bad as her sister or Egaspy against new players (And her sister comes with the new army box ) Bradigus is way worse, and even he can be dealt with after the teleport nerf circle got. I've had a cryx player complain that skorne was OP before. It doesn't mean its true, and it doesn't mean its how the meta views it. Look at this forum, warseer, 3++, and any other, and you'll see constant complaining about the Eldar and Decurion. WMH doesn't have anything similar to that, and on the 2 occasions it did, those offending units received nerfs rather quickly.
I think one of the worst ones in recent memory was the original version of Force Wall (theme force) which didn't include some rule that basically let an ability stack up to ridiculous levels (the wording said "gained" instead of "allocated" so it could stack above what was intended). It was corrected almost immediately, I think even before the issue of No Quarter that it was in went to print (or possibly right after). If that had been GW it likely wouldn't even have been errated and could have stayed that way for months or years (if it ever got fixed at all) with players just told that they're bad nasty people who aren't playing right if they use this perfectly legal set of rules because the company fethed up on the wording. That IMHO illustrates the difference between a company that cares and one that doesn't. GW makes mistakes (or just doesn't consider ramifications) and then shunts responsibility of fixing it on the players while empowering the " WAAC/ TFG" types who can and do still abuse the rules because it's not actually fixed, just put into a scrublike "soft ban" or "hard ban" situation by players. It's kind of like some laws when you consider it. A law that never gets used needs to be removed, because otherwise you leave open the possibility for someone to use (and abuse it) at a later date because it still exists, even if at present everyone agrees to not use it.
53371
Post by: Akiasura
Wasn't that a while back? I would think the most recent issue was the triple teleport with beatback/synergy bradigus could put out. He had an across the table turn 1 caster kill that could work 90% of the time against even the toughest casters.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
Akiasura wrote:Wasn't that a while back? I would think the most recent issue was the triple teleport with beatback/synergy bradigus could put out. He had an across the table turn 1 caster kill that could work 90% of the time against even the toughest casters.
All got FAQ'd real quick.
|
|
