Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Going through this may just be a repeat for what has already been said but honestly as a casual player, I want a balanced set of rules that allow me to have a core army that I can use that are dependable with extras to take on a case by case basis. I hate having to constantly change up my list to stay in the running if I want to have a chance of winning. I don't need to win to have fun but when I build a fluffy but tactical army, I don't want those fluffy decisions to be such a big subtraction from my army. I like the thought of having cinematic fluffy battles like GW says that they keep pushing towards but sometimes I also just want to have a pick up game to enjoy a strategy game as well. I think that is the majority of players as well, they like fluff, they like strategy and I don't think it wouldn't be too hard to satisfy both, not this whole overly imbalanced game for the sake of "narrative" that we have now.

I want a balanced set of rules, not perfection, but an honest and continuous move from GW to provide decent internal and external balance with dexes, and between shooting and CC within the core rules.

That means GW caring about making a good game/product so that should imbalances occur (OP or underpowered units or rules that don't work properly/are poorly written) GW will actively move to make corrections in a timely manner. That means using errata to fix problems/poor rules writing/point costs, etc.

I want 40K to be a good game since it has such potential rather than the mess it is and has been.

Martel732 wrote:

But you can't go on the road with that. I might as well play a system I like better with a lot smaller player base if each little home group is going to have their own game. Having to negotiate lists and a dozen rules before EACH GAME is unacceptable to me. Am I supposed to tell the Eldar guy who wont' back off Serpent Spam that I just won't play him? What's the point of a community of players then?

No you can't, I agree and I just don't think 40k is that kind of game. Concessions would have to be made to bring that kind of balance and I don't think the design guys see it as worth it. There are as people have pointed in in various threads across the board some really good competitive rule systems out there that I think you might enjoy more.
As I have said previously and here echoed by Tyranno (even if it's meaning has been misconstrued) maybe that's the the way forward for you, A new system maybe funded by the sale of the old 40k army because however you enjoy playing 40k if you aren't enjoying it then why bother?

Alternatively *you* must adapt, start setting up games in advance where you can balance your lists, play games against lists similar in power to your own. You cannot move the mountain that is GW with anything but money (or the withholding of it) until then those are your options.

As we have agreed in previous threads the WS is too good and is the perfect storm of too good and too widely available.

Out of curiosity (They never would because money) if for example GW came out and said with the full backing of the company:

"Fielding 6 wave serpents and finding it OP? You are doing it wrong, you found a winning list now move on. 40k is meant to be played with more casual lists anything else is doing it wrong!"

What would be your response? With a confirmation would you abandon 40k or would it galvanize you to mod the rules yourself? I'm just curious not trying to irritate or provoke just to be clear.

As previously stated if GW plc do not want you to play pick up games, because 40k is NOT meant to be played other than in a mutually agree narrative game.
Then simply remove the PV and FoC from the codex books.

And that way GW plc would commit to a particular play style that the GW developers say they are designing for.

Other wise the codex books are purely a shirt term sales vehicle for new products with little consideration for the actual game play.