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.
2014/04/22 13:56:43
Subject: W40k : rumor of 7th edition for 2014 summer ! How on Earth ?!? * news p.45*
rothrich wrote: Perhaps all of the hardback codices were written with 7th in mind? Is it all that unreasonable for them to finish the what 5? codices without a hard back book? orks, ba sw, de, and gk? don't get me started on sisters inquisition or any other "secondary" army that was never going to get a hardback book to begin with.
According to some stuff that was in a massive rumor dump: no. All the books are solely written for the edition they're in.
Link please. What rumor dump by whom?
No name, it was a document on pastebin that is either half of a chat conversation with someone, or is a very good hoax (my favorite detail is the comment in there: "Warhammer is not supposed to be about min/maxing.")
If I was approached by someone who was effectively saying "here's some weaknesses I've identified and here's some ways I can fix them" then they'd have my attention.
Depends. Dakka's freakish obsession with "balance" notwithstanding, it's not a "weakness" in game design, but simply a choice (which you don't have to agree with as a consumer... buy something else... but which you should agree with if you want to get hired).
Read .. for example ... Jervis Column from the White Dwarf Weekly #9, where he specifically notes how "balanced tournament" play is a house-rule-tweak that some gaming-groups may pursue at their leisure, but certainly not a job for the game designers, who have a broader audience to consider.
You're not getting hired by Coca Cola, if you keep harping on how they are wrong by making their labels red, and add to your application how you'd like them to use more blue like Pepsi.
1) "Balance" as an objective quality does not exist in point-systems/wargaming/asymetrical armies. It's always subjective to people what "feels" balanced or "unbalanced".
2) Even if "Balance" as an objective quality would exist, it should not be the ambition of game designers to pursue it, because it makes games boring.
If you're not down with both 1) and 2), you'll never get hired as a game designer, not for any company out there worth their salt.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/22 14:06:32
Nobody in their right mind would do that. I'm not even...
You really do occupy another dimension.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
As part of my job application for a GW job (I think it was editor or rules writer or similar, something which ought to have responsibility for that stuff, among other things), I sent in, at my own behest, a list of the typos and grammatical errors in the first ten or so pages of the then newly released 5th Edition Tyranid Codex. I also pointed out some of the obvious rules imbalances with it. And I pointed out that I could be improving all their codexes that way, if they'd just give me the job...
Needless to say I didn't get called for interview. Hadn't really expected to. I felt a bit like an elaborate troll.
Easy to see who Mr. Ian Sturrock, while clearly a dedicated fan, knowns absolutely nothing about game design.
Why would he ever be hired as a game designer/rules writer/rules editor/whatever?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/22 14:10:38
Easy to see who Mr. Ian Sturrock, while clearly a dedicated fan, knowns absolutely nothing about game design.
Why would he ever be hired as a game designer/rules writer/rules editor/whatever?
Because most of GW's designers have no formal experience/training when they were hired?
Formal experience/training is something different than a seemingly pre-conceived and deeply emotionally embedded and ultimately misguided idea of how to "improve" the game.
Formal experience/training is not required, but in the specific case of Mr. Ian Sturrock, designing a few (commercially successful) games might help him free himself of the quixotic Dakka-obsession over "balanced".
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/22 14:21:12
Easy to see who Mr. Ian Sturrock, while clearly a dedicated fan, knowns absolutely nothing about game design.
Why would he ever be hired as a game designer/rules writer/rules editor/whatever?
Because most of GW's designers have no formal experience/training when they were hired?
Formal experience/training is something different than a seemingly pre-conceived and deeply emotionally embedded idea of how to "improve" the game.
Formal experience/training is not required, but in the specific case of Mr. Ian Sturrock, designing a few (commercially successful) games might help him free himself of the quixotic Dakka-obsession over "balanced".
So you're either disagreeing with word choice used, are drunk or are being sarcastic. I don't know which it is.
2014/04/22 14:25:11
Subject: W40k : rumor of 7th edition for 2014 summer ! How on Earth ?!? * news p.45*
So you're either disagreeing with word choice used, are drunk or are being sarcastic. I don't know which it is.
Not sure I am following you.
I disagree with the general sentiment here that GW made a "mistake" by turning down said application by an applicant who applied with "recommendations to better balanced/"improve" the game.
Application A: "I don't have formal experience, but I am eager and quick to learn"
Application B: "I don't have formal experience, but this is what you've been doing wrong"
These are two very different applications, even if they have the same (lack of) "experience" on their resume.
Oh, I was not sure anymore. So yeah, that is a good example. I still think it does not make much sense, as then how are anti-psychic stuff helping against tyranid powers ? It was even worse when the tyranid had access to the BRB psychic powers.
Zweischneid wrote: 1) "Balance" as an objective quality does not exist in point-systems/wargaming/asymetrical armies. It's always subjective to people what "feels" balanced or "unbalanced".
2) Even if "Balance" as an objective quality would exist, it should not be the ambition of game designers to pursue it, because it makes games boring.
If you're not down with both 1) and 2), you'll never get hired as a game designer, not for any company out there worth their salt.
So, Privateer Press is not worth their salt. But seriously, the big difference between Warmachine/Horde and 40K or Battle is that in the former, people actually disagree on what is most powerful. In the latter, people do not, because the power gap is just so obvious that the imbalance is not that subjective, really.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
2014/04/22 14:25:25
Subject: W40k : rumor of 7th edition for 2014 summer ! How on Earth ?!? * news p.45*
Easy to see who Mr. Ian Sturrock, while clearly a dedicated fan, knowns absolutely nothing about game design.
Why would he ever be hired as a game designer/rules writer/rules editor/whatever?
Because most of GW's designers have no formal experience/training when they were hired?
Formal experience/training is something different than a seemingly pre-conceived and deeply emotionally embedded idea of how to "improve" the game.
Formal experience/training is not required, but in the specific case of Mr. Ian Sturrock, designing a few (commercially successful) games might help him free himself of the quixotic Dakka-obsession over "balanced".
So you're either disagreeing with word choice used, are drunk or are being sarcastic. I don't know which it is.
Neither, he is simply being Zweischneid, its better just to nod at whatever dumb thing he is saying at the time and just move along quickly because otherwise you'll find yourself in the depths of a "discussion" (that is nothing more than Zweischneid ignoring whatever facts that don't agree with whatever rambling he chose to engage in), that would make the Twilight Zone blush with embarrassment at its 'convolutedness'.
2014/04/22 14:26:04
Subject: W40k : rumor of 7th edition for 2014 summer ! How on Earth ?!? * news p.45*
rothrich wrote: Perhaps all of the hardback codices were written with 7th in mind? Is it all that unreasonable for them to finish the what 5? codices without a hard back book? orks, ba sw, de, and gk? don't get me started on sisters inquisition or any other "secondary" army that was never going to get a hardback book to begin with.
According to some stuff that was in a massive rumor dump: no. All the books are solely written for the edition they're in.
Link please. What rumor dump by whom?
No name, it was a document on pastebin that is either half of a chat conversation with someone, or is a very good hoax (my favorite detail is the comment in there: "Warhammer is not supposed to be about min/maxing.")
2) Even if "Balance" as an objective quality would exist, it should not be the ambition of game designers to pursue it, because it makes games boring.
This just makes me shiver. Anyone who is going into a competition and who is afraid of a well-met opponent clearly isn't ready for said competition. You only fear balance if you fear not being able to keep up with your opponents. There is no more perfect competition than a competition where everyone had the same requirements and everyone would theoretically be able to defeat his opponent by pure personal skill.
With all due respect, and I do not refer to you personally here, but anyone who considers a balanced state to be "boring" is afraid of balance as it means not being able to relate failure to anyone but yourself.
2) Even if "Balance" as an objective quality would exist, it should not be the ambition of game designers to pursue it, because it makes games boring.
This just makes me shiver. Anyone who is going into a competition and who is afraid of a well-met opponent clearly isn't ready for said competition. You only fear balance if you fear not being able to keep up with your opponents. There is no more perfect competition than a competition where everyone had the same requirements and everyone would theoretically be able to defeat his opponent by pure personal skill.
With all due respect, and I do not refer to you personally here, but anyone who considers a balanced state to be "boring" is afraid of balance as it means not being able to relate failure to anyone but yourself.
I am not afraid of competition. But playing about 40K isn't about competition. It's about free-time, relaxation and enjoyment (possibly to unwind from a competitive job, etc..). It's also, explicitly said so by GW, about creating narratives, like it or not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/22 14:34:28
2) Even if "Balance" as an objective quality would exist, it should not be the ambition of game designers to pursue it, because it makes games boring.
This just makes me shiver. Anyone who is going into a competition and who is afraid of a well-met opponent clearly isn't ready for said competition. You only fear balance if you fear not being able to keep up with your opponents. There is no more perfect competition than a competition where everyone had the same requirements and everyone would theoretically be able to defeat his opponent by pure personal skill.
With all due respect, and I do not refer to you personally here, but anyone who considers a balanced state to be "boring" is afraid of balance as it means not being able to relate failure to anyone but yourself.
I am not afraid of competition. But gaming isn't about competition. It's about free-time, relaxation and enjoyment (possibly to unwind from a competitive job, etc..).
Exactly! And what is more enjoyable than playing a games and find that your unit selections are woefully inadequate at performing compared to your opponents, and being soundly beaten in the first couple turns of the game?
But you can't complain! Think of the narrative! Imagine your forces fighting that dramatic last stand and lose with all the dignity and honor you hold in yourself!
And when you grow tired of all of the "last-stand" style game and look at all the money you spent on those units and how you'll have to spend a bunch more money on units that *do* seem to perform better, realize that is the fun of the HHHobby! After all, what is the cost of the game compared to the excitement of your imagination! *pew pew*
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/22 14:39:06
2014/04/22 14:40:28
Subject: W40k : rumor of 7th edition for 2014 summer ! How on Earth ?!? * news p.45*
I am not afraid of competition. But playing about 40K isn't about competition. It's about free-time, relaxation and enjoyment (possibly to unwind from a competitive job, etc..). It's also, explicitly said so by GW, about creating narratives, like it or not.
Precisely my point. What is more fun? Crushing someone because you spent more money than your friend (Escalation) / spent hours checking internet forums for the currently most overpowered combo (ho, Seerstar) or because you can directly relate your success to your very own general skills?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/22 14:41:03
Well, Q-tips are not meant for drying or cleaning your ears, brake fluid and simple green aren't meant for paint stripping, the barell-cleaning chain I use as a keychain wasn't meant to be used like that... lots of things are used in a different fashion than the company who made it wants us to.
For any each and any game, there should be some ballance. It's not about competition, it's just as you said, about enjoyment. If you know you are on the losing end, no matter what, you won't enjoy your game. Any wargame or strategy game I know aspires to be ballanced. If I want pure storytelling about unequal forces, well, I'll read a book or watch a movie or play some single-player video game.
Fun fact: vaseline is a decent weapon lubricant for cold weather above -20 °C.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/22 14:48:25
Waaagh an' a 'alf
1500 Pts WIP
2014/04/22 14:48:49
Subject: W40k : rumor of 7th edition for 2014 summer ! How on Earth ?!? * news p.45*
I am not afraid of competition. But playing about 40K isn't about competition. It's about free-time, relaxation and enjoyment (possibly to unwind from a competitive job, etc..). It's also, explicitly said so by GW, about creating narratives, like it or not.
Precisely my point. What is more fun? Crushing someone because you spent more money than your friend (Escalation) / spent hours checking internet forums for the currently most overpowered combo (ho, Seerstar) or because you can directly relate your success to your very own general skills?
Well, than don't.
If you're truly feeling the "competitive" itch, you can pick up an old chess-set at any pound-store and you can win millions in a tournament. Or get yourself a tennis racket and start training for Wimbledon.
Your tournament earnings will quickly make your 40K spending look like a pittance.
And then come back to to 40K - if you like - and play it with your opponent, not against him.
Or are you to timid to test your skill in an environment that is meant to be competitive (which 40K is not)?
There is a place for everything. But 40K isn't the place for being "competitive", and as you correctly point out, it offers little to no enjoyment to people playing it "to win".
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/22 14:52:03
rothrich wrote: Perhaps all of the hardback codices were written with 7th in mind? Is it all that unreasonable for them to finish the what 5? codices without a hard back book? orks, ba sw, de, and gk? don't get me started on sisters inquisition or any other "secondary" army that was never going to get a hardback book to begin with.
According to some stuff that was in a massive rumor dump: no. All the books are solely written for the edition they're in.
Link please. What rumor dump by whom?
No name, it was a document on pastebin that is either half of a chat conversation with someone, or is a very good hoax (my favorite detail is the comment in there: "Warhammer is not supposed to be about min/maxing.")
Ahh yes I remember this... I am fairly confident that it is a hoax. IMHO we have not had any real info since hastings and 40k radio went down.
The detail about Warhammer not being about min/maxing was something that made me chuckle as if it is a hoax it's not something you'd think to put in.
Hastings just got tired of everything and quit. No idea what happened to Harry, he just kind of wandered off. And 40k Radio seems to have been C&D because they were basically going too far with their info.
2014/04/22 14:56:54
Subject: W40k : rumor of 7th edition for 2014 summer ! How on Earth ?!? * news p.45*
If you're truly feeling the "competitive" itch, you can pick up an old chess-set at any pound-store and you can win millions in a tournament. Or get yourself a tennis racket and start training for Wimbledon.
Wrong definition of "competition". Any sort of game you play with anyone, for whatever reason, is a competition and thus needs thought and effort put into it in order to satisfy all participants. If you don't think that there should be rules, why would we even need those army books / codices anyway? Why not let everyone randomly shove their minis around? That'd be pretty laid-back
Wrong definition of "competition". Any sort of game you play with anyone, for whatever reason, is a competition and thus needs thought and effort put into it in order to satisfy all participants. If you don't think that there should be rules, why would we even need those army books / codices anyway? Why not let everyone randomly shove their minis around? That'd be pretty laid-back
No.
Not all games are about competition, and neither are rules only needed for competitive games. Lastly, not all participants would be satisfied with a rule-set made to please competitive gamers, notably those not interested in competitive gaming.
Again, there are literally thousands of games out there that cater to and "satisfy" those seeking competition. If I am looking to tell a good visual narrative, I won't be picking up a Chess-set. If I want a tightly balanced, competitive match, I won't be picking up 40K.
The idea that "all games" cater to the same principle/priority is ludicrous. If it were true, humanity would only ever need a single game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/22 15:04:01
Balanced games are better for all play types. Period.
When a game is balanced there is no such thing as WAAC, fluffy, competitive, casual, etc. as defined as player subgroups in 40k. They simply are all just players of the game because it works. And balance is not "boring" unless you've already played every other major skirmish game and found them all rote.
Here's an article from a gentleman who may know a thing or two about running events and having a good time:
Bonus: A designer from Malifaux is directly talking to Mr. Brandt about the game in the comments section. When has any of the game writers from 40k been let out of their Ivory Tower to do so?
Laughable. If you aren't balancing a game, you aren't game designing.
Shine on, Kaldor Dayglow!
Not Ken Lobb
2014/04/22 15:09:25
Subject: W40k : rumor of 7th edition for 2014 summer ! How on Earth ?!? * news p.45*
The idea that "all games" cater to the same principle/priority is ludicrous. If it were true, humanity would only ever need a single game.
Just like all of humanity only ever needs one type of food?
Good game design involves balanced rules by its very definition alone. Any game design that is not aimed at balance and clearly favors one side is bad game design for everyone except those who directly profit from it, namely those making the rules up...in this case, GW.
What negative aspects are there to balanced gaming? "Boredom" is not a negative aspect as boredom is a fully subjective, perceived condition. Total balance means a game that's completely fair for everyone participating in it. If you think that a fair game is something bad...well...you catch my drift.
/e: Actually yeah, sorry, way off topic :/
My last word on this: good game design is balanced game design, anything else is a waste of time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/22 15:12:56
ductvader wrote: *senses danger of thread lockdown due to being way off topic.*
I don't think it's drastically off-topic. Game balance has always been a topic hotly contested in regards to 40k; I would posit it is even more heavily debated now than any time in the past with the releases over the last six months.
It is always a question what direction GW will take the next edition of this game, and not surprising that people would bring up their personal hopes for its future.
2014/04/22 15:14:43
Subject: W40k : rumor of 7th edition for 2014 summer ! How on Earth ?!? * news p.45*
Laughable. If you aren't balancing a game, you aren't game designing.
Not true. Balance has both advantages and disadvantages. Plenty of games are designed with purposeful imbalances. There are trade-offs to balance.
With anything involving trade-offs, choices can fall along a wide continuum of possibilities.
Now, some games will try to emphasize balance (and they are popular, no doubt), some games will try to get a good "middle-ground", some games will stray very far from the idea of balance to explore the advantages offered by imbalance. 40K, arguably, is among the latter. It might not be your flavour, but that doesn't mean it is a "mistake".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/22 15:16:47
Great Zweischneid manages to take the smallest comment out of context and utterly derail another thread.
Fun fact, opinions may vary and that's ok!
People can play any game they want for any number of reasons, forcing your personal standard for the hhhobby onto someone else is useless and inappropriate.
Just agree to disagree guys.
We all have wants from GW, lets respect those opinions and stop telling the other he's wrong.
TheKbob wrote: When has any of the game writers from 40k been let out of their Ivory Tower to do so?
I've had some back and forth with Kelly in the past about Sisters and I'm compiling more stuff for submission on things (I also sent in the "One use only, 24" range" Serpent Shield thing I've talked about before with an in depth explanation on why it needs to be done (mostly talking about Spirit of the Game), but I haven't gotten a response on that yet thanks to the Easter Holiday).
2014/04/22 15:18:58
Subject: Re:W40k : rumor of 7th edition for 2014 summer ! How on Earth ?!? * news p.45*
I think I would agree with you Zwei, and I imagine many others would, if the rules for 40k were not priced at such a premium price.
Compared to most other games, 40k rules are exceptionally more expensive. The recent supple-codexes priced at full codex prices really exacerbates this problem. People pay a lot for the rules, and I think many (myself included) expect more than just pretty artwork and high production quality...heck, if that were the case I'd just buy Dark Heresy books since they are very good quality and usually packed with background!
Waaagh an' a 'alf
1500 Pts WIP 
