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.

 Talys wrote:
Nobody in the wargaming world wants to show up with just a bunch of starter box units and without any of the new cool stuff.

I do now wonder what sort of crazy nerds you play with

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Nobody in the wargaming world wants to show up with just a bunch of starter box units and without any of the new cool stuff.

I do now wonder what sort of crazy nerds you play with

We are all old crazy nerds now. Most of us started in the late 80's when we were in high school/university -- for a long time, every week it was one night for D&D (or some other RPG.. we played everyhthing), and one night for tabletop stuff. Our first tabletop... "wargame"... was Car Wars by Steve Jackson. Then FASA Battletech. Oh, and when MtG came out, we went nuts, and I think that consumed 1 year of my life, lol.

Now we all have families and getting together to play is a lot tougher :(

My comments, though, were mostly aimed at the FLGS crowd, since I do enjoy checking out what other people are up to.

 Talys wrote:


There is an inherrent danager to that, though. In theory, Necron and Eldar should be able to just obliterate all the other races

The Eldar could snuff out suns, terraform planets, and all that, right? And all that knowledge is still in the Black Library. I mean, it's reminiscent of the Mimbari-Human wars in Babylon 5 -- the humans really didn't have a chance at all. There is also the problem that the whole concept of WH40k is inherrently flawed, because space faring races would not be slogging it out with infantry, tanks, and jetbikes on the ground... they would, you know, fight it out in space

But it's all good -- I love that 40k is a space-ification of the fantasy races (humans, elves, ogres, halflings, dwarves, undead, all that) and that there are cool models that duke it out on a tabletop with futuristic weapons in a totally unrealistic fashion.

Uh.. I fail to see what point you are making about 'inherent danger'? Just because a race has the capability to blow up a star/planet, doesn't mean they should auto win. It doesn't mean you must represent it. It's an option for some scenarios I presume. However, keep in mind, no where did I say that everything from lore must be represented - that is sort of going into absolutism, eh? Warhammer 40k focuses in on infantry/ground warfare, so there are limitations, or rather, assumptions made, as to why either army is even fielding ground forces.

As far as ground warfare not really being realistic, I use to think the same way about 40k. Keep in mind a few things though: First, you can always find a fix it to near any problem in a fiction - if you think about it long and hard enough . Second, sometimes 'fix-its' can sound pretty convoluted. Now again, regarding ground warfare, here's what I've made of it as a 'realistic consideration':
Consider the matter of the war, are you preserving planets, conquering them, destroying them? The first two would be a fitting scenario for ground warfare. Don't forget to factor any fields around cities or areas on planets that are critical to keep intact - you can't really bombard them (Titan becomes more useful in this regard, as they would excel at sieging cities - where firing positions have more vertical considerations). Oh, and don't forget boarding actions either - or any other space siege related things. Battle lines and fixed positions could even be justified as well (think trench warfare): once you take away air superiority, from both sides, it's more likely to digress into a game of perpetual push and shove - imo.

So yes, there is a huge focus on naval warfare in space sci fi stuff, but there are also very realistic situations for ground warfare - unless you are bent on blowing the planet to smithereens or have drunk the Gene Roddenberry koolaid.

Martel732 wrote:
There have been models that NEVER sold well because they were crap in the game for years and years. And GW never buffed them. Like Vespids.

I like vespids

I bought a squad of Vespids when they were launched in 2006 but I have to admit their rules are crap. A classic example of non-joined-up thinking.

Expensive.
Vulnerable to shooting and melee.
Reliant on a leader figure who was easily killed by Torrent Of Fire.
Weapons very effective against SMs but very short range.
Jump troop mobility added to an army that already had plenty of either cheaper or better jump troops.

IDK what their rules are like now.

 Talys wrote:
@Lanrak - I don't disagree with you. Better rules would be an all around win. All I'm saying is that the rules as written doest detract from my fun.

Also: Hanging around FLGS, the #1 complaint about 40k is NOT rules. In my area, the top detractor for new players is the high cost of entry. Unequivocally.

In fact, many younger players start and abandon 40k because they find out that to be competitive, they need to spend a thousand bucks, and that's more than they can afford, and more than they expected getting into the game.

How are rules not the problem here? They can get bad armies for cheap or cheaper, why don't they play those, if rules don't matter to the fun one gets out of the game?

 Azreal13 wrote:
You're making this broad assertion that GW are engineering the game to manipulate the customers into buying more/different models, but you've not really produced any compelling examples, in fact, I'd go so far to say for every one example you could suggest, there'd be at least two which were flat out mistakes.
.

Hmm, I think he has a point, each 'shift' in edition changes the power builds. Third was rhino rush, or shoot the rhino rush. Fourth was six man las/pas and assault cannon spam, and skimmer spam, fifth turned into mech hammer for the largest part etc. I think it's fair to say there is an attempt to push a certain 'style' of game with each new edition. There are over arching design goals and points to follow('push armour!','push shooting!', 'get away from assault!' Etc). Change, not improve being the key.

 Azreal13 wrote:

We have evidence such as Jervis' WD column where his attitude is clearly that 40K is less wargame and more collaborative RPG battle story telling device. We have people claiming to have spoken to designers which have acknowledged that the Eldar and Tau books were mistakes, but they had no intention of addressing those errors, we have units which have been relentlessly bad for multiple editions and codex updates while others are randomly buffed despite there being no new kit.

Remember though, jervis isn't a power player. In life or within the company. He's a fairly easy going, lAid back guy. Getting your face in white dwarf is pr, nothing more. There is no power there within its pages. Jervis is as beholden to the overall directives of sales and marketing as anyone else in the studio, with less power to affect change, or pick directions than many people realise.

 Azreal13 wrote:

There is ample evidence to suggest a lack of care, interest or ability. There's plenty to suggest that they're making a game for themselves and not for the people they expect to buy it, there's little to support the idea they're some sort of Machiavellian rules geniuses embedding deliberate flaws and built in obsolescence into every thing they produce.

I think it's a combination of lack of creative control (the designers are given a brief, a project and a time limit), a need to align with company attitudes, and personal interpretation.i don't think they need to be Machiavellian geniuses embedding deliberate flaws, just an attitude of 'change, not improve'.

Remember as well, the personal views and bias of the designers can have a huge role to play. Back in the day, when Pete Haines was a big name, when he designed codices for armies he liked, they were great (chas/ iron warriors being a prime example). When he didn't, thry were ok, or barely functional (fourth ed imperial guard). Iirc he also disliked the 'fantasy' races like eldar and orks which was why, at the time, they kept being pushed back in favour of other races. I got the same feeling from cruddace's fourth ed tau 'update'. It felt like he just didn't get it. It felt like he wasn't invested. And it felt, very much like he had a very limited brief, and limited scope and limited resources in which to do work within the scope of the update. Could this lack of care, or disinterest be part of it? All you need is someone who doesn't like dark Angels, and doesn't like flyers to make a bad dark Angels flyer. Not incompetence. Just bias.

in his time as well, and to his credit, pete haines tried to impose a greater 'discipline' in the design staff. Too often there was too much enthusiasm, and too much 'Rush', and not enough 'forethought', and you ended up with everything and it's monkey getting rules, unique index astartes articles/rules and massive bloat in rules 'bulk'.

I don't think there's any doubt that they change the game to try and make more money, but I still doubt the poorly written rules and piss poor balance is intentional with the goal of trying to make more money, rather I reckon they think better rules and balance wouldn't improve sales so they don't bother.

kveldulf wrote:

 Talys wrote:


There is an inherrent danager to that, though. In theory, Necron and Eldar should be able to just obliterate all the other races

The Eldar could snuff out suns, terraform planets, and all that, right? And all that knowledge is still in the Black Library. I mean, it's reminiscent of the Mimbari-Human wars in Babylon 5 -- the humans really didn't have a chance at all. There is also the problem that the whole concept of WH40k is inherrently flawed, because space faring races would not be slogging it out with infantry, tanks, and jetbikes on the ground... they would, you know, fight it out in space

But it's all good -- I love that 40k is a space-ification of the fantasy races (humans, elves, ogres, halflings, dwarves, undead, all that) and that there are cool models that duke it out on a tabletop with futuristic weapons in a totally unrealistic fashion.

Uh.. I fail to see what point you are making about 'inherent danger'? Just because a race has the capability to blow up a star/planet, doesn't mean they should auto win. It doesn't mean you must represent it. It's an option for some scenarios I presume. However, keep in mind, no where did I say that everything from lore must be represented - that is sort of going into absolutism, eh? Warhammer 40k focuses in on infantry/ground warfare, so there are limitations, or rather, assumptions made, as to why either army is even fielding ground forces.

As far as ground warfare not really being realistic, I use to think the same way about 40k. Keep in mind a few things though: First, you can always find a fix it to near any problem in a fiction - if you think about it long and hard enough . Second, sometimes 'fix-its' can sound pretty convoluted. Now again, regarding ground warfare, here's what I've made of it as a 'realistic consideration':
Consider the matter of the war, are you preserving planets, conquering them, destroying them? The first two would be a fitting scenario for ground warfare. Don't forget to factor any fields around cities or areas on planets that are critical to keep intact - you can't really bombard them (Titan becomes more useful in this regard, as they would excel at sieging cities - where firing positions have more vertical considerations). Oh, and don't forget boarding actions either - or any other space siege related things. Battle lines and fixed positions could even be justified as well (think trench warfare): once you take away air superiority, from both sides, it's more likely to digress into a game of perpetual push and shove - imo.

So yes, there is a huge focus on naval warfare in space sci fi stuff, but there are also very realistic situations for ground warfare - unless you are bent on blowing the planet to smithereens or have drunk the Gene Roddenberry koolaid.

I like the Roddenberry Koolaid

But anyhow, here's a nice, universal Eldar solution: I like that planet. BOOM! Planet wiped. Now, re-terraform. Yay, done. Or, "You will do what we say, or we will destroy the stars of your star systems." Hey, that's a good threat, right? Do it a couple times, and all those pesky younger races will fall in line.

Now, let's look at the Imperium side. If you go by fluff, they have Oribtal bombardment. Heck, SM captain can call for an oribital strike (once per game). So, why would anyone in their right mind ever go and fight hand to hand, when you can bomb the crap out of the other side, *then* let those drop pods come down?

The history of warfare is one of extended range; as we progress, we do more and more damage from an increasingly further distance. This has held true from the first tools fashioned by our genetic predecessors through to the bronze and iron ages. Today, we fly drones from half the circumference of the globe, and fire ballistic and guided missiles to take out targets without casualties.

But yeah, that would not make for a good tabletop wargame -- the "inherrent danger" I speak of is that the fluff doesn't make much sense if you think too much about it. So space Orks on floating space garbage versus space Dark Elves and their space Killer Clown allies... .FIGHT!

Wouldn't have it any other way.

 Talys wrote:


I like the Roddenberry Koolaid

But anyhow, here's a nice, universal Eldar solution: I like that planet. BOOM! Planet wiped. Now, re-terraform. Yay, done. Or, "You will do what we say, or we will destroy the stars of your star systems." Hey, that's a good threat, right? Do it a couple times, and all those pesky younger races will fall in line.

Now, let's look at the Imperium side. If you go by fluff, they have Oribtal bombardment. Heck, SM captain can call for an oribital strike (once per game). So, why would anyone in their right mind ever go and fight hand to hand, when you can bomb the crap out of the other side, *then* let those drop pods come down?

The history of warfare is one of extended range; as we progress, we do more and more damage from an increasingly further distance. This has held true from the first tools fashioned by our genetic predecessors through to the bronze and iron ages. Today, we fly drones from half the circumference of the globe, and fire ballistic and guided missiles to take out targets without casualties.

But yeah, that would not make for a good tabletop wargame -- the "inherrent danger" I speak of is that the fluff doesn't make much sense if you think too much about it. So space Orks on floating space garbage versus space Dark Elves and their space Killer Clown allies... .FIGHT!

Wouldn't have it any other way.

About the Eldar - They simply don't have enough numbers in the galaxy to go around and start a mess like going after stars... that would probably ensure the destruction of their craftworlds. As of now, parts of the imperium are on negotiable footing with the eldar, and the eldar have their master plans to use the humans. Their motivations are not about dominance... they are trying to survive.

When it comes to the IoM - Did you read anything I typed in my previous post? I already stated, that objectives in an imperium are not about blowing crap up and simply rebuilding - some of the structures in the imperium are so complex and humongous it would take centuries to rebuild, thus, taking away any point in probably considering a world a strategic asset. When it comes to fighting hand to hand.... you do realize CQB is still a thing that goes in our age right? In any ground operations, particularly boarding actions or any sort of siege warfare, you are going to have some very ugly cramped conditions that will require close combat. When it comes to some of the close combat loadouts the SM's carry into battle, I think some are a bit over glorified. I can understand something like thunderhammers but a whole squads seems a bit too much. However, do consider, with factions like tyranids, orks or the waves of cultists willing to literally jump on you, close combat weapons would be very useful.

I agree that ranged warfare is indeed increasing, but what are you going to do with a hypothetical that cities or countries have shields protecting them from ranged issues? Subterranean networks? Strategic assets to capture and not blow up? Or even that both sides have mutually screwed each other up so bad that air superiority is not even a consideration anymore - for either side? Lastly, If one side focuses entirely on ranged technology, and has no ground forces, whats to stop and invading enemy if they do get in?

I agree Warhammer is quite the novelty, space elves, space knights, space orcs, space X. Its a fun what if. There are some other complexities that are truly intriguing that I quite admire, like the scale and bluntness of the warfare introduced. Other science fiction universes seem more novel in this way than warhammer, particularly Star Trek. They try to sell you on some pretty shallow progressive sophistication.
I use to watch the original, next gen, deep space nine, enterprise, voyager, but all of them are inundated with idealism over believability, such as:
communism magically works, peace among the races regardless of culture, an over excess of bipedal aliens, way too many species of aliens, essentially everyone is usually somewhat good (instead of what reality says).....

I could probably go on, but it would be kinda like a hammer looking for nails. Either way, warhammer is a fun novelty I admit, but I would say its more 'believable' than start trek - imo

Deadnight wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
You're making this broad assertion that GW are engineering the game to manipulate the customers into buying more/different models, but you've not really produced any compelling examples, in fact, I'd go so far to say for every one example you could suggest, there'd be at least two which were flat out mistakes.
.

Hmm, I think he has a point, each 'shift' in edition changes the power builds. Third was rhino rush, or shoot the rhino rush. Fourth was six man las/pas and assault cannon spam, and skimmer spam, fifth turned into mech hammer for the largest part etc. I think it's fair to say there is an attempt to push a certain 'style' of game with each new edition. There are over arching design goals and points to follow('push armour!','push shooting!', 'get away from assault!' Etc). Change, not improve being the key.

Certainly, that's an idea not without merit, but equally those are changes which don't necessarily drive sales. If I've got an established collection, because I've been playing a few years, don't I just take a different collection of units off the shelf? I guess it may affect those in the midst of developing an army (or those who collect a list, rather than a faction) but we don't have enough data to form any picture of how many of what type of player exists.

I've seen it said (but I don't recall if it was mere speculation or supported by figures) that the real bump in sales from an edition change comes from model sales as people refresh their armies. Things is, making, I feel, the reasonable assumption that that's the case, it has stopped working, as neither 6th nor 7th really developed any substantial spike in sales, so that would suggest, even if this has been the approach historically, now may be the time for a different approach.

Either way, the best way to drive sales with a faction update is to put out something nobody has, and making those things with poor rules on purpose just seems too convoluted to be plausible.

 Azreal13 wrote:

We have evidence such as Jervis' WD column where his attitude is clearly that 40K is less wargame and more collaborative RPG battle story telling device. We have people claiming to have spoken to designers which have acknowledged that the Eldar and Tau books were mistakes, but they had no intention of addressing those errors, we have units which have been relentlessly bad for multiple editions and codex updates while others are randomly buffed despite there being no new kit.

Remember though, jervis isn't a power player. In life or within the company. He's a fairly easy going, lAid back guy. Getting your face in white dwarf is pr, nothing more. There is no power there within its pages. Jervis is as beholden to the overall directives of sales and marketing as anyone else in the studio, with less power to affect change, or pick directions than many people realise.

He's the head of the design studio, the game seems to have taken a significant turn in style towards his stated preferences for how a game should work in recent years. You can't say that's entirely coincidental?

 Azreal13 wrote:

There is ample evidence to suggest a lack of care, interest or ability. There's plenty to suggest that they're making a game for themselves and not for the people they expect to buy it, there's little to support the idea they're some sort of Machiavellian rules geniuses embedding deliberate flaws and built in obsolescence into every thing they produce.

I think it's a combination of lack of creative control (the designers are given a brief, a project and a time limit), a need to align with company attitudes, and personal interpretation.i don't think they need to be Machiavellian geniuses embedding deliberate flaws, just an attitude of 'change, not improve'.

Remember as well, the personal views and bias of the designers can have a huge role to play. Back in the day, when Pete Haines was a big name, when he designed codices for armies he liked, they were great (chas/ iron warriors being a prime example). When he didn't, thry were ok, or barely functional (fourth ed imperial guard). Iirc he also disliked the 'fantasy' races like eldar and orks which was why, at the time, they kept being pushed back in favour of other races. I got the same feeling from cruddace's fourth ed tau 'update'. It felt like he just didn't get it. It felt like he wasn't invested. And it felt, very much like he had a very limited brief, and limited scope and limited resources in which to do work within the scope of the update. Could this lack of care, or disinterest be part of it? All you need is someone who doesn't like dark Angels, and doesn't like flyers to make a bad dark Angels flyer. Not incompetence. Just bias.

in his time as well, and to his credit, pete haines tried to impose a greater 'discipline' in the design staff. Too often there was too much enthusiasm, and too much 'Rush', and not enough 'forethought', and you ended up with everything and it's monkey getting rules, unique index astartes articles/rules and massive bloat in rules 'bulk'.

Then that's a flat out lack of professionalism. While I can understand having less enthusiasm for some aspects of your work than others, one still has a responsibility to put that aside when tasked with doing it. That's the line between doing this for a living and doing it for a hobby.

 Talys wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Anyways, given time, when WMH has ten times as many models, I think there will be internal balance and escalation issues, too. There are now plenty of WMH players that are hoping that PP will slow down with escalation, what with all new Gargantuans being released. You begin to see similar things at WMH tables, complaining that they dont want to spend more money and such.

Shrug... the more companies that make cool models and war games, the happier I am

I wonder if the folks complaining are actually paying attention to the rules? Colossals and Gargantuans are big and expensive but you don't need to have a Colossal to come to the table the way you need the new stuff in 40k; they're different, and they make for a different game, but they're not more or less powerful.

Generally speaking, the people who make such sweeping statements about WM/H do so from complete ignorance and have likely never played the game, their assumptions being based on what is true of GW games (big models being OP). Never mind facts like my $200 Cryx army that's comprised of a starter and add-ons can take out an opposing army that includes a Colossal. Yeah, we definitely can't have facts get in the way of good hyperbole.

That isn't really my point. You don't NEED a Colossal. You don't NEED an Imperial Knight, Riptide, Dreadknight, or Wraithlord either. The prevailing wisdom at various game tables in stores is that you must buy big units. If, for no other reason than peer pressure. Nobody in the wargaming world wants to show up with just a bunch of starter box units and without any of the new cool stuff.

As other people have pointed out, you can't randomly pick an army that just happens to add up to whatever point total you want to play in WM/H and have it work, and there are cheesy lists, and the starter armies won't get you anywhere (without adding on to it) when playing a game with someone who has invested some money into units for the game.

By the way, the 2-faction starter box units are not very good. The single-faction battle boxes are much better, but you could say the same thing about single-faction battleforce boxes in 40k -- every single unit in the Necron box, for instance, has play value, and most units in most of the single faction starter boxes are decent. It's only really DV that sucks.

Anyways, my entire point is that WM/H games have escalated since the launch of the game, and in 20 years, I suspect it will escalate even further. At some point, when the company needs money, it will push out some units that are better to incentivize people to buy them. I don't even see a problem with this.

And it's great that you can enjoy WM/H with a $200 army, but think of the FLGS -- it isn't going to stay in business if there's a horde of players all just investing $200 into a game. Unless you're buying a few games a year, you're not even paying for one guy's salary for 2 days.

Exactly, you don't NEED a Colossal and to be strictly accurate you don't NEED the 40k units you listed. The defining difference here; however, is that in WM/H you can have a viable force that will stand up to most, if not all, comers in a friendly or competitive environment without it. The same can't be said for the Riptide if you're a Tau player or Dreadknight if you're a Grey Knight player. That's why when there's a discussion of 40K tactics, there's a word that always comes up, "spam". GW has created an environment of winners and losers in their armies and if you want a chance at winning, I don't care if you're a "beer and pretzels" player like me or an ultra-competitive tournament player you are playing a game where you want at least the opportunity to beat your opponent, you MUST take certain units.

The difference between WM/H and 40K is that PP has actually made an honest effort to make each unit a viable choice when you're building an army list. Warcaster synergy plays a big roll but the diversity of units and how the different abilities interact changes how units can be used on the battlefield. It's tactical depth; something more than set up armies, rush them towards each other and roll a bunch of dice until someone gives up. Is WM/H a perfect game? No. Are the rules much tighter and as a result much more enjoyable to play to the casual AND competitive gamer? Yes! As an aside, for some reason you seem to be operating under the false assumption that there are actually less units in WM/H than 40K....I'd recommend you actually look; an example is Cryx, there are 12 unit entries and this doesn't take into account special characters, warcasters, solos, mercenaries, battle engines or Colossals, just regular units.

I'm a casual player. I've played in precisely 2, local, tournaments in my adult life, in more than 20 years of wargaming. The last thing I want to do after working all week, dealing with family obligations and finally having a once per month opportunity to kick back with a friend and play a game is to deal with ambiguous/poorly written rules. To me that drains ALL of the enjoyment out of my rare hobby time; and keep in mind I'm playing with like-minded people who don't want to argue but are still people and would like to win as well. "Forge the narrative" sounds great on paper but it winds up being an concession on the part of the manufacturer that they know that they have created a product that is broken and really can't be arsed to fix it. Much rather, PP's page 5 is a much better general rule which amounts to, have fun but don't forget that the other guy is there to have fun too.

As to economy. I think you missed the point. I own much more than $200 of Cryx and other faction products; that was not the point at all. The point is that you can build a viable force, based upon faction starters a few other purchases. The addiction for PP comes with the synergy I spoke about earlier; I want to try all of these cool combos that I can see might work by reading the rules so I buy the models to get there. There's also no law that says I can only ever buy one faction, the same in 40K. I own GK, IK, Tau, DE, and UM armies for 40K (I bought the knights because I'm a sucker for big, stompy robots damn FW for making some nice kits). I own 7 knights, 3 Paladin/Errants and one each of the FW variants (except for the 30K one) and have played them one time and felt like a complete ass for doing so, even after sending my army list to my opponent prior to playing, I stomped his army in 2 turns and destroyed the enjoyment of the afternoon for both of us. I relate this story because to illustrate that it simply doesn't happen in WM/H. I've never seen a battle so one-sided between two players of comparable skill levels in WM/H.

Edit: As to your point that at some point in the future when PP needs money we'll see hugely OP units. Meh, probably not if they continue on their current course. Their model of adding to and changing the game is completely different than GW's. It's also somewhat helpful in that they're not a publicly traded company so are not held to investor expectations on levels of profitability (very much like GW back in the distant past). PP's model of development is more centered on adding to the game and creating campaigns (much like the missed opportunity that GW had with the Eye of Terror Campaign) that do different things to create fervor and generate sales volume versus relying on rushing out unwashed product and hoping it sticks to the walls which seems to be GW's current MO.

Sorry for the wall of text. I seem to vacillate between one-off comments and wall-o-text posts but wanted to get my thoughts out there.

Let's give WH40k game a grade F to A+ scale based on balance, fun, good system.... You get the idea.

For me, the past 30 years...has been between c- to c+. I wish it were in the A scale....

I really wonder how those game designers can still have a job and how much they make a year? Are they earning 30,000£ a year? 50,000 or 100,000?

I am guessing they make between 40 and 60... Excellent pay and having fun all day....
They can't proof read or make 40k in the b+ range in 30 years?

Next Ed....for sure....close combat will make a come back like shooting pistol and assault same turn. Rhino can disembark and assault. IF GW does this...would you guys think it was intentional to encourage players to update their army...this could be about 30% or so change in each player's army.

GW make changes to the rules so players are encourage to modify their current army...the result is the same c+ game and fun...but you have to buy new stuff.

Lol...I'm tire of this...to each his own...dam pn hard to type on iPad.

Eldar lost most of their really powerful stuff during the Fall (aka the Birth of Slaanesh). Also, last I knew, the Black Library is only open to Harlequins and they aren't sharing.

And Necrons lost a lot of their doomsday toys in the 10+ million years they were asleep.

Also, you wouldn't always have a reason to fight in space, the ground wars exist because even if you destroyed someone's navy you still have reasons to take their land and that can require actually getting your hands dirty (the biggest reason being resources).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@David Choe: If we had the same exact design team for 30 years I'd be with you on that, but right now we only have one of the original designers left. And he doesn't do much of the work from what we can tell.

david choe wrote:
Let's give WH40k game a grade F to A+ scale based on balance, fun, good system.... You get the idea.

For me, the past 30 years...has been between c- to c+. I wish it were in the A scale....

I really wonder how those game designers can still have a job and how much they make a year? Are they earning 30,000£ a year? 50,000 or 100,000?

I am guessing they make between 40 and 60... Excellent pay and having fun all day....
They can't proof read or make 40k in the b+ range in 30 years?

Next Ed....for sure....close combat will make a come back like shooting pistol and assault same turn. Rhino can disembark and assault. IF GW does this...would you guys think it was intentional to encourage players to update their army...this could be about 30% or so change in each player's army.

GW make changes to the rules so players are encourage to modify their current army...the result is the same c+ game and fun...but you have to buy new stuff.

Lol...I'm tire of this...to each his own...dam pn hard to type on iPad.

You sound way more cynnical than you should about balance - from my estimation.

If you are really wanting that kind of streamlined perfect gameplay, find a pc game or board game, as those will most likely contain the symmetry you desire.

@kveldulf.
You do realize that game balance does not mean you have to use symmetry like chess?

Many other games allow lots of different army types and play styles.AND they also have clearly defined rules, that allow any permitted selection of units to a set PV deliver a fun pick up and play game.

We are not asking for perfect game balance.Just close enough for people not to see the obvious imbalance the day a force composition (Codex,) book is released.

When the units you take are down to actual player choice , without handicapping your self or result in an 'auto win button,' against some opponents.Then game balance is good enough.IMO.

The real problem is the 40k core rules do not allow enough tactical depth, to allow the diversity the current range of units need to be expressed in game terms.

The units found in 40k have their abilities and functions best described by game play that has ,'an equal balance of mobility , firepower and assault.'
All the rule sets that are written with this core brief. work really well with units found in the 40k universe.(Epic SM and Epic Armageddon for example,)

The core rule set from WHFB is a really bad choice for 40k.It only can cover about 1/3 of the current game play, so all the additional rules have to be bolted on for any unit that is not 'standard infantry.'

(Considering the GW game devs have been trying to re-write the core rules since 4th ed 40k. And none of the ones that left GW behind have ever use WHFB type game mechanics in any thing but ancient /fantasy rules.The only reason a major re-write has not happened yet is down to the GW sales department.)

The real issue with 40K is not that the rules writers make mistakes, I will concede that with as many in-game options as are present in the game relative to a lot of the alternatives, it is a much tougher prospect getting it all right, all the time.

The issue is more that maintaining an approximation of decent balance is a moving target, and needs constant maitainence. It also requires an ability to admit things were wrong and need fixing, not historically something GW have excelled at.

How much better would the game environment be if they made a handful of minor points tweaks and rules adjustments? An extra few points on a Riptide, reducing a Serpent Shield to 18 or 24"?

People are frustrated with the game, the very same people that traditionally GW have said they rely on to market it. If the rules are being deliberately written to be poor and then manipulated further down the line, it isn't working any more.

While I'd prefer more player decision making, I'd probably live with the "everything is random" nature of 7th a lot better if some of the inherent issues were addressed.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Heinlein's Law. People are generally competent. You're not their target market, they don't care if they can sell the game to you, they're trying to sell it to someone else, which is why you think they're morons.

I think this sums it up nicely, and should just be reposted every time one of these threads springs up.

Hanlon's Razor wrote:Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

This is far more relevant to this thread.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Heinlein's Law. People are generally competent. You're not their target market, they don't care if they can sell the game to you, they're trying to sell it to someone else, which is why you think they're morons.

Azreal13 wrote:

Hanlon's Razor wrote:Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

This is far more relevant to this thread.

Maybe a bit of both ?

Just remember that even when you do not agree with their decisions, it is not always a case of malice or stupidity, or anoyone's part.

No, I understand that at it's heart 40K is the result of a creative process, and some elements are going to appeal or repel more than others.

But then there's all the stuff that requires a degree of interpretation to work, or doesn't function at all, and all the stuff which runs contrary to good practice.

There's stuff I don't like, sure, but then there's stuff which simply doesn't work as it should, where opinion isn't involved.

Try not....make good game you will....

Do or do not, there is no try.....

 agnosto wrote:
Exactly, you don't NEED a Colossal and to be strictly accurate you don't NEED the 40k units you listed. The defining difference here; however, is that in WM/H you can have a viable force that will stand up to most, if not all, comers in a friendly or competitive environment without it. The same can't be said for the Riptide if you're a Tau player or Dreadknight if you're a Grey Knight player. That's why when there's a discussion of 40K tactics, there's a word that always comes up, "spam". GW has created an environment of winners and losers in their armies and if you want a chance at winning, I don't care if you're a "beer and pretzels" player like me or an ultra-competitive tournament player you are playing a game where you want at least the opportunity to beat your opponent, you MUST take certain units.

This is untrue. You MUST only take certain units IF your opponent takes certain units. If you play in a friendly group that is more interested in trying things out and playing different stuff, this just isn't a problem, nor is rules lawyering (trying to pick at the ambiguity of language), which for our little group happens... never.

Many of the problems like wave serpents and riptides are also only an issue because people play on 6x4 tables devoid of meaningful terrain. If you pack an table with tons of line-of-sight blocking terrain, the "40k is a shooty game" dynamic changes dramatically.

There is also a difference between ambiguously written rules (which I don't think is a problem, unless you insist on making it one) and units that are less useful than others (which I do think is a problem, unless you insist on fixing it outside of RAW).

 agnosto wrote:
The difference between WM/H and 40K is that PP has actually made an honest effort to make each unit a viable choice when you're building an army list. Warcaster synergy plays a big roll but the diversity of units and how the different abilities interact changes how units can be used on the battlefield. It's tactical depth; something more than set up armies, rush them towards each other and roll a bunch of dice until someone gives up. Is WM/H a perfect game? No. Are the rules much tighter and as a result much more enjoyable to play to the casual AND competitive gamer? Yes! As an aside, for some reason you seem to be operating under the false assumption that there are actually less units in WM/H than 40K....I'd recommend you actually look; an example is Cryx, there are 12 unit entries and this doesn't take into account special characters, warcasters, solos, mercenaries, battle engines or Colossals, just regular units.

I actually play WM/H here and there, and I own a a massive PP model collection. They're cool models, though I wish I hadn't bought the "restic" ones. I also own almost a full set of (printed) current rulebooks, but mostly I just read them for fun, as my friends and I prefer 40k.

It's just a different game, with different mechanics. I dislike how the warcaster is so central -- if your warcaster dies, the game is effectively over, and you need the warcaster for all your neat stuff -- whereas, 40k, there's a table full of units, and every unit can be sacrificed. Whether Dante lives or dies matters little.

For myself, I am always sad when I see WM/H tables, because the tables look so sparse. I am really a models guy, and I am not happy unless a table has awesomely painted models packed in on a table. The more the better (equally, I don't want to play someone with just 7 imperial knights). Also, I'm not really a short game guy; I like epic battles. But whatever, WM/H is a good game, and I'm glad it exists.

 agnosto wrote:
"Forge the narrative" sounds great on paper but it winds up being an concession on the part of the manufacturer that they know that they have created a product that is broken and really can't be arsed to fix it.

My play group also has an ongoing RPG, which I guess is part of why we "get" the Forge a Narrative thing. Dropping models onto a table and fighting a random battle is much less fun than fighting for a reason, and knowing that the little battle is a part of something bigger.

I think if you want to meet up some random people that you don't know and play a quick game, WM/H is a better game, hands down. But, I don't really like meeting random people to play quick games, so it's really moot for me

 agnosto wrote:

As to economy. I think you missed the point. I own much more than $200 of Cryx and other faction products; that was not the point at all. The point is that you can build a viable force, based upon faction starters a few other purchases.

It's a smaller scale game with fewer models on the table, so of course it's cheaper. But, if you really like modelling, you run out of models very quickly. In 40k, you can buy a battleforce box, and a few addons, and have a perfectly viable force for smaller games. You can also spend $200 and participate in all the Kill Team games, which are now extremely popular -- just look at the thread of what's people like to play, and you'll see that even though KT isn't on the list of poll options, many people list it below as the preference.

In case you aren't familiar, KT games are short small skirmishes that highly restrictive in the units you may take. Rules are on BL, I think $4 or something.

 agnosto wrote:

As to your point that at some point in the future when PP needs money we'll see hugely OP units. Meh, probably not if they continue on their current course. Their model of adding to and changing the game is completely different than GW's. It's also somewhat helpful in that they're not a publicly traded company so are not held to investor expectations on levels of profitability (very much like GW back in the distant past). PP's model of development is more centered on adding to the game and creating campaigns (much like the missed opportunity that GW had with the Eye of Terror Campaign) that do different things to create fervor and generate sales volume versus relying on rushing out unwashed product and hoping it sticks to the walls which seems to be GW's current MO.

You've actually pretty much made my point. In the past, GW was a smaller, less profit hungry private company, and gamers liked the company a lot more (though arguably, the rules weren't any better or worse). At some point, the company went public because the creators wanted to cash out, and things changed, and now a lot of people hate the whole "corporate greed" thing and all that.

At some point, if PP continues to grow and be successful, as the founders age (and die), some of them or their successors will desire the same types of thing -- cashing out. It happens.

Some people happen to like small scrappy companies; personally, I don't really care. I don't want to be their friend, and I don't need to feel like they are mine. My only criteria is that the company make nice models in a good game universe that I have fun playing and modelling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Heinlein's Law. People are generally competent. You're not their target market, they don't care if they can sell the game to you, they're trying to sell it to someone else, which is why you think they're morons.

I love this quote

What I really don't understand is people who aparently don't like 40k, but keep on collecting it or playing it There are other things to do on this shining little jewel in the cosmos!

'What I really don't understand is people who apparently don't like 40k, but keep on collecting it or playing it'

Because it's perfectly okay to dislike aspects of a game and even discuss that you don't like aspects of a game on a discussion forum, and yet still enjoy other parts of the game or the game as a whole. I know, difficult concept right.

For some reason, that's a slippery concept for some people.

I know, I've noticed haha.

Because it's perfectly okay to dislike aspects of a game and even discuss that you don't like aspects of a game on a discussion forum, and yet still enjoy other parts of the game or the game as a whole. I know, difficult concept right.

hell yeah. I think the rules have more or less sucked ass for two decades unless you are playing a Specialist Game (and even those have some problems) but I love, love, love converting and painting models set in the universe. Don't care which models - 40k, Necromunda, Gorkamorka, Battlefleet Gothic, or even Inquisitor.

Edit: forgot Epic. Love those, too.

Yeah, paining is my primary activity, if I didn't have much interest in that aspect I'd have likely have left the whole game behind, as it is, it's nice to do something with all the models I've accumulated once in a while.

As it is, most of my gaming time goes on X Wing, with beady eye often cast at DZC and Darklands when I finish my pile.

I love the fluff side mainly and the modelling side. That's why I focus on the 30k stuff now, the fluff is excellent, plenty of modelling opportunity and the rules are pretty good as a bonus, given what they have to work with. So I do like parts of the game. But there are parts I dislike too, unclear unbalanced rules, and the prices.

 ImAGeek wrote:
I love the fluff side mainly and the modelling side. That's why I focus on the 30k stuff now, the fluff is excellent, plenty of modelling opportunity and the rules are pretty good as a bonus, given what they have to work with. So I do like parts of the game. But there are parts I dislike too, unclear unbalanced rules, and the prices.

If only the game mirrored the fluff...(sigh)