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.

Redbeard wrote:

He told me, unapologetically, that they don't test extreme builds, that they don't care about tournament gamers when they write the rules because we only account for 5% of the gamers out there, and that they had no interest in developing better rules for tournament play. we tournament players should "understand that [we] exist on the far fringes of the hobby", and that we should expect problems related to this. Quoted/Paraphrased.

It's nice to hear from the source that GW doesn't care about better rules.

The emphasis in their testing was, in Jervis's words, about whether they had fun, and was focused on the sorts of armies that you see in W.D. battle reports. He said that he doesn't believe anyone who says one army always wins or can't win, and said that he believes that the 'unbeatable' build actually only wins about 55-60% of its games, and that the army that can't win actually only loses about 40-45% of its games.

I don't get this. If you aren't testing the extreme builds then why test? And their reasoning is they don't test this stuff because players shouldn't be playing this way. Well take that anyone using 9 oblits and 2 lash princes. You are all bad puppies.

And, I brought up how other game companies (WotC, Eurogames, video-fighting games) have managed to achieve systems that work for both casual players and tournament players, and he replied that they're just not interested. That as a game developer, he wants to write games that show you how to play the game the way that they do, and that their failure is a failure to communicate to us how they play, not actually a failure of the rules. He even said that they don't even look at FAQs when they playtest in the studio, because they all 'just know' how it is suposed to be played.

In my opinion their way of having fun sounds fething stupid. Oops, I mean I guess I won't use obliterators anymore to show what a great person I am.

And their attitude towards FAQ's makes GW sound like a cult to me.

So, yeah, disenheartened to be sure. It's one thing to note that things don't work well. It's another to be told by the lead developer that, not only do they not believe there is a problem, but that even if there was, they wouldn't want to fix it. They want a game that you play in your basement with a beer or two, not a game that works in a competative environment.

Well like you said Redbeard, there are plenty of other companies that already make solid competitive games.

Also, you've completely discouraged me from buying any new models, and my wallet thanks you.

I don't buy this argument about rules being separate from the minis. If GW were to stop selling 40k rules, and continue selling the minis, their sales would plummet. There's no reason to buy new space marines if there's no awesome new codex to go with them.

GW needs the rules to sell the minis, soon or later they'll realize the rules actually have to be GOOD too.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

If you were to look at a Codex in development, how many "extreme" builds could you make (hint, there are typically 2 dozen units to choose from that could be taken to extremes and sub-extremes). And how many other Codices are out there (hint, it's more than a dozen). So if you look at combinations of extremes and combiinations to playtest, from a mathematical probabilistic standpoint, the very idea that GW could do this is laughable. GW tests the primary builds, and the changes to them, and that's well enough.

Bollocks. Lets take the chaos codex. Oblits were good in the last one, when you could only have one unit. UNLESS you played Iron Warriors, and then you could take 3 units. Did a lot of people play Iron Warriors? Yes, they did.

In the new codex, anyone can have 9 Oblits. Did it ever occur to GW that this would be abused? I honestly don't know. But, it seems to me that the ability to take 3 killer units plus 2 more (Demon Princes or Sorcerors) that could move your opponents units and bunch them up for the big kill is pretty nasty. I noticed this combo right away, right after I said, "You can have 2 Demon Princes?! WTF?"

Are you trying to tell me it is unreasonable to expect professional rule designers to notice stuff like this? If so I say BOLLOCKS and bs. It's what they bloody get paid to do.

wash-away wrote:

GW walks all over their customers but no one cares enough to really, really try stop them.

Step number one is stop buying GW products and start writing letters.

Acheron wrote:GW games have always been weak on rules balance, ever since RT era. It's the nature of the beast. To expect something different from them is like buying a Yugo and expecting it to drive like a Ferrari. It's just not what it is.

If you want a balanced, competitively oriented game, there are plenty out there that you can play.

This doesn't ring true to me. If GW is promoting their games for tourney play, they need to make the effort to balance them. Or stop promoting tourney play.

wash-away wrote:

Noisy_Marine wrote:

wash-away wrote:

GW walks all over their customers but no one cares enough to really, really try stop them.

Step number one is stop buying GW products and start writing letters.

I all but have, who would I write to and what adress?

Games Workshop Group PLC
Willow Road
Lenton
Nottingham
NG7 2WS
United Kingdom

I'm not really sure who though I wouldn't address it to Jervis. Perhaps head of game design or 'design team'.

BeefyG wrote:

"When will people learn that 40k isn’t a competitive game? It’s a probability based narrative."

So nobody actually wins/loses the game, eh?

Calle wrote:Seriously, you guys want a competitive game that you can play in tournaments ?

Go play the Privateer Press games.

I do.

And want am I supposed to do with all the thousands of dollars of warhammer stuff that I have? Throw it away even though I still like the background and models?

Mad Doc, I can kind of see why you don't like tournaments. I'm not a big fan of competitions myself, but I like a nice game of warhammer/warmachine when I can get one in.

The last 40k tournament we had, the winner was a guy that usually loses a lot, and the cheesy lists didn't even do that well (Nidzilla with Winged Tyrant). And none of the players in my area are powergaming jerks, though they go to tournaments and play warmachine/hordes. We teasingly call each other cheesy, but only as a joke.

As for WM being powergamers paradise ... I've had great experiences playing it. I never have a rules problem. If there is a question it is almost always answered on the unit card. If not that, check the extensive FAQ. I simply don't get this kind of support from GW. I have a lot of questions about the Eye of the Gods table in the new chaos warriors book, and I've a feeling they won't be answered in that book. Because GW just doesn't support their stuff as well as I'd like them to. Would it hurt them to write clearer rules and admit mistakes and fix them? No! It would help them. Privateer Press admits mistakes and I don't begrudge them for it. On the other hand, I get really mad when I read about some stupid thing Jervis or Alessio said at some event.

I still like 40k a bit, but quotes like the one redbeard posted really make me rethink buying GW. And Fantasy is basically dead to me until they stop the ridiculous power curve on the new books.

And I want to say I really enjoy the WM background. And their magazine actually has hobby gaming material in it. I compared it to WD and white dwarf is basically a sales ad these days. The last No Quarter had an RPG encounter with a machine wraith for the D20 game. I don't play it, but I thought having stuff like that is really cool. I'd like to so Warhammer RPG stuff in White Dwarf.

And lastly,

And at least PP makes the effort to balance between FLUFF and RULES. They still make rules based on fluff, but unlike GW it doesn't stop there. They playtest things to make sure it isn't OTT and in cases where they make a mistake - they actually FIX the rules. And not in 5 years with a new army book, but with online errata.

This is huge. GW really needs to fix stuff faster. Certain armies in Fantasy need a boost and the players don't want to wait years for an update, why should they? If I don't like the new stuff in Warriors of Chaos, I don't want to wait years for a fix. And I won't, because I don't have to with WM.

Kilkrazy wrote:

I doubt Jervis's comment was the official policy of the company.

Probably not, but stuff like this makes them look like uppity jerks. Where are the quotes that make the designers sound like decent people?

Kilkrazy wrote:

This double failure is exactly what GW have been doing, and their explanation is not that they screwed up the rules and testing, it is that their customers have f*cked up on playing.

For the umpteenth time, I would like a non-competition player to explain why having a rule saying you can't have 45 Lootaz is worse than not having a rule saying you can't have 45 Lootaz (or whatever is beardy cheeze spam build of the month.) [/rhetorical]

As I am a non-competition player myself, I will take the liberty of answering.

It isn't, it's better.

GW seems to have some sort of weird honor system that precludes them from maxing out the best units. They even mention in the new DA FAQ that opponents are honor-bound not to give themselves advantages over their opponents.

I thought the whole point was to get an advantage so you could try to win the game. Who on earth plays for the draw, or likes getting their behind kicked in?

Anyways, is this an online article? I'd like to read it myself.

Lanrak wrote:HI all.
Here is the REAL reason GW WILL NEVER produce tournament rule sets ....

IF you develop a rule set suitable for balanced competative play, you HAVE to have a provable level of imballance.

You do? Since when?

And most game systems with tournament rules have the force construction template and points value allocation calculations clearly displayed at the back of the rule book.
(Armies of Arcana is agood example of this.)

So are you saying Armies of Arcana is balanced, and this is somehow bad?

So you can make up any force you want to (within the confines of the force construction template,) and KNOW it will be ballanced with ANY force of the same PV.

And there is the reason !GW could not sell Codexes and Army books because gamers could devise and accuratley cost ANY army they wanted to.(And even use non GW -Citadel minatures!)

The horror! People could actually point cost a Lost and the Damned army. And uh, people already don't use the GW mini's. Honestly to me these are good reasons to balance the game. I would love to see a formula for making units. That way I could sit down and "balance" the warriors of chaos.

Shrike78 wrote:My friends and I simply change the rules as we see fit. If there is something that we find that is outrageously unbalanced, we spend about an hour figuring out how to change it so that it doesn't mess with the rest of the game. It may sound like a pain in the arse, but we've made some really cool rules that make the game more fun, and more balanced.

Haven't actually come up with any problems with the new rules so far. But we are thinking about bringing back the 6 on a glance= bOOM

I think that is great. However, why pay $50 for the rulebook when you know you are going to have to house-rule stuff? You could write your own rules set and save the money.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

HOWEVER. If you do like going to Tournaments, surely, surely you must know that progressive generations of arseholes have degraded it from something quite good fun to a Mathammer arsefest of boring lists etc. Surely? When you are paying you £/$X entry, you must be aware you are entering a competitive environment? I am, thats why I steer clear of them and play at home and in store only. But surely that must be your aim, to get in some genuinely competitive games? SO WHY COME ON HERE AND WHINGE WHEN YOU GET YOUR ARSE HANDED TO YOU? It's like me getting into the ring with a Pro-Boxer, and complaining when I awake from my persistant vegetative state months or years later that it wasn't fair, and he only won because he was fitter, stronger, heavier and lot more experienced than me. If he hadn't been those, I'd have one, and clearly that is HIS fault....

Grow up guys, and learn to take your licks. Play with the big boys, lose like a big boy.

Doc, I sense that you are biased against tournaments. That's ok, but it is not the point of this thread.

I'm not complaining about tournaments. I am complaining because the rules are badly written and GW is refusing to even attempt to fix that. So please do not vaporize me with your awesome nerd rage.

I agree that in general the newer books are better written. However, I just can't get over what GW is doing to the chaos background. That was really what got me into warhammer in the first place. And in my opinion, GW is ruining the background for the sake of sales. Can I get pill that makes me forget all about how cool chaos is?