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.

XenosTerminus wrote:


I am not opposed to civil discussion. This entire thread spun out of control because I called out people, frequent offenders, for blatantly whining/complaining after they started poisoning actual discussion. I do not feel any sense of remorse for doing this- people should, hell, NEED to be called out when they exhibit repeated behavior that is harmful to a community or is just generally not pleasant. A healthy discussion is never benefited from someone jumping in and simply repeating how they dislike the game or the rules are bad. Ever.

So instead of engaging in a civil discussion, you call others out (continuing the cycle) and then complain about their opinions labelling them as whining? Who are you to decide who needs to be 'called out'? All I see are a difference of opinions that don't need to be judged as valid by someone else. Frankly, 'calling out' people only makes the situation worse, and certainly doesn't paint you in a good light. I don't see particularly harmful behaviour, if anything what you do is far worse than people discussing why they like or dislike parts of this game.

By the way, if you think the 'whiners' simply repeat the same things over and over again, how is the other side any different? Why aren't you calling out the people who enjoy the game for repeating the same things over and over again?

I think instead of trying to judge others, you should just discuss the points being made. We'll let the mods figure out what's healthy and what isn't for the community.

People that like the game will get butt-hurt, and people that dislike it will be fed. It stokes the flames of the 'us vs them' mentality that seems to divide the 40k community as a whole. I am neutral, and tend to read the topics to see if anything useful can be gleaned, and it rarely does- and against my better judgement I decided to comment.

You certainly don't come across as neutral. If anything, you fan the flames yourself. If you want to contribute positively, argue the points being made, not the person behind them. Do so in a civil manner by providing counter examples and clarifying what the other side is trying to say.

I largely dislike 6th edition. It's functional at best, but it's not as enjoyable to me as previous iterations. It's far from perfect, and can definitely be improved to better all types of gamers- to this point I agree 100% with Peregrine and many of the others who are adamantly against GW and Crusade against them daily. It's the approach that these veteran posters take that I dislike. If anyone comments about anything remotely positive about the hobby or aspect of the game they dislike, they are quick to jump in and make it known, once again, how they feel, regardless of the circumstances. Very rarely are these responses useful for actual discussion.

You disliking their approach isn't a valid enough reason to de-rail threads to 'call them out'. I know of one poster who comes across a little harsher than others, but the points are all valid and should be addressed as such. I don't like the way some posters who support 40k 6th write and behave on this forum, but its not stopping me from being civil in return.

Likewise, anyone that posts anything negative is met by a horde of GW supporters and labelled as whining. You know, while we're throwing around hyperbole and the like.

I openly foster rules rewrites and house rules in order to make this game more enjoyable than it is- I just get tired of the same people sabotaging potentially interesting conversations about this game. And it always happens.

I actively support custom rules too. If you're getting tired of these discussions, I suggest maybe not partaking in them? I personally don't find much that's being sabotaged; all the discussions I've been a part of have been perfectly fine.

To be logical, a complete ground-up re-write of the rules would have the same effect as any minor edition change (3rd-4th-5th-6th) in terms of forcing people to buy new books or quit.

I think both sides have valid points. There's too much negativity but the criticisms are valid.

So, instead of calling "the other side" names, let's work out what can be done and how to do it. Is there any way to get through to GW? If not, what can we as a community do? (probably have to unite as a community first.)

 MWHistorian wrote:
I think both sides have valid points. There's too much negativity but the criticisms are valid.

So, instead of calling "the other side" names, let's work out what can be done and how to do it. Is there any way to get through to GW? If not, what can we as a community do? (probably have to unite as a community first.)

Unfortunately, GW won't be changing anything for the better for the foreseeable future, and they're not exactly an open channel of customer feedback either. Also, a community run project would likely fail as too many people pull in different directions.

The best course of action would be one (or a very small team of experienced rules writers) writing out a 'patch' or new version. Similar to what happened with BFG after GW dropped it. It'll likely never happen though, at least not to the level the BFG 2010 FAQ was successful.

 Blacksails wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I think both sides have valid points. There's too much negativity but the criticisms are valid.

So, instead of calling "the other side" names, let's work out what can be done and how to do it. Is there any way to get through to GW? If not, what can we as a community do? (probably have to unite as a community first.)

Unfortunately, GW won't be changing anything for the better for the foreseeable future, and they're not exactly an open channel of customer feedback either. Also, a community run project would likely fail as too many people pull in different directions.

The best course of action would be one (or a very small team of experienced rules writers) writing out a 'patch' or new version. Similar to what happened with BFG after GW dropped it. It'll likely never happen though, at least not to the level the BFG 2010 FAQ was successful.

Why wouldn't it work? ( An honest question, not sarcastic....freak, I feel like an Elcor from Mass Effect. "Delighted. Greeting Human. Curious. How are you?")

 MWHistorian wrote:

Why wouldn't it work? ( An honest question, not sarcastic....freak, I feel like an Elcor from Mass Effect. "Delighted. Greeting Human. Curious. How are you?")

Its not like internet speak would suffer from clarifying the tone of the response...though it'd be strange.

Why wouldn't what work? The community project? Or any project gaining enough traction to be recognized by a not insignificant portion of players?

The 2010 BFG FAQ worked by being a small team, and had (to my understanding) a GW official sanction to publish it as an official (or some degree thereof) FAQ/patch for the game.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I think both sides have valid points. There's too much negativity but the criticisms are valid.

So, instead of calling "the other side" names, let's work out what can be done and how to do it. Is there any way to get through to GW? If not, what can we as a community do? (probably have to unite as a community first.)

I think the community in general is too divided to come to arrive at any sort of conclusion or agreement.

GW's target audience is also not consistent in a way to actually address all types of players, or they are not willing to change their practices in order to do this. Like it was just mentioned, a complete rules rewrite (which would benefit everyone if the rules were written in a way to encourage all styles of play) would not necessarily meet the approval of everyone, and would still require people to basically 'reset' their armies, more or less, and have to purchase more supplements.

Basically nobody will ever agree on anything, and GW (as long as the company is publicly traded/must meet a bottom line to appease shareholders) has no incentive to do so as long as these individuals are pleased with the direction the game has gone.

But this isn't something new, or unique to this game. It's impossible to please everyone, and the rabid fanbase/masses will never be happy.

XenosTerminus wrote:
If anyone comments about anything remotely positive about the hobby or aspect of the game they dislike, they are quick to jump in and make it known, once again, how they feel, regardless of the circumstances. Very rarely are these responses useful for actual discussion.

WTF? Where are you getting this idea from? This thread, right from the beginning, was about how the rules of 40k are bad. That's the whole point of the discussion, and lecturing people on how they're complaining too much makes about as much sense as getting into a screaming match with a glass of water because you don't like that it's wet. That's not even close to the same thing as jumping into, say, someone's painting thread where they talk about how cool the latest model is, which I (and all of the other people who you're complaining about) would never do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Is there any way to get through to GW?

No. People who actually play the game are a minority, and people who are dedicated enough to post on a forum about the game are a tiny minority. GW has clearly decided that spending money on making a better game to satisfy a minority of their customers isn't worth it. Every single person on this forum could ragequit and GW would probably not even notice. When a company is that short-sighted and out of touch with reality there isn't really anything you can do besides hope that they go bankrupt ASAP and someone better takes over the IP.

 Peregrine wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
If anyone comments about anything remotely positive about the hobby or aspect of the game they dislike, they are quick to jump in and make it known, once again, how they feel, regardless of the circumstances. Very rarely are these responses useful for actual discussion.

WTF? Where are you getting this idea from? This thread, right from the beginning, was about how the rules of 40k are bad. That's the whole point of the discussion, and lecturing people on how they're complaining too much makes about as much sense as getting into a screaming match with a glass of water because you don't like that it's wet. That's not even close to the same thing as jumping into, say, someone's painting thread where they talk about how cool the latest model is, which I (and all of the other people who you're complaining about) would never do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Is there any way to get through to GW?

No. People who actually play the game are a minority, and people who are dedicated enough to post on a forum about the game are a tiny minority. GW has clearly decided that spending money on making a better game to satisfy a minority of their customers isn't worth it. Every single person on this forum could ragequit and GW would probably not even notice. When a company is that short-sighted and out of touch with reality there isn't really anything you can do besides hope that they go bankrupt ASAP and someone better takes over the IP.

So let me get this straight. Because a company is out of touch with a minority of their customer base or is not living up to your expectations as a consumer you are condemning them to bankruptcy? Do you realize how selfish and downright petulant that attitude is?

There isn't a single company that does not either internally or externally suffer from some sort of issue that hampers them in some way. That's the nature of business, and its not unusual in any way shape or form. While some companies are better at handling their external PR, marketing, or listening to their customers, that does not mean these same companies will miraculously appease their entire customer base- they are just better in that aspect and flawed in others.

You need to put things in perspective here and stop beating the already dead horse into a fine mist.

'I like the models but dislike the game. I will continue to buy the models, thus supporting GW in their primary focus/goal (to sell plastic crack), but wish the company would cease to be because I dislike the other aspect of the company'

First world problems. My luxury item/hobby isn't perfect. We better hold a conference/state of the union address.

XenosTerminus wrote:
So let me get this straight. Because a company is out of touch with a minority of their customer base or is not living up to your expectations as a consumer you are condemning them to bankruptcy? Do you realize how selfish and downright petulant that attitude is?

No, I condemn them to bankruptcy because the biggest problem with the 40k IP right now is the greedy and incompetent idiots managing the company. If/when GW goes bankrupt their IP will be bought by someone else, and it's pretty reasonable to expect that the new owner will do a better job of running things.

You need to put things in perspective here and stop beating the already dead horse into a fine mist.

As opposed to your constant beating of the "stop complaining about GW in GW rant threads" dead horse? If you don't like the subject feel free to ignore it instead of posting to tell everyone how they're doing it wrong.

There is another viewpoint:

You can make a scenario of pretty much any level you want with a huge variety of models.

I made a scenario that captured objectives and points were included for beating up a Baneblade.
2000pts including that tank with imperial guard.

Space marines took it on with 2000 points mechanized.
They killed it and won (big help with las-Pred now named "David").

They were warned about the Baneblade but no other army list information.
Objectives and points schemes were posted.

Much death and carnage and both groups had fun.
It works if you are able to talk a bit, "pick-up games" or competition games I think would be difficult in the extreme.

The game rules as they stand is a great tool for imagining anything you want but needs scenarios and some moderation crafted for it to work (and a neutral 3rd party...) so this does not happen often. I can see why GW game designers wax poetic about the specially made scenarios: it is the only way their silly rules work (or the very small warband type games which are also a bit heavy in "forging the narrative").

I can only say that the highly competitive folks out there that this meta is really army build "rock-paper-scissors" and a ton of math-hammer dice so if you are trying to show how brilliant a general you are; this is the wrong game for you. If you want a slug-fest as epic (almost literally the game epic) as you envision, this is the game for you.

Like they say in Pirates of the Caribbean: "We like to think of the rules as "guidelines" ". It gives some basis to try to get an even scrap going.

Peragrine, do your worst....

One of my recent conversations about this "arms race" idea and the implementation of D Weapons as well.

ductvader wrote:

YancyS wrote:"OH, you mean I can have a stronghold shielded by numerous voidshields to give my units a save versus that D weapon?

So...you want to have a money fight, eh?

I warn you, my Washingtons pack a mean punch.

I guess I agree with the arms race metaphor.

 Peregrine wrote:
GW has clearly decided that spending money on making a better game to satisfy a minority of their customers isn't worth it. Every single person on this forum could ragequit and GW would probably not even notice. When a company is that short-sighted and out of touch with reality there isn't really anything you can do besides hope that they go bankrupt ASAP and someone better takes over the IP.

So let me get this straight, You're upset because a company has decided to satisfy the MAJORITY of their customers (a pillar business strategy of every successful business in the history of the world) instead of satisfying a minority of their customers (a strategy that is what usually causes companies to go under)... and you are mad at them for doing this? I'm with you, let us raise our voices in unison "How dare you do things that will make you a successful company! What are you thinking making decisions that will make you more money and allow you ton continue to make a product that we love and purchase but complain about anyway!"

Wow you are right man, that did feel good.

40kReallySucks wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
GW has clearly decided that spending money on making a better game to satisfy a minority of their customers isn't worth it. Every single person on this forum could ragequit and GW would probably not even notice. When a company is that short-sighted and out of touch with reality there isn't really anything you can do besides hope that they go bankrupt ASAP and someone better takes over the IP.

So let me get this straight, You're upset because a company has decided to satisfy the MAJORITY of their customers (a pillar business strategy of every successful business in the history of the world) instead of satisfying a minority of their customers (a strategy that is what usually causes companies to go under)... and you are mad at them for doing this? I'm with you, let us raise our voices in unison "How dare you do things that will make you a successful company! What are you thinking making decisions that will make you more money and allow you ton continue to make a product that we love and purchase but complain about anyway!"

Wow you are right man, that did feel good.

It's fine to disapprove of a business and the way it operates- nobody is really suggesting that there is a problem with vocalizing this- this is normal.

The hypocrisy surfaces when open complaints are thrown around while simultaneously supporting the thing they hate, IE continuing to buy the models (for a model company) and having the audacity to wish doom upon that same entity, knowing full well that said company has been this way for decades.

So your solution is to be vocal on forums, hope they fall to ruin, and purchase their products.

GW could care less that you are upset with their business practices- they are still making money of of you!

 MWHistorian wrote:
You know, I'm of the "I love 6th edition" camp, but Swastiguy is making me side with Perigine just from the worst arguments ever. "I like it because I like it and my standards are super low." Perigine makes very good points that if the game was better balanced, there'd be far less cheese and less tabling and that's good for everyone. I'm going to start playtesting a new turn system, maybe based off of Initiative. This whole, "My whole army shoots yours first" business has got to go.

Im not very charismatic through typing, I also have never been on a forum in my life until now. If it where a verbal argument I would have been able to make far better arguments. Im an amazing public speaker but not a very good writer haha. Although I can write essays and so forth very well.

So most things I type come out stupid really, makes me look like im some guy with a low IQ.

My argument wasnt that my standards are low, its that I (and what the majority likes) like is what 40k provides. A set of rules which can be changed at will, to play a game with models we love, in a fashion we enjoy. Where funny things happen, where skill is still involved, as long as its not abused (and all rules are always abused, just look at what people get away with in court), so to us it makes no difference if the rules or balanced or not. That TFG is still gonna optimize to the max (there will always be good and bad options) and that casual player is still just gonna take what they think is cool. So why should we have to change the game we actually purchase and enjoy to another game that we may or may not like to suit the small amount of people who play the wrong game for their tastes?

The only thing I wouldnt mind is if they brought out a "Competative play" expansion that both players agree on, it will have 2 lists with exactly the same gear and rules (buit different models) and they can play that between each other with whatever rules are in there. That way we can still play what we enjoy and they can play what they enjoy without us being affected.

I personally dont see changing it as a benifit because at the end of the day its great at getting people into the hobby. Most wargamers are probably here because of them, im not praising them, (I dont like their shops or leadership, or models mostly, but I love their rules) but if they make it like those other games a small minority play then it may stop the huge influx of kids getting into the hobby. Some of you may not care about that point, but think about how dull the hobby will be when it doesnt grow.

The only rule id add to the current system is in huge letters on the first page saying "1st rule, dont be a ****, have fun. Dont play until you learn this rule". It may not solve anything, but those players who argue over milimetres etc can just be shown that first page as a wee reminder of the game and its purpose.

 Swastakowey wrote:
>snip<
So why should we have to change the game we actually purchase and enjoy to another game that we may or may not like to suit the small amount of people who play the wrong game for their tastes?

The only thing I wouldnt mind is if they brought out a "Competative play" expansion that both players agree on, it will have 2 lists with exactly the same gear and rules (buit different models) and they can play that between each other with whatever rules are in there. That way we can still play what we enjoy and they can play what they enjoy without us being affected.

I personally dont see changing it as a benifit because at the end of the day its great at getting people into the hobby. Most wargamers are probably here because of them, im not praising them, (I dont like their shops or leadership, or models mostly, but I love their rules) but if they make it like those other games a small minority play then it may stop the huge influx of kids getting into the hobby. Some of you may not care about that point, but think about how dull the hobby will be when it doesnt grow.

The only rule id add to the current system is in huge letters on the first page saying "1st rule, dont be a ****, have fun. Dont play until you learn this rule". It may not solve anything, but those players who argue over milimetres etc can just be shown that first page as a wee reminder of the game and its purpose.

I was unaware GW would show up at your house and confiscate your old books!

Edit: Simple question: Is a game that is unbalanced fun?

-.-

very funny.

When a game is not supported it dies out. Good rules or bad rules. Yes, some have people still playing them but its not wide spread nor are those groups growing.

Well yes, because my friends and I find it fun. Along with the majority of people playing it.

So question, if the rules are so bad and imbalanced, why does most of the wargaming hobby play them?

I admit that was a bit of snark.

I would like an answer to my question though:

Is an unbalanced game, fun?

 streamdragon wrote:
Is an unbalanced game, fun?

No, it's why I've never finished a game of monopoly after about an hour and a half in...

 streamdragon wrote:
I admit that was a bit of snark.

I would like an answer to my question though:

Is an unbalanced game, fun?

Well I find it fun. And clearly most of the customers find it fun. So if done well then yes they are fun. Obviously there is room for not likeing it. There are balanced games people dont like, just like there are unbalanced games people dont like. But overall Id say it doesnt have much to do with balance, why people like a game is based on fun and enjoyment. (for the most part)

Which kinda also answers my question to you. If people find it fun, it doesnt matter if its unbalanced, because thats not the only selling point in a game.

GW rules offer me more freedom than any other wargame I have played in terms of rule changing, models and opponents. I love historical games, but playing the same 40 year old can get a bit boring(I do enjoy it, but part of the hobby is meeting people and playing around with the huge variety of forces and people). GW opens up my gaming to heaps of players who enjoy the game like I do. It also gives me the freedom to use histporical models as a base for my army.

I have seen armoies made from scrap that look amazing, I have never seen so many different models and inventive ways of making armies as I have seen in 40k anywhere else. While historic gaming will always be among the most fun, 40k gameplay, freedom and the ability of the player to decide everything easily puts up top.

In short, balance isnt the only selling point in a game so is a balanced game fun? Maybe.

 Swastakowey wrote:
-.-

very funny.

When a game is not supported it dies out. Good rules or bad rules. Yes, some have people still playing them but its not wide spread nor are those groups growing.

Well yes, because my friends and I find it fun. Along with the majority of people playing it.

So question, if the rules are so bad and imbalanced, why does most of the wargaming hobby play them?

Several reasons, would you like a list?

1) Nostalgia
2) The rules are secondary to their actual enjoyment of the in game universe
3) To play with friends

Balance isn't the only point, obviously. That doesn't mean it isn't a pretty fundamental point.

Would you play a game which you could win by agreeing to play the game? Of course not. It would be boring and stupid. Even if you wanted to, who would play against you?

That is an argumentum ad absurdum, naturally, however I hope that it shows the point that people want some degree of balance or fairness in games

Balance is a basic concept of games.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Well I find it fun. And clearly most of the customers find it fun. So if done well then yes they are fun. Obviously there is room for not likeing it. There are balanced games people dont like, just like there are unbalanced games people dont like. But overall Id say it doesnt have much to do with balance, why people like a game is based on fun and enjoyment. (for the most part)

Which kinda also answers my question to you. If people find it fun, it doesnt matter if its unbalanced, because thats not the only selling point in a game.

GW rules offer me more freedom than any other wargame I have played in terms of rule changing, models and opponents. I love historical games, but playing the same 40 year old can get a bit boring(I do enjoy it, but part of the hobby is meeting people and playing around with the huge variety of forces and people). GW opens up my gaming to heaps of players who enjoy the game like I do. It also gives me the freedom to use histporical models as a base for my army.

I have seen armoies made from scrap that look amazing, I have never seen so many different models and inventive ways of making armies as I have seen in 40k anywhere else. While historic gaming will always be among the most fun, 40k gameplay, freedom and the ability of the player to decide everything easily puts up top.

In short, balance isnt the only selling point in a game so is a balanced game fun? Maybe.

To the bolded: People play the game, because as you say, it's the most common game around. Also, many current players have invested a large amount of money and time in their armies. That doesn't mean we like 100% of the rules, or even think the current ruleset is very good. It means I'd rather play bad rules than not play, but I'd also rather play good rules than bad. Full disclosure: I have switched from 40k to WHFB, as has my entire group, because the rules tend to be so painfully lop sided.

To the underlined: I must be misunderstanding your point. Unless the FoW writers or Infinity writers are literally standing behind you with a gun, then no single game is different in any appreciable way from another in terms of house rules. And models? I've played a WHFB game against a guy who had 1 model assembled for his 1000 point Chaos Warriors force; the rest was empty bases. Good models, bad models, same company models, different company models... models are almost completely irrelevant to the rules themselves. Saying "I think the rules are okay because I can use whatever models I want" makes 0 sense, as the rules have nothing to do with that.

Pretty much everything you've said has 0 to do with quality of rules, beyond your ability to house rule them. But as house rules are largely subjective to your group and locale, there is 0 reason to use "I can house rule" to excuse a rule set that is so terribly in need of work.

It's perfectly fine to think the 6th edition rule set is fine as-is, or in need of minor tweaks via FAQ. But to say "the rules are fine because we can change them" is to admit that the rules are faulty and in need of being changed.

Saying that the rules are not broken because you can just houserule the broken parts away is utter nonsense and a piss poor way to justify shoddy design.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Saying that the rules are not broken because you can just houserule the broken parts away is utter nonsense and a piss poor way to justify shoddy design.

We house rule new scenarios, new units, new guns. If its gonna be cool to try something we change the rules to allow it. (like hawks assaulting aircraft) and so forth. Thats what I mean by home rules or "mods".

I think the clear problem is you guys cant enjoy the game. If you cant enjoy it thats fine. No need to make a huge noise about it. Its only broken if you choose to exploit it. Thats players unable to exercise self control and so forth. Not rules being poor.

Also to the guy that said nostalgia, I have been playing since the begining of 5th edition, (maybe a little earlier) but I mostly played mordheim and hombrew games as we never had anough models. If any nostalgia is happining in my mind, it has nothing to do with rules.

Anyways im not saying the rules are the best, but they arent bad. Id say the 9/10 in my opinion. If thats not your opinion then so be it. I guess im lucky I can enjoy what I pay for with no issues. Luckily for me I dont have to whine until I get what I want (which will never happen guys...) because the game is already what i want. Maybe try playing and viewing the game in a different way and you will like it too. Maybe not but thats up to you.

I used to be like you guys and compain all the time about it, but then i thought about how stupid it is, and tried the game as it was designed and its far more enjoyable.

As usual, its personal preferance.

 Swastakowey wrote:

I think the clear problem is you guys cant enjoy the game. If you cant enjoy it thats fine. No need to make a huge noise about it.

What did you actually expect them to be doing, given the thread title? Surely, hey can make whatever noise about it they like, in a thread created to make a noise about it?

 Eggs wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

I think the clear problem is you guys cant enjoy the game. If you cant enjoy it thats fine. No need to make a huge noise about it.

What did you actually expect them to be doing, given the thread title? Surely, hey can make whatever noise about it they like, in a thread created to make a noise about it?

I expected them to go "well why not try doing this" and it will help fix a lot of problems. Rather than go "its bad" repeatedly. I chucked out suggestions to the OP and others agreed, others had suggestions, but its always the last few people who keep commenting about how its just plain bad. Generally the games are bad when they arent played properly.

So while I expect it, there are better ways of doing things, make useful noise that stands out from the rest, not useless noise drowned buy a crowd. You will get more that way.

But yes your righ. I shouldnt expect anything useful from a crowd like this.

Arms race: Sure, many new rules like to "ignore" certain elements of the rules (they plain do not happen, AP, double toughness) so it gets people upset.

The meta for this game is so high in variation and the ability to SPAM models that to win or lose largely rests on comparative selected army lists (rock, paper, scissors).

Think of what it would take to "balance" 40k and see if you would still want to play it.

I am long winded, having some mercy, if you are interested...
There are too many variables, so all they do is make cool models with cool rules and play a whole bunch of variations of armies and configurations.
Only the whole army played gives any idea of how nasty it is than trying out discrete parts.

Chess is great because it has no dice (variable outcomes) and EXACTLY the same opposing force and you absolutely cannot kill a piece in turn one.
I heard many comments of MTG being very balanced but the limitations on how much you can field at once and ability to activate cards lends that balance.

40k is setup everything and an entire side with all models get to go and any number of models get killed in the first player turn of shooting.
Picture if you activated models like in X-wing (I must also emphasize that "Han Solo always shoots first").
Battletech we would shuffle a card into a deck for each model and pull them out one at a time (was exciting all on it's own for that).

I really do love the game, my friends and reasonable people I have played against has ensured that BUT it is so easy to spend some money and make a truly nasty army.

Example of the concept of "handicap"...
I would take a close game over a slaughter on either side anytime.

I have found few games that you can configure your army ahead of time to be foolproof for balance.

I completely agree the game has lost it's touch for me I can't really play the game anymore seeing as the only guys I face are die hard gamers that won't take losing as a option well you know where I'm going but I try to play friendly and being blood angels it no fun to try and assault when a flyer is in the air or someone is running around with ap 1 or ap 2 gun that kills the majority of my list the first turn

 streamdragon wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
>snip<
[b]

I was unaware GW would show up at your house and confiscate your old books!

Edit: Simple question: Is a game that is unbalanced fun?

In this case. Yes. Chess is balanced. Do you find it fun?
Other games have better balance than 40k. Do I find them fun? No, I find them dull and uninspiring compared to 40k. And I'm not talking about the setting.

A game with perfect balance produces two kind of players: novices, and masters who achieve that mastery after years of hard slog. Such games do not breach the gap between competitive and casual players. Such games widen it. Only a game that lacks perfect balance can maintain the interest of a significant number of people for a significant period of time.

That is counter-intuitive, but it is not Bs*it.

That is, in fact, basic Game Design Theory. Tehory that any one with ambitions for a career in the gaming industry learns in their very first week of study.