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.

Kilkrazy wrote:This is why computerised testing and testing by large numbers of players is better than the current system where some of the dev team play a dozen games and call it done.

How exactly would one playtest 40k with a comupter?

I am thinking of the Tau Empire codex.

It had two new weapons which were both 0-1. The Airburst Frag Launcher had a mistake in the rules because it referred to Guess weapons. The Rapid Ion Blaster had a mistake in the rules which meant no-one could understand how it worked.

There were two new characters. Shadowsun was OK if rather expensive as she doesn't count as a Commander. Space Pope was a towering pile of special rules intended to sell a very expensive model but failed because he is so useless no-one ever uses him.

There was a new Fast Attack unit -- Vespids -- who are over-costed and no-one ever uses them.

There was a new Heavy Support unit -- Sniper Drones -- whose rules were not clear and when clarified by FAQ made the unit significantly over-costed.

There were two new vehicles. They managed to mess up the Piranha because of the way they made drones work in a squadron. There was nothing wrong with the Sky Ray but there was nothing particularly right either, with the result that they aren't widely used because a Hammerhead or Broadside is usually better.

The rest of the codex had a couple of new wargear items and some tweaks and updates here and there to what was otherwise a four year old codex with thousands of playing hours run up on it.

The new Stealth suits were nice.

I don't call that a major positive endorsement of the studio's design and test methods.

JohnHwangDD wrote: what I see here are "some people" complaiing and wanting someone *else* to put the bell on the cat.

Nobody is really stepping up to actually do the work. Nobody is volunteering to playtest hours of games for free to get that slight improvement in balance.

I say, if you don't like something, step up and do something about it.

HBMC and his group have done it.

We've been writing, and, most-importantly, playtesting rules for over 5 years now and I'll be the first person to stand up and say that playtesting isn't easy, but also the first say that the amount of time GW spends doing playtesting is pathetic.

Our Eldar Codex was started before 4th Ed came out. It is almost at what we'd call 'Version 1'. It has gone through 35 revisions so far from many, many playtesting games. Some revisions are small - like reformatting and re-editing to ensure special rules are written correctly - to complete paradigm shifts, such as how the HQ's are taken, how the Autarch works with the army (we had Autarch's in our army long before GW even came up with the idea in Epic Armageddon).

It's a long, hard, sometimes tedious but always rewarding process, and it has allowed us to iron out virtually all the bugs. We've had some units go from underpowered to stupidly overpowered and back again before we got them right. Some lists have even caused us to change core rules completely (such as how Deep Strike works in our rules).

A few people have seen our rules and given the "OMG! j00 made X unit so powerful! CHEEZE!!!!1" and yes, we have made lots of units very powerful... in fact we've made pretty much everything very powerful - and by powerful I mean useful. Yeah, a Russ can move 8" (most things are faster in 40K Revisited) and fire all its guns, and it can fire them at separate targets too, but the things that counter tanks are also more mobile - bikers can get into HTH with meltabombs quicker, heavy weapons are capable of moving into position and still firing (with a penalty, but it's possible).

Generally it was about removing as many binary choices from 40K as possible as well as balancing the lists (which we do not claim 100% success on because no one can do that) as best we could.

We, unlike GW, have the luxury of not having to sell the shiny new model kit, so our rules don't have to reflect the latest releases. I fully understand and accept that GW cannot afford to operate that way, but, as always there is a healthy middle ground between balanced lists where all units are equally useful and the mess that 40K Codices are now, where units are just pure junk but are added because the Dev team thinks they're 'fun'.

BYE

gak not this again...

go read the 'bankrupt uncalled for rant' thread and you'll be up to speed.

We, unlike GW, have the luxury of not having to sell the shiny new model kit, so our rules don't have to reflect the latest releases.

You also don't ever have to show them to anyone outside the creative process, so you are almost entirely immune to criticism. It must be nice to sit in your invisible ivory tower.

HBMC's group are writing the rules for themselves. If you would like a copy, you could ask nicely and they might give you one. Then you would be able to evaluate them realistically.

I believe (I might be wrong) that they were posted up on a Yahoo group also.

I believe (I might be wrong) that they were posted up on a Yahoo group also.

This thread, and the ranting one before it, are a classic example of two groups talking past each other (at best) or one side deliberatly mishearing the other (at worst). I would like to, if I may, boil down the argument:

Side A: The game can sometimes breakdown when played competitively, as some units add a tangible advantage beyond that usually gained from a unit of similar cost and FOC chart. While GW playtest works pretty well, a little more "stress testing" of extreme builds would make the game more dynamic and fun at the highest levels of play.

Side B: The game is more than adequetly balanced for casual play, tournaments are small amount of the market, the amount of time/cost would not be worthwhile to fully balance the game, and/or game balance is completely impossible.

Now, nothing Side B says is wrong, per se. But what it did is take an assertion (that the game could be improved for tournament play) and essentially ignore it by talking, not about the adequacy of the game, but of the validity of tournament play. Now, if GW thinks that tournament gamers aren't worth their time, we understand, but I think that most competitive gamers would say that a few stress test games coupled with a round of "Common Sense" quality assurance would reap dramatic benefits for a relatively small amount of cost. For example, how long would it take to realize that giving orks the ability to buy 45 Autocannons in their Elites choices would be a strong choice? What about three tanks with <5% chance of being destroyed with a glancing hit after turn one?

I guess I don't understand why the reaction of casual, non-tournament gamers isn't "well, that's great, but I'd rather they release more rules than better rules" and that's the end of the conversation. Out come, as usual, the endless acrimony about power gamers and TFG (both of whom are always more destructive in an unbalanced casual setting than in a tournament, BTW), which makes the debate, rather than a totally academic discussion of how GW should allocate development resources, instead turn into a deeply personal feud.


I guess my point would be this: if you think the rules are fine, and that any effort to tighten them up would result in less rules output in general, that's a fine and completely defensible position. Casting competitive gamers as villains, an extreme fringe, or just plain deluded does not help your point, and simply makes you look sad.

I think you are grossly under presenting Side A's argument. It's not nearly so coherent and giving as that.

I guess I don't understand why the reaction of casual, non-tournament gamers isn't "well, that's great, but I'd rather they release more rules than better rules" and that's the end of the conversation. Out come, as usual, the endless acrimony about power gamers and TFG (both of whom are always more destructive in an unbalanced casual setting than in a tournament, BTW), which makes the debate, rather than a totally academic discussion of how GW should allocate development resources, instead turn into a deeply personal feud.

More accurately, its a thread about heavy tournament players bitching and casual players counterbitching. Yeah, the game could be balanced better. Much better. It could also be a hell of a lot worse. You are dealing with a ruleset that has to take into account functions of rules written at times over a decade ago. It also by necessity has to take into account people that want to build armies that exist in the extremes. How do you playtest for extreme builds? Two landraiders isn't overpowering, but six is. Ten lootas aren't overpowering, but thirty are. Making either unit worse while serving to balance the meta environment would underpower both, and relegate them to a life of being a box on a shelf (whether in the store, or the home).

Then how do you fix it? Do you simply allow less of them? Its hard to make nazdregs warband without lots of lootas, so simply putting a 0-1 allowence will serve to anger one group in order to please the other. Then what do you do about errant codexes like the dark eldar? How do you construct a rules environment that will serve both brand new codexes as well as ones built in the nineties? People like HBMC would pretend like its easy, like its something a small group can do on their own. By what I've seen of his posted rules (not everything, but what he has chosen to tell the boards) he's missed by a mile.




To balance for competition would require a rewrite of every codex at the same time to exist within the same ruleset. Even then, it likely wouldn't work. Look at WARMACHINE, with its mountain of errata and its single tournament warcaster that took nearly every tournament for the first few years of the games existense (sorscha). Look at Magic the gathering, a game that has constant and massive shifts in power between playstyles and deck types. It's a hell of a lot harder to balance something like this than most would have you believe.

I guess my point would be this: if you think the rules are fine, and that any effort to tighten them up would result in less rules output in general, that's a fine and completely defensible position. Casting competitive gamers as villains, an extreme fringe, or just plain deluded does not help your point, and simply makes you look sad.

No one did that, get off your soap box.

JJ cast tournament players as an extreme fringe. It's what started the whole argument.

ShumaGorath wrote:I think you are grossly under presenting Side A's argument. It's not nearly so coherent and giving as that.

I agree, but I think I also cleaned up side B's side as well. You can call side A all you'd like, but at the end of the day the complaint is simple: broken units slip throught he cracks. We'd like that to stop.

More accurately, its a thread about heavy tournament players bitching and casual players counterbitching. Yeah, the game could be balanced better. Much better. It could also be a hell of a lot worse. You are dealing with a ruleset that has to take into account functions of rules written at times over a decade ago. It also by necessity has to take into account people that want to build armies that exist in the extremes. How do you playtest for extreme builds? Two landraiders isn't overpowering, but six is. Ten lootas aren't overpowering, but thirty are. Making either unit worse while serving to balance the meta environment would underpower both, and relegate them to a life of being a box on a shelf (whether in the store, or the home).

Then how do you fix it? Do you simply allow less of them? Its hard to make nazdregs warband without lots of lootas, so simply putting a 0-1 allowence will serve to anger one group in order to please the other. Then what do you do about errant codexes like the dark eldar? How do you construct a rules environment that will serve both brand new codexes as well as ones built in the nineties? People like HBMC would pretend like its easy, like its something a small group can do on their own. By what I've seen of his posted rules (not everything, but what he has chosen to tell the boards) he's missed by a mile.

First off, you playtest for extreme builds by actually running them in a playtest. It's not ridiculous to think that a player would put 6 landraiders or 45 lootas into a list, nor is it ludicrous to think that a couple of games running such a list against it's natural foil (orks and Dark eldar respectively) couldn't be illuminating. If GW knows that it's broken but doesn't care, that's one thing. If they simply don't know, they could fix that easily.

There actually are subtle ways to balance things, beyond points and hard limits (0-1). You could drop the max size of lootas to 10 boys. You could drop the range of the guns to 36". You could drop the strength to 6 and/or the AP to 6. None of these would invalidate the unit as a good, tough unit for casual players but would inhibit their strength when spammed.

I don't think it's easy, I really don't. I think that JJ has perhaps undervalued tournament gamers, as they might be a small percentage but I'm guessing we buy more and for longer than many other types of players.

To balance for competition would require a rewrite of every codex at the same time to exist within the same ruleset. Even then, it likely wouldn't work. Look at WARMACHINE, with its mountain of errata and its single tournament warcaster that took nearly every tournament for the first few years of the games existense (sorscha). Look at Magic the gathering, a game that has constant and massive shifts in power between playstyles and deck types. It's a hell of a lot harder to balance something like this than most would have you believe.

Again, I don't think it's easy. I buy a lot of GW, I like the company and the product, and I occasionally have a criticism. No, I couldn't do better. I also can't make as good a movie as George Lucas but I have some notes on his more recent work....

It's funny, I've used your point in an earlier discussion about whether there is a power imbalance in 40k, and I cited the changing core rules and codices written over a decade as irrefutable evidence that there has to be an imbalance. And of course there is an imbalance. I would never think that we could have 17 codices, each with an identical chance of winning. What I think can happen is that some of the more silly good units could be weeded out. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I'm a bad guy for asking.

I guess my point would be this: if you think the rules are fine, and that any effort to tighten them up would result in less rules output in general, that's a fine and completely defensible position. Casting competitive gamers as villains, an extreme fringe, or just plain deluded does not help your point, and simply makes you look sad.

No one did that, get off your soap box.

It's been done, and it's been done fairly frequently. I apologize if you thought I was calling you out, but I think I could find evidence that there has been some nasty things insinuated about tournament gamers at some point in this or the other thread.

Additionally, portraying me as a delusional guy ranting on a soap box, when what I was trying to do was explain how I saw things and giving some advice, perhaps is a bit more snarky than is necessary. I hear what you're saying, and I'm not discounting it, but I try to be polite and I think people listen to me a bit because I am.

Actually by what i read (I assume its the same quote) he stated the immense numerical superiority of casual local gamers to those who travel to GT's. If the dedicated traveling tournament scene feels that having its extreme minority status stated numerically is a misrepresentation then maybe they should recruit some more people. Anime fans that go to conventions are an extreme fringe too, its not like it's a beratement of the passtime.

ShumaGorath wrote:Actually by what i read (I assume its the same quote) he stated the immense numerical superiority of casual local gamers to those who travel to GT's. If the dedicated traveling tournament scene feels that having its extreme minority status stated numerically is a misrepresentation then maybe they should recruit some more people. Anime fans that go to conventions are an extreme fringe too, its not like it's a beratement of the passtime.

I don't think it was the dismissal of numbers that bugged us (even though we'd vigorously contest that number absent any evidence that JJ had data), but rather that tournament gamers weren't worth catering too. Convention goers might be a minority, but they're a minority that are pandered to. GW runs and promotes tournaments as far greater than 5% of their events promotion, so clearly somebody knows we're good for business.

I'm all for a non-GW competition committee, although after the nightmare of watching people view the Adepticon FAQ as a vast conspiracy I doubt there would be any traction for such a thing.

Additionally, portraying me as a delusional guy ranting on a soap box, when what I was trying to do was explain how I saw things and giving some advice, perhaps is a bit more snarky than is necessary. I hear what you're saying, and I'm not discounting it, but I try to be polite and I think people listen to me a bit because I am.

You made good points, but by cleaning up both sides arguments (as if there were two sides) then clearly siding with side A's does little but set you up on a soap box. You are railing against posters that you do not name, and opinions that you do not state with even a small amount of accuracy. Then you call a group of people that aren't even represented in this thread sad while heavily insinuating that it is a widely held position among the stated group B.

First off, you playtest for extreme builds by actually running them in a playtest. It's not ridiculous to think that a player would put 6 landraiders or 45 lootas into a list, nor is it ludicrous to think that a couple of games running such a list against it's natural foil (orks and Dark eldar respectively) couldn't be illuminating. If GW knows that it's broken but doesn't care, that's one thing. If they simply don't know, they could fix that easily.

Lootas are just the most widely stated example. Probably the easiest to fix too. What would you do about the inherent imbalance in large land raider lists? Or for that matter any list that exists in an extreme (200+ unit nid lists, seven land raider lists, 100+ plaguebearer lists (im sure it would be popular if not for the price))? I'm all for fixing imbalances within codexes, but extreme builds will always invalidate the opponents army in some way and thus imbalance the overall environment of tournament play.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Additionally, portraying me as a delusional guy ranting on a soap box, when what I was trying to do was explain how I saw things and giving some advice, perhaps is a bit more snarky than is necessary. I hear what you're saying, and I'm not discounting it, but I try to be polite and I think people listen to me a bit because I am.

You made good points, but by cleaning up both sides arguments (as if there were two sides) then clearly siding with side A's does little but set you up on a soap box. You are railing against posters that you do not name, and opinions that you do not state with even a small amount of accuracy. Then you call a group of people that aren't even represented in this thread sad while heavily insinuating that it is a widely held position among the stated group B.

Ok, I should perhaps better explain my thought on this.

Side A seems to care about this for some reason. We want better rules, not just as a theoretical aside, or a way to allocate resources. We viscerally want the improvement. Our involvement in the threat is based on what we want, our dissatisfaction, and a venting of an annoyance.

Side B has no real stake in the thread. Sure, there's a chance that GW will push back releases to playtest more, but the reason for people's involvement on Side B has far less to do with what they want, but rather they're dislike for Side A. Now, most posters seem to keep talking about how the rules are fine for them, and that's fine and good, and I guess I should back off it. What bugs me is that what emotional or personal involvement I see from Side B is less what they want, but how they don't horribly like Side A, or at least some of the worst parts of Side A.

My point, as belabored as it might be, is basically: why on earth would anybody oppose a call for better rules? I guess I just don't see it. Aside from a resource allocation argument, there seems to be no losers if Lootas got a little fix in playtesting. Again, I don't think I'm "railing" against anybody or anything. I didn't name posters because it didn't seem right. I apologize if I didn't state your opinion, or the opinion of others with accruacy. Who would you sum up your position?

First off, you playtest for extreme builds by actually running them in a playtest. It's not ridiculous to think that a player would put 6 landraiders or 45 lootas into a list, nor is it ludicrous to think that a couple of games running such a list against it's natural foil (orks and Dark eldar respectively) couldn't be illuminating. If GW knows that it's broken but doesn't care, that's one thing. If they simply don't know, they could fix that easily.

Lootas are just the most widely stated example. Probably the easiest to fix too. What would you do about the inherent imbalance in large land raider lists? Or for that matter any list that exists in an extreme (200+ unit nid lists, seven land raider lists, 100+ plaguebearer lists (im sure it would be popular if not for the price)? I'm all for fixing imbalances within codexes, but extreme builds will always invalidate the opponents army in some way and thus imbalance the overall environment of tournament play.

Well, the seven land raider list only exists in older codices, so the way to prevent them in the future is the path GW is taking now: restrict the access to heavy support and and as transports to high price units. One of the biggest loopholes in fifth edition is that a landraider on an objective prevents any enemy unit from contesting. It's a quirk in the rules that I'm not sure how to fix, due to the size of the model and the angry inch. I would perhaps have included a rule that essentially said "if an model is so large as to prevent an enemy unit from contesting an objective due to it's size alone, than any enemy unit within an inch of the vehicle counts as contesting the objective" That's sloppy, of course, and opens up more doors than it shuts. Maybe a rule that a model as close as possible still contests? The other way is to tone down the now awesome landraider. POTMS got a boost in the new SM book, despite landraiders all over getting better.

As for the others, plaguebearers do get better as the game size goes up due to epidemius, but are a lot more hobbled at 1500 and 1850. I honestly don't know much about them to really tell you how good they are, let alone fix them.

Nid hordes are IMO less of a problem due to the fact that every basic trooper in the game has a weapon that works against T3 no save aliens. I'd imagine Without Number will be leaving us in the new book.

I think I hit quote when I meant edit. My bad for the double post.

That said, I want to hear your summation. I didn't intend mine to be a straw man, so I'd appreciate a better understanding. It was an act of negligence, not malice.

My point, as belabored as it might be, is basically: why on earth would anybody oppose a call for better rules? I guess I just don't see it. Aside from a resource allocation argument, there seems to be no losers if Lootas got a little fix in playtesting. Again, I don't think I'm "railing" against anybody or anything. I didn't name posters because it didn't seem right. I apologize if I didn't state your opinion, or the opinion of others with accruacy. Who would you sum up your position?

People don't rail against more tightly constructed rules, nor the thought of better playtesting. Even JohnHwangs argument of resource allocation notes that it would be nice to have more testing. Just that extensive internal testing can be expensive. People rail against the "The game is broken, GW doesn't care about us, look at me I'm HBMC look at how easy this all is" mentality that is immensely prevalent among the tournament goers and uber casuals that actually post in these kinds of waste of space/time threads. This isn't a high level creative meeting of people with vested interests about a contentious topic. This is a random internet survey on a board that is renown for the inflammatory opinions of many of the people that post on it.

No one in there right mind is ever going to say that a balanced ruleset is bad. No one with half a brain will say that increased playtesting is harmful in any measure beyond financial strain. No one has been saying either thing. That is my summation. This thread exists to strawman both groups and cause heated and baseless/pointless argument.

Well, the seven land raider list only exists in older codices, so the way to prevent them in the future is the path GW is taking now: restrict the access to heavy support and and as transports to high price units.

I thought the new marine dex could have six.

One of the biggest loopholes in fifth edition is that a landraider on an objective prevents any enemy unit from contesting.

Thats not what makes the list good though. What makes it good is that any list without an immense amount of very high end anti tank support will not be able to cause meaningful damage. Thus any balanced list will likely lose. It's an extreme list because it invalidates the opposition. Not because of a loophole.

As for the others, plaguebearers do get better as the game size goes up due to epidemius, but are a lot more hobbled at 1500 and 1850. I honestly don't know much about them to really tell you how good they are, let alone fix them.

It isn't epidimeus. Its the fact that 120 T5 fnp wounds with an invulnerabe save can not be killed in 6 turns. It can't even be realistically dented without a list designed specifically to kill it. It's the infantry version of the land raider list.

That said, I want to hear your summation. I didn't intend mine to be a straw man, so I'd appreciate a better understanding. It was an act of negligence, not malice.

I am of the opinion that better power balancing would be great. I'm also of the opinion that we have a tournament environment that is pretty good right now. What is this game unbalanced compared too? WARMACHINE? Hordes? Magic? World of Warcraft? Those games all suffer from the exact same problems in their tourny circuits. I think considering the monumental task that is laid before it GW has done a pretty good job with fifth edition, and whiny internet con going players that spend an inordinate amount of time decrying imbalances are an immense minority in this hobby. Don't like a rule? Write some letters. Don't cry on the internet, because it solves nothing.

ShumaGorath wrote:

People don't rail against more tightly constructed rules, nor the thought of better playtesting. Even JohnHwangs argument of resource allocation notes that it would be nice to have more testing. Just that extensive internal testing can be expensive. People rail against the "The game is broken, GW doesn't care about us, look at me I'm HBMC look at how easy this all is" mentality that is immensely prevalent among the tournament goers and uber casuals that actually post in these kinds of waste of space/time threads. This isn't a high level creative meeting of people with vested interests about a contentious topic. This is a random internet survey on a board that is renown for the inflammatory opinions of many of the people that post on it.

No one in there right mind is ever going to say that a balanced ruleset is bad. No one with half a brain will say that increased playtesting is harmful in any measure beyond financial strain. No one has been saying either thing. That is my summation. This thread exists to strawman both groups and cause heated and baseless/pointless argument.

Ok, I'm not going to deny that there are some whiny folks out there. Not am I going to deny that HBMC is a polarizing figure that I really am not comfortable being lumped in with (which I know isn't what you're doing, but still). I hear what you're saying, and it makes sense to me. I would argue a few points:

You kind of called me out for saying that people were being nasty to tournament gamers, but you seem to have little problem lumping them all together, or at least assuming the idea that thoughts of a broken game and GW's neglect to us are "immensly prevalent." I mean, if it's true, and we really do all feel that way, isn't it a little dismissive to simply wave it all away? And if we don't all think that way, and I think must would lean far more moderate in their views, aren't you being a little quick to judge?

You seem to think that tournament gamers go out of their way to pick this fight. This fight isn't with you, or JohnHwang, or anybody else here. It's against GW, and if you chose to fall on that grenade, that's big of you, but why would you? If these threads are a bore and a waste of time, why post at all? Why instigate people that clearly are looking for a debate? You say it's a random sample of incendiary opinions, and yes the original post was half cocked, but certainly not every thread or post on this topic has been incendiary.

I'd proffer that these threads aren't a waste of time. People have opinions about the game, and sometimes it's nice to see that others share them, or even to see that maybe you've looked at things from the wrong angle. I, for example, have come to realize that the game is probably a lot more balanced than I give it credit for.

Well, the seven land raider list only exists in older codices, so the way to prevent them in the future is the path GW is taking now: restrict the access to heavy support and and as transports to high price units.

I thought the new marine dex could have six.

It can, but only with the purchase of terminator squads. The DH list is so stronge because you can buy dirt cheap retinues with a landraiders, cheap stormtrooper squads with multiple specials to ride in the heavies, and a seventh with the inquistor lord. Buying 250+ pt landraiders coupled with 250+ point termies gets expensive in a hurry.

One of the biggest loopholes in fifth edition is that a landraider on an objective prevents any enemy unit from contesting.

Thats not what makes the list good though. What makes it good is that any list without an immense amount of very high end anti tank support will not be able to cause meaningful damage. Thus any balanced list will likely lose. It's an extreme list because it invalidates the opposition. Not because of a loophole.

Well, it's one of the tricks behind it. At say, 1500 pts, a list with 4 landraiders will have a hard time doing enough damage to infantry to seriously concern the opposition. Being able to hunker down on objectives makes up for that. I agree though, it's a hard list, and it's possible that landraiders are now perversely undercosted.

It isn't epidimeus. Its the fact that 120 T5 fnp wounds with an invulnerabe save can not be killed in 6 turns. It can't even be realistically dented without a list designed specifically to kill it. It's the infantry version of the land raider list.

Well, like I said, I don't know enough about that to fix it.

I am of the opinion that better power balancing would be great. I'm also of the opinion that we have a tournament environment that is pretty good right now. What is this game unbalanced compared too? WARMACHINE? Hordes? Magic? World of Warcraft? Those games all suffer from the exact same problems in their tourny circuits. I think considering the monumental task that is laid before it GW has done a pretty good job with fifth edition, and whiny internet con going players that spend an inordinate amount of time decrying imbalances are an immense minority in this hobby. Don't like a rule? Write some letters. Don't cry on the internet, because it solves nothing.

I have to respectfully point out that you keep calling those that disagree with you "whiny," when I've tried to civilly discuss this. Since earlier you said it was an inflammatory subject, I understand that you feel strongly, but what it keeps looking like to me is that you simply dislike the people and their opinions. You don't just disagree, you hold them in contempt. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but everything you write seems to allude to a deep antipathy towards those that disagree with you. It's fine to debate points, but if you simply hate us for thinking the way we do, then there's no point in talking.

it's an old, old rebuttal, but I've never understood the idea that it is morally justifiable to tell people that their complaints on the internet solve nothing, when they are themselves complaining on the internet! I mean, we start a few threads here and there on a forum that has a strong presence of tournament gamers, yet somehow the fact that we're a minority of the overall hobby makes our points (which everybody agrees with, they just find our solution impractical) to be somehow offensive.

ShumaGorath wrote:

People don't rail against more tightly constructed rules, nor the thought of better playtesting. Even JohnHwangs argument of resource allocation notes that it would be nice to have more testing. Just that extensive internal testing can be expensive. People rail against the "The game is broken, GW doesn't care about us, look at me I'm HBMC look at how easy this all is" mentality that is immensely prevalent among the tournament goers and uber casuals that actually post in these kinds of waste of space/time threads. This isn't a high level creative meeting of people with vested interests about a contentious topic. This is a random internet survey on a board that is renown for the inflammatory opinions of many of the people that post on it.

No one in there right mind is ever going to say that a balanced ruleset is bad. No one with half a brain will say that increased playtesting is harmful in any measure beyond financial strain. No one has been saying either thing. That is my summation. This thread exists to strawman both groups and cause heated and baseless/pointless argument.

Ok, I'm not going to deny that there are some whiny folks out there. Not am I going to deny that HBMC is a polarizing figure that I really am not comfortable being lumped in with (which I know isn't what you're doing, but still). I hear what you're saying, and it makes sense to me. I would argue a few points:

You kind of called me out for saying that people were being nasty to tournament gamers, but you seem to have little problem lumping them all together, or at least assuming the idea that thoughts of a broken game and GW's neglect to us are "immensly prevalent." I mean, if it's true, and we really do all feel that way, isn't it a little dismissive to simply wave it all away? And if we don't all think that way, and I think must would lean far more moderate in their views, aren't you being a little quick to judge?

You seem to think that tournament gamers go out of their way to pick this fight. This fight isn't with you, or JohnHwang, or anybody else here. It's against GW, and if you chose to fall on that grenade, that's big of you, but why would you? If these threads are a bore and a waste of time, why post at all? Why instigate people that clearly are looking for a debate? You say it's a random sample of incendiary opinions, and yes the original post was half cocked, but certainly not every thread or post on this topic has been incendiary.

I'd proffer that these threads aren't a waste of time. People have opinions about the game, and sometimes it's nice to see that others share them, or even to see that maybe you've looked at things from the wrong angle. I, for example, have come to realize that the game is probably a lot more balanced than I give it credit for.

Well, the seven land raider list only exists in older codices, so the way to prevent them in the future is the path GW is taking now: restrict the access to heavy support and and as transports to high price units.

I thought the new marine dex could have six.

It can, but only with the purchase of terminator squads. The DH list is so stronge because you can buy dirt cheap retinues with a landraiders, cheap stormtrooper squads with multiple specials to ride in the heavies, and a seventh with the inquistor lord. Buying 250+ pt landraiders coupled with 250+ point termies gets expensive in a hurry.

One of the biggest loopholes in fifth edition is that a landraider on an objective prevents any enemy unit from contesting.

Thats not what makes the list good though. What makes it good is that any list without an immense amount of very high end anti tank support will not be able to cause meaningful damage. Thus any balanced list will likely lose. It's an extreme list because it invalidates the opposition. Not because of a loophole.

Well, it's one of the tricks behind it. At say, 1500 pts, a list with 4 landraiders will have a hard time doing enough damage to infantry to seriously concern the opposition. Being able to hunker down on objectives makes up for that. I agree though, it's a hard list, and it's possible that landraiders are now perversely undercosted.

It isn't epidimeus. Its the fact that 120 T5 fnp wounds with an invulnerabe save can not be killed in 6 turns. It can't even be realistically dented without a list designed specifically to kill it. It's the infantry version of the land raider list.

Well, like I said, I don't know enough about that to fix it.

I am of the opinion that better power balancing would be great. I'm also of the opinion that we have a tournament environment that is pretty good right now. What is this game unbalanced compared too? WARMACHINE? Hordes? Magic? World of Warcraft? Those games all suffer from the exact same problems in their tourny circuits. I think considering the monumental task that is laid before it GW has done a pretty good job with fifth edition, and whiny internet con going players that spend an inordinate amount of time decrying imbalances are an immense minority in this hobby. Don't like a rule? Write some letters. Don't cry on the internet, because it solves nothing.

I have to respectfully point out that you keep calling those that disagree with you "whiny," when I've tried to civilly discuss this. Since earlier you said it was an inflammatory subject, I understand that you feel strongly, but what it keeps looking like to me is that you simply dislike the people and their opinions. You don't just disagree, you hold them in contempt. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but everything you write seems to allude to a deep antipathy towards those that disagree with you. It's fine to debate points, but if you simply hate us for thinking the way we do, then there's no point in talking.

it's an old, old rebuttal, but I've never understood the idea that it is morally justifiable to tell people that their complaints on the internet solve nothing, when they are themselves complaining on the internet! I mean, we start a few threads here and there on a forum that has a strong presence of tournament gamers, yet somehow the fact that we're a minority of the overall hobby makes our points (which everybody agrees with, they just find our solution impractical) to be somehow offensive.

ShumaGorath wrote:You also don't ever have to show them to anyone outside the creative process, so you are almost entirely immune to criticism. It must be nice to sit in your invisible ivory tower.

Nothing we've done is hidden, and each document we've produced has pages and pages of notes detailing why we've done things, the results of our playtesting, and other thoughts that have gone into the creation of our rules.

But nice unwarrented attack.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:You also don't ever have to show them to anyone outside the creative process, so you are almost entirely immune to criticism. It must be nice to sit in your invisible ivory tower.

Nothing we've done is hidden, and each document we've produced has pages and pages of notes detailing why we've done things, the results of our playtesting, and other thoughts that have gone into the creation of our rules.

But nice unwarrented attack.

BYE

I don't like to speak ill of other posters, but I think that Mr. ShumaGorath is more strongly influenced by his dislike of the people that are complaining than of any actually definable aspect of our complaints. I hope to be proven wrong, but I really think this if one of those situations where we're not all going to get along.

ShumaGorath wrote:People rail against the "The game is broken, GW doesn't care about us, look at me I'm HBMC look at how easy this all is" mentality that is immensely prevalent among the tournament goers

Two facts I'd like to point out:

1. Look how easy it is? I hate having to quote myself, but as you seem to be incapable of reading my posts (you simply react to them), here I am, for the record:

I wrote:It's a long, hard, sometimes tedious but always rewarding proces

Yep. I sure said how 'easy this all is' in that above quite, didn't I?


2. I'm not a tournament gamer, just someone who wants a good set of rules.

BYE

Polonius wrote:I don't like to speak ill of other posters, but I think that Mr. ShumaGorath is more strongly influenced by his dislike of the people that are complaining than of any actually definable aspect of our complaints. I hope to be proven wrong, but I really think this if one of those situations where we're not all going to get along.

Oh he doesn't like me? Oh I get it now!

Ok then. That completely excuses his behaviour then. We can make valid points (or maybe non-valid points), but because he doesn't like us, he can just make personal attack at will and that's ok. Gotcha.

Thanks for clearing that up Polonius. I must seem to stupid for seeing it any other way.

(/sarcasm)

BYE

You kind of called me out for saying that people were being nasty to tournament gamers, but you seem to have little problem lumping them all together, or at least assuming the idea that thoughts of a broken game and GW's neglect to us are "immensly prevalent." I mean, if it's true, and we really do all feel that way, isn't it a little dismissive to simply wave it all away? And if we don't all think that way, and I think must would lean far more moderate in their views, aren't you being a little quick to judge?

There is a difference between a tourny goer (I myself go to every one I can get too, and I attend conventions) and a whiny internet tournament goer. If it seems like I am quick to consolidate it into one group its because regardless of content the tournament circuit is a small portion of players with unequal representation online. In any situation the diehards tend to have a disproportionate population online compared to real life. I would enjoy a much more consistent powerlevel across this game, I am a tournment goer, and I am happy with the current state of things. By the theory that you have laid out I would be placing myself into the group. I am well aware that many have different opinions concerning the matter.

You seem to think that tournament gamers go out of their way to pick this fight. This fight isn't with you, or JohnHwang, or anybody else here. It's against GW, and if you chose to fall on that grenade, that's big of you, but why would you?

Because games workshop isn't here to defend itself. And because I ever so hate it when people pat themselves on the back because there is no resistance to their opinions. It doesn't make them right, it just means they are in the wrong place or that they are simply too difficult to debate.

I'd proffer that these threads aren't a waste of time. People have opinions about the game, and sometimes it's nice to see that others share them, or even to see that maybe you've looked at things from the wrong angle. I, for example, have come to realize that the game is probably a lot more balanced than I give it credit for.

Then you are perhaps the only one who has left this topic without feeling your own opinions reinforced. I find that topics like this tend to bring out the old horse. The one that gets beat by the same people in the same way as it has every time before. There is a place for conversations like this, but not this one, and not with the auspicious start that it had.

It can, but only with the purchase of terminator squads. The DH list is so stronge because you can buy dirt cheap retinues with a landraiders, cheap stormtrooper squads with multiple specials to ride in the heavies, and a seventh with the inquistor lord. Buying 250+ pt landraiders coupled with 250+ point termies gets expensive in a hurry.

It's an extreme build that tends to function as the point curve goes up. It's the inverse of the loota spam tactic, which once maxed out tends to taper off and weakens as point values rise. This is yet another reason why playtesting extreme builds is difficult to do and even harder to act on. The scale of the game makes extreme builds vary in power often depending on stimulus that no amount of ruling can affect (like game point values/terrain/the build of the opposing army).

I have to respectfully point out that you keep calling those that disagree with you "whiny," when I've tried to civilly discuss this. Since earlier you said it was an inflammatory subject, I understand that you feel strongly, but what it keeps looking like to me is that you simply dislike the people and their opinions.

I should probably note I was not including you into the group that I would consider whiny. Thats a camp that is clearly visible by its method of posting, not its opinions. And it can exist on both sides. I mention whiny tourny goers specifically perhaps because it was the demographic that was decrying its misrepresentation as a minority when being a minority isn't a deliberate beratement. I don't actually feel strongly about this, for one because regardless of the perceived winner in this thread nothing will change. I just combat people that are not civil in these threads with the same tactics they use, generally because they are unprepared for it and lash out rather than discuss things. In doing so they invalidate themselves in the eyes of others.

it's an old, old rebuttal, but I've never understood the idea that it is morally justifiable to tell people that their complaints on the internet solve nothing, when they are themselves complaining on the internet! I mean, we start a few threads here and there on a forum that has a strong presence of tournament gamers, yet somehow the fact that we're a minority of the overall hobby makes our points (which everybody agrees with, they just find our solution impractical) to be somehow offensive.

An impractical point is a bad one. A dysfunctional solution is not a solution. And not all complaining has no effect. Games workshop is not going to rewrite every codex for the next GT, and people have been making these complaints for as long as this game and the prevalence of the internet have coincided. The beaten horse complaints about lootas and JJ's inflammatory opinions will have no effect on anyone this time, just as it didn't the last. But complaining about complaining tends to restructure the argument into one of introspection rather than outward complaint and can serve to change the method by which people post their opinions.

Nothing we've done is hidden, and each document we've produced has pages and pages of notes detailing why we've done things, the results of our playtesting, and other thoughts that have gone into the creation of our rules.

Then how about posting some links when you proclaim your ruleset so vastly superior. Otherwise you're just standing in a tower.

But nice unwarrented attack.

It's ok you'll live to do the same thing to someone else.

I don't like to speak ill of other posters, but I think that Mr. ShumaGorath is more strongly influenced by his dislike of the people that are complaining than of any actually definable aspect of our complaints.

I dislike circular complaints and bad arguments. I don't attach like or dislike to people online, because I don't know the posters involved.

Oh he doesn't like me? Oh I get it now!

Ok then. That completely excuses his behaviour then. We can make valid points (or maybe non-valid points), but because he doesn't like us, he can just make personal attack at will and that's ok. Gotcha.

Aren't you the guy that insists that when you do it it's perfectly ok because people should just know its how you post? This is pot kettle territory here. Watch out for bats.

It's not like I've kept the links hidden... Christ... Many people here have seen them, commented on them, said how much they liked them, said how much they hated them, said how we were God's gift to gaming, said how we were the spawn of Satan - we've heard it all.

At no point however, did we claim our ruleset was somehow 'vastly' superior. Better, IMO, yes, because, as I said, we don't have to fit within the structure of GW's business model therefore have virtually free reign to do what we want. We've also never claimed to be infallible, hence the reason why we're not confident in calling a single one of these documents 'Version 1' yet until we've convinced that we've playtested the feth out of them and that there are no (serious or significant) holes.

Link.

The other thing to remember is that the versions here aren't the most up to date (mainly because we haven't finished the new versions from the last batch of playtesting), but they're the ones before the one's were on now, and there haven't been any huge changes, at least with the main rulebook.

Finally, there are various things in different levels of development. The main 40KRE rules, Eldar and Marine Codices are at the edge of Version 1. Things like Daemohunters (Grey Knights mostly) and Tyranids are one step behind them. Tau and Chaos are one step behind them, and then things like Guard and Orks are still mostly in the concept stages - more of a working collection of ideas than an actual Codex. In other words, for those ones you could probably play with them, but they'll either be very close to their existing GW iterations, or they just won't be balanced. Some of them, like some of the Craftworld Eldar lists, don't really work at all yet simply because we haven't had time to develop them.

I'm sure that you, Shummy, just skipped the big walls of text above and are destined to heap bile and vitriol on the first rule that you don't agree with and instantly declare that all of it is bad based upon the one thing you don't like, but whatever, I don't write these things for people like you. I write them for people who want to have good rules.

Are our rules the best? I doubt it, but at least we're trying rather than just pissing and moaning all the time (I'm quite capable of writing rules and pissing and moaning).

BYE

Mod mod on.

This thread is starting to light up red on the board at Mod Central.

It seems to have run its course so I am going to lock it before things get worse.

Please remember rule no.1 -- Be polite.

Mod mode off.