Is the problem with 40k...

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.

**Xca|iber**

Redbeard wrote:
Dalymiddleboro wrote:40K is a beer and peanuts game. Its not to be taken competitively. That includes the player base needing to stop crying cheese because they didnt bring a strong list. Let the people bring whatever they want as allowed by the rules amd their codex...

The problem is that there are units that are so bad that they're not worth taking at all.

As an example, I present the Howling Banshee. Fluff-wise, one of the more numerous Aspect temples. Historically, one of the iconic Eldar units. Ruined and unplayable due to inept game design.

Why is this a problem? Well, it's two-fold. First, I suppose we should make the assumption that most people do not like to lose over and over again. And, most people don't like wasting money, and many people fall into the 'fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you' mentality.

Well, a competitive player can look at a unit like Howling Banshees, and take the five-ten seconds it takes to realize that a unit of t3 models that only deal damage in close-combat, that have no way to get into close combat without spending at least one shooting phase in the open (and then overwatch) isn't actually going to accomplish anything. And so the competitive player doesn't give them any more thought. To the competitive player, they're GWs problem; GW made a crappy unit, and GW will need to come up with warehouse space for them because they're not going to sell.

It's the casual player who suffers. Because the casual player reads the eldar codex, and sees that Howling Banshees are supposed to be awesome. And then the casual player buys them, and paints them, and goes to play games with them, only to see this unit get blown off the table over and over. Except, it doesn't just happen with Howling Banshees, it happens with a lot of units that aren't very good. And it's not just those units that get removed en-masse, it's the casual player's interest in the game. Because the casual player, even playing casually, will run into players who read the internet, and know that "good players" use wave serpents and wraithknights instead of Howling Banshees. And the casual player will eventually grow sick of losing, and turn to his friends, or a forum, and ask, what can I do to win, my Howling Banshees keep dying.

At which point the internet will point and laugh and tell him to put them on the shelf and that he should spend a few hundred more dollars on buying wraithknights and wave serpents instead. Because that's what the internet does.

Some people are bone-headed and stubborn enough to actually go and buy those wraithknights and wave serpents, just to win their casual game. But most aren't. Most then quit the game, even casually, and go and play something else where the models that they like the look of can actually be played with some reasonable expectation of performance.

That's the problem with 40k. It's that the rule design flaws have gotten to the point where you can make an army that, fluff-wise should do well, and that will stand no chance against even a mediocre army from a better codex. And, when the player seeks out the answer to why this is, they'll be told that they chose the wrong army, and that they bought the wrong units. The problem with 40k is that we've accepted the idea that "wrong units" are acceptable in a codex.

+1. So much this. People don't seem to understand that casuals get hurt the most by the current trends in the ruleset.

I honestly don't care that much if every army list is viable, but I care a great deal that the models which I enjoy painting/looking at function mostly as described in their fluff. No matter how awesome a unit is, or how strong it is supposed to be, if it cannot practically perform its role then I will never enjoy using it. After all, what's more narrative-breaking than that?

Actually, there is something. When I'm playing a fun, casual game with my friends, we are usually focusing more on joking around and telling a story or whatever. But when we run into rules issues that simply break the game or have no clear answer (barrages on Knights, Grav-weapons vs. vehicles, or my old pre-FAQ favorite, deff-rollas during ramming), it sucks the fun and narrative elements of the game right out the damn window. This is especially true when the "solutions" will end up heavily favoring one side or another. Sure, we can 4+ it or flip a coin, but at the end of the day we'll be left feeling like neither person got a fair game. This is a terrible outcome when you're playing a game that takes 2-4 hours to complete.

I don't care about tournaments or any of that stuff. I just want to be able to play 40k with some semblance of logical structure without requiring an hour of negotiations before and/or during the game. I mean, really, the whole "surprise, no one understands how these rules interact so we made up some stuff on the spot which will cause you to lose" is no different than a small child saying "pew pew you're dead!" over and over.

**TheKbob**

Two major facts:

A balanced game is better for all types of play; other better balanced games with as many, if not more unique interactions than 40k can handle balance, then so can 40k. There is no distinction of "how serious you are" in any other game. There is no "casual" vs "competitive". It's all the same because the companies care.

And you can't give GW the pass to have their cake and eat it too. If this is a premium product at a premium cost, then treat it as such and support it as such. Dispensing $50 supplements and $18 data slates isn't premium support. No matter your play style, by forking over SERIOUS cash to GW, why should we not take the end result SERIOUS?

If the rules were free or a lot cheaper, a lot less people would complain about imbalance. If the product had the support other companies provide and still provided their grimdark jollies, a lot less people would complain and there wouldn't be imbalance.

**jonolikespie**

Ailaros wrote:
40k is a super complicated game that gives players a huge amount of freedom to do a massive amount of stuff. The idea of comprehensive play testing in a game of this scope is absurd. Really, every possible combination of every rule is going to be tested? You could have a hundred play testers spend a year at it, and it would just scratch the surface.

With freedom comes responsibility. If you don't want to have to be responsible, play a game that gives you a lot less freedom. There's no rules lawyering in Chess, Yahtzee or Candyland.

RPGs, you know, the games where you have infinitely more options than the move/shoot/assault and army list system than 40k, are playtested much better than 40k...

**TheKbob**

jonolikespie wrote:
Ailaros wrote:
40k is a super complicated game that gives players a huge amount of freedom to do a massive amount of stuff. The idea of comprehensive play testing in a game of this scope is absurd. Really, every possible combination of every rule is going to be tested? You could have a hundred play testers spend a year at it, and it would just scratch the surface.

With freedom comes responsibility. If you don't want to have to be responsible, play a game that gives you a lot less freedom. There's no rules lawyering in Chess, Yahtzee or Candyland.

RPGs, you know, the games where you have infinitely more options than the move/shoot/assault and army list system than 40k, are playtested much better than 40k...

*Dakka Members use logic on Ailaros*

Spoiler:

**Zweischneid**

TheKbob wrote:

A balanced game is better for all types of play;

Wrong.

Emphasis on "balanced" has - in each and every "balanced" wargame I've ever seen or tried - always fostered a closed-minded mind-set among player of "the-rules-are-more-important-than-imagination" that actively discourages taking things into their own hands and actively ostracizes players who bend/ignore/change rules to improve the narrative/hobby/story.

It inexorably shifts the social pressure of the community towards gaming as a competitive experience of winning or losing, rather than a cooperative experience of creating good narratives, as 40K (to the boon of the gaming-hobby as a whole, where the latter type of game is scarcer than the former) is trying to do.

A hobby with both balanced/competitive (e.g. Warmachine) AND unbalanced/narrative games (e.g. 40K) is a win-win situation for everyone, as everyone can pick the game they prefer.

A hobby with only balanced/competitive games leaves at least half of the hobbyists (probably more, given that 40K is still No. 1) out in the cold.

**AegisGrimm**

And you can't give GW the pass to have their cake and eat it too. If this is a premium product at a premium cost, then treat it as such and support it as such. Dispensing $50 supplements and $18 data slates isn't premium support. No matter your play style, by forking over SERIOUS cash to GW, why should we not take the end result SERIOUS?

That is a very true point!

---------------------------

Like I said, the game is exactly as laid-back as the two players involved want to make it out to be.

**Azreal13**

Zweischneid wrote:
TheKbob wrote:

A balanced game is better for all types of play;

Wrong.

Emphasis on "balanced" has - in each and every "balanced" wargame I've ever seen or tried - always fostered a closed-minded mind-set among player of "the-rules-are-more-important-than-imagination" that actively discourages taking things into their own hands and actively ostracizes players who bend/ignore/change rules to improve the narrative/hobby/story.

It inexorably shifts the social pressure of the community towards gaming as a competitive experience of winning or losing, rather than a cooperative experience of creating good narratives, as 40K (to the boon of the gaming-hobby as a whole, where the latter type of game is scarcer than the former) is trying to do.

A hobby with both balanced/competitive (e.g. Warmachine) AND unbalanced/narrative games (e.g. 40K) is a win-win situation for everyone, as everyone can pick the game they prefer.

A hobby with only balanced/competitive games leaves at least half of the hobbyists (probably more, given that 40K is still No. 1) out in the cold.

Still banging this drum huh?

Anyone listening?

**Psienesis**

AND unbalanced/narrative games

There is no such animal as this. More accurately, a balanced ruleset would allow you to more easily present a narrative game where one side is heavily favored in chances, but have the narrative option of the underdog (assuming non-terrible rolls and a decent player at the helm) carrying the day.

Such scenarios are what makes the Space Marines famous, after all, as 5 of them take on a planet of Xenos and kill all of them.

There is absolutely zero connection between balanced/imbalanced and competitive/narrative. This is an apples to fighter planes of the Royal Air Force, 1950-1953 comparison.

**Sigvatr**

DarknessEternal wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:

I disagree. The best example is the ETC. Competitive players, in a collaborative effort that took years to bloom, came up with a WHFB ruleset that is vastly superior to the one GW offers and widely accepted. Successful to such a degree that pretty much every bigger WHFB tournament, even smaller, local ones, have adapted to these or similar rules.

It was a 100% community-driven effort that ultimatively improved the game as a whole for everyone.

Not me, I hadn't even heard of this until you mentioned it.

That's the biggest failing fan-rulings will never overcome.

It's a EU-thing, so the biggest failing might be that damn huge ocean! ;D

**Zweischneid**

Psienesis wrote:

There is absolutely zero connection between balanced/imbalanced and competitive/narrative.

My personal experiences with games like Warmachine, Infinity, even earlier Editions of 40K were vastly different.

Either way, more variety of games can never be a bad thing.

40K the way it currently is, is a very unique flavour of game. Balanced games are a dime a dozen. If 40K stopped being the game it is now, I don't see which game could take its place.

Having options for chocolate and vanilla is always better than having only vanilla. The existence of a non-vanilla-flavour in no way inhibits people from choosing vanilla if that is what they like.

**TheKbob**

Zweischneid wrote:
TheKbob wrote:

A balanced game is better for all types of play;

Wrong.

Emphasis on "balanced" has - in each and every "balanced" wargame I've ever seen or tried - always fostered a closed-minded mind-set among player of "the-rules-are-more-important-than-imagination" that actively discourages taking things into their own hands and actively ostracizes players who bend/ignore/change rules to improve the narrative/hobby/story.

It inexorably shifts the social pressure of the community towards gaming as a competitive experience of winning or losing, rather than a cooperative experience of creating good narratives, as 40K (to the boon of the gaming-hobby as a whole, where the latter type of game is scarcer than the former) is trying to do.

A hobby with both balanced/competitive (e.g. Warmachine) AND unbalanced/narrative games (e.g. 40K) is a win-win situation for everyone, as everyone can pick the game they prefer.

A hobby with only balanced/competitive games leaves at least half of the hobbyists (probably more, given that 40K is still No. 1) out in the cold.

Yep, you enjoy troubleshooting your $50 codecis.

You can have a narrative game with competitive rules, but you have a hard time being competitive with narritve rules. One design plays to a much wider audience. Boy, wonder which one that is.

Hint: The balanced one.

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2013/12/beer-pretzels-and-drunken-gremlin.html

And I'm just using your nomenclature. In every other game, there is no such thing as competitive or narrative. It's called bad rules and good rules.

GW is founded on poor design and bad rules with little to no playtesting. But sure, keep covering for GW so they can have their cake and eat it, too.

**Zweischneid**

TheKbob wrote:

You can have a narrative game with competitive rules,

No, you can't (outside of a tightly defined group). It fosters a certain rules > creativity mindset that is anathema to the heart of the hobby.

TheKbob wrote:

but you have a hard time being competitive with narritve rules.

There are a few mentions in this very thread of a rules-set where Warhammer Fantasy players managed to do that quite nicely to satisfy their tournament urges.

TheKbob wrote:

One design plays to a much wider audience. Boy, wonder which one that is.

If that is true (hint: it isn't), Warhammer 40K may become a minority-game and the more balanced ones will take the top-spot.

Still doesn't change the fact that there are no alternatives to 40K-as-it-is-now (and is thus worth preserving, for those that like it that way), while there are a gazillion of games that cater to the competitive kind.

The gains of turning 40K "balanced" is just adding one grain to a million. The loss is something fundamentally unique.

TheKbob wrote:
. But sure, keep covering for GW so they can have their cake and eat it, too.

I spend money on GW products, because I enjoy these products. Why is that so reprehensible? If I wouldn't enjoy their stuff .. as you apparently don't .. I'd not be spending money on them, no?

I have my share of boxes of stuff in the attic of games I don't enjoy. Warmachine and Infinity among them. These games suck. So I stopped spending money on them. Simple.

**Savageconvoy**

So you say that you players can make a more competitive game out of a narrative setting after a lot of fan input and hard work. But somehow you can't take a balanced game and make a narrative game out of it?

I honestly can't tell if you're serious or not. How can you do one and not the other? How can you not have the options for narrative games with your own made up rules if you have a solid basis to work from? This just doesn't make any sense.

And before anyone says that there are more casual players or more competitive players than the other, can I see a friggin' statistic before you assume you are the majority opinion and have the most weight in the game?

**Zweischneid**

Savageconvoy wrote:

And before anyone says that there are more casual players or more competitive players than the other, can I see a friggin' statistic before you assume you are the majority opinion and have the most weight in the game?

Can I see a friggin' statistic that shows that "everyone" benefits from a more balanced game. I don't claim to be in the majority. I only claim that not everyone (!) would enjoy a 40K striving to be more balanced.

Some people, believe it or not, buy and play the current edition of Warhammer 40K and like it! Why is that such an impossible concept to grasp for people here?

**Azreal13**

Just to mention to those who might be unaware the whole "40K would be worse if it were balanced" stich is Zwei's pet topic.

No, I don't get it either, someone who seems at least averagely intelligent who thinks this way seems totally beyond logic for many, but he adamantly sticks to it in every single thread he gets chance to drag on to the subject (and there have been many.)

Probably best not to waste time or effort trying to dissuade him, as he's pretty adamant, and move on.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Psienesis wrote:
The problem is, GW plays games based on what kind of army they want to play, not what math-hammers into being a good list. The GW playtest group will, with a straight face, field Howling Banshees against MSU of Chaos Marines and think that it's a grand game.

They don't look at the codices and say "Ok, if I wanted to roflstomp someone, how would I do this with this book?".

They don't look at 2 codices and say, "What are the absolute best tools I can synthesize between these two books to create a truly unstoppable monstrosity?"

As mentioned in the thread, the way they playtest is not the way that people who are even slightly serious about the game play the game.

Yep, and what truly hurts the balance is that they don't consider the possibility that people will try to make lists designed to crush everyone, nor do they consider the possibility that not everyone has common sense and will follow a rule to the letter, no matter how ridiculous the outcome would be.

What GW needs is to hire a complete donkey-cave; someone who goes out of their way to make the most broken combos possible and interpret the rules in the most absurd of ways.
Or just go onto the internet. Either one will do. Then perhaps they will realize how game designers should work.

**StarTrotter**

Fenris Frost wrote:
There was some discussion on this in another thread. Ultimately, I say the same thing I always do:

I've watched or played in multiple games each week for the 6 years I have been a club leader. I have never once encountered these fabled unanswerable questions that break the game so utterly, as people are always describing.

I think people who think the game is unplayably broken because the rules don't go to laborious length to specify things they assume you are intelligent enough to know, are among the top issues with the game, personally.

I'll give you an example:

Player A: "You can only move in a straight line!"
Player B: "You can bend the tape and move however you want!"
Me: "What does the book say?"
Player A: "It says you move 6 inches!"
Me: "Is bending the tape 'moving 6 inches'?"
Player A: "..."

Common sense goes a long way.

You'd be amazed. I saw a guy declare that the enemy's units couldn't see his because he was on a higher hill and kept on complaining until he got his way. As per me, I've never actually had quite this problem. I'm a casual player. That said, I've run into two obstacles. One, the flaming chariot. Play it, I dare you. It is, in-arguably, one of the worst models in the game. It is basically unplayable and very capable of giving firstblood to the enemy for free. Luckily, with my friends, we house ruled it to work as it was likely intended. That said, I've run it by others that immediately say no. The other one I've had is whenever I deployed a Thousand Son army (I had very little to pick from. Enemy deployed a riptide, pathfinders, and others) It was an ally game on my friend's birthday near the end of my break before I had to leave town again. My good friend wanted to play with me and the birthday friend at once and there was this guy clamoring for a game. I hadn't planned to, I had my daemon prince, a lord, and two units of Thousand Sons. I got dragged in, forced to mainly fight against Tau, and watched as he slaughtered my guys laughing and insulting my army the entire time. When I finally just got into CC to finish off a few guys, my Sorcerer became a DP that promptly got shot by the riptide to death as he gloated about how awesome it is the riptide is tougher than the DP and how superior Tau are. Maaaaaaaan that guy annoyed me.

Now then, what did I learn from it? Well, nothing. It just reminded me that Thousand Sons, and CSM Tzeench in general, is worthless. I've tried to build actual lists with it but it always comes to a waste. Cultists with Tzeentch is idiotic, the mark of tzeentch in general is bad. Playing sorcerers with the mark is bad, playing KSons is bad, Nurgle is better in every way. Not even the icon is worth it. It's choices that were placed there. I grew to really like Tzeentch, Thousand Sons in particular. Bought them, played them, and realized it was all a lie.

In fact, I could go on to criticize the game from the start. It's always been a jerk. it's never ever balanced. I remember the first time I truly played the game after years was with Dark Vengeance. Before then, I'd played LoTR long ago and had been painting models with my dad for some time. Finally, I purchased it and gave my friend DA. We then played games with the simple cards (no codex as we hadn't decided our armies just yet). I played chaos every time. I was stumped, crushed, and beaten every last time whilst the GW employee just watched. Later on, I joined online and read of the imbalance in points. Flipping through my codex, I realized that it wasn't even my fault I always got stomped. As a finisher, the units for the chaos side are an absolute mess that is not built in any way to fight the DA whilst the DA are kitted out to slaughter the CSM. That's not fun, that's not fair. Make balance, let people have fun from the start rather than somebody, naive and foolish, getting demotivated from losing constantly.

**DarknessEternal**

40k takes way too long to play to care about it being ultra-competitive.

If I have to spend 2-3 hours getting the little men out, pushing them around a table, then putting them away, I want to enjoy every minute of the experience.

There is no ruleset, perfect or flawed, that will make that happen. Only my own mindset can make it so. And since that's my issue, I don't require the game to be any more or less "balanced" than it already is.

**Savageconvoy**

I think I understand what you're saying. Barely. You think that because a game has better balance and there is less need to house rule, that people will be less inclined to house rule? I still don't get that and honestly can't find that to be true outside of your personal experience.

It's like if Thousand Sons were in a balanced game, you wouldn't see as many people proposing homebrew rules for Thousand sons, because they wouldn't be needed/wanted as much, and less people actually being okay with them in a game? Or trying a campaign setting/scenario? I can't accept that. It doesn't make any sense. You're trying to say that making cereal more nutritious while maintaining a large majority of the same great taste somehow ruins a balanced breakfast.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Out of curiosity, what is wrong with the Flaming Chariot? I am not that well versed with Daemons.

**Savageconvoy**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Out of curiosity, what is wrong with the Flaming Chariot? I am not that well versed with Daemons.

You can't move and shot with it as the rules are written and no exception is given to the rules for the chariot.

**StarTrotter**

Zweischneid wrote:
TheKbob wrote:

You can have a narrative game with competitive rules,

No, you can't (outside of a tightly defined group). It fosters a certain rules > creativity mindset that is anathema to the heart of the hobby.

TheKbob wrote:

but you have a hard time being competitive with narritve rules.

There are a few mentions in this very thread of a rules-set where Warhammer Fantasy players managed to do that quite nicely to satisfy their tournament urges.

TheKbob wrote:

One design plays to a much wider audience. Boy, wonder which one that is.

If that is true (hint: it isn't), Warhammer 40K may become a minority-game and the more balanced ones will take the top-spot.

Still doesn't change the fact that there are no alternatives to 40K-as-it-is-now (and is thus worth preserving, for those that like it that way), while there are a gazillion of games that cater to the competitive kind.

The gains of turning 40K "balanced" is just adding one grain to a million. The loss is something fundamentally unique.

TheKbob wrote:
. But sure, keep covering for GW so they can have their cake and eat it, too.

I spend money on GW products, because I enjoy these products. Why is that so reprehensible? If I wouldn't enjoy their stuff .. as you apparently don't .. I'd not be spending money on them, no?

I have my share of boxes of stuff in the attic of games I don't enjoy. Warmachine and Infinity among them. These games suck. So I stopped spending money on them. Simple.

Actually wrong. Want to know how to make narrative games with balanced rules? Quite a few ways. One, just play the game and explain it in a fluffy way. Two, set up the terrain to favor one side or the other. Three, let your opponent field extra units past the point limit to represent your force being overwhelmed. Bam, done, victory.

How is it losing something crappy is a bad thing? That's bloody counter-logic. The thing is, it's easier to make something unbalanced than it is to make something balanced. By making the rules entirely equal, just because you are naive and grow to like tzeentch won't mean you will be curb stomped every game just because you picked the wrong choice. You can field that army and have it work on a relatively even playing field with the enemy. Want to make it unbalanced for fluffy reasons? Do what I've mentioned above and bam you have it!

**CthuluIsSpy**

Savageconvoy wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Out of curiosity, what is wrong with the Flaming Chariot? I am not that well versed with Daemons.

You can't move and shot with it as the rules are written and no exception is given to the rules for the chariot.

That's goofy. What's the range on the weapon?

**StarTrotter**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Out of curiosity, what is wrong with the Flaming Chariot? I am not that well versed with Daemons.

It's a 100 point model with AV 10/10/10 fast skimmer. The problem with it is that the exalted flamer is a passenger meaning that if it moves, shots must be on snap fire. The creature has a choice between firing either d3 or 4 lascannon shots (don't have the codex on hand. If memory serves me it is the d3) or a high strength flamer. Problem becomes the flamer can basically never be used and the lascannon shots will only be hitting on 6s. It's been complained about since the beginning but never had a faq fix it.

**Zweischneid**

Savageconvoy wrote:
You're trying to say that making cereal more nutritious while maintaining a large majority of the same great taste somehow ruins a balanced breakfast.

I am saying that - in my experience - nobody has managed to make the cereal more nutritious without ruining the taste (e.g. Warmachine, Infinity, etc..).

I am not saying it is impossible, but unless somebody has proven it works (preferably for a non-40K-game), I'd rather they stick with great taste .. if in doubt.

Also, a lot of great recent cereals (e.g. X-Wing) have cared not one bit about balanced nutrition and still managed to overtake the balanced offerings (e.g. Warmachine) by leaps and bounds, even among tournament players.

**CthuluIsSpy**

StarTrotter wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Out of curiosity, what is wrong with the Flaming Chariot? I am not that well versed with Daemons.

It's a 100 point model with AV 10/10/10 fast skimmer. The problem with it is that the exalted flamer is a passenger meaning that if it moves, shots must be on snap fire. The creature has a choice between firing either d3 or 4 lascannon shots (don't have the codex on hand. If memory serves me it is the d3) or a high strength flamer. Problem becomes the flamer can basically never be used and the lascannon shots will only be hitting on 6s. It's been complained about since the beginning but never had a faq fix it.

Oh wow, that's pretty terrible.
I mean, I guess you can stay still to get the proper shots off, but at AV10 you really need those jinks.
I can see why daemon players are pissed off about it.

**StarTrotter**

Zweischneid wrote:
Savageconvoy wrote:
You're trying to say that making cereal more nutritious while maintaining a large majority of the same great taste somehow ruins a balanced breakfast.

I am saying that - in my experience - nobody has managed to make the cereal more nutritious without ruining the taste (e.g. Warmachine, Infinity, etc..).

I am not saying it is impossible, but unless somebody has proven it works (preferably for a non-40K-game), I'd rather they stick with great taste .. if in doubt.

Also, a lot of great recent cereals (e.g. X-Wing) have cared not one bit about balanced nutrition and still managed to overtake the balanced offerings (e.g. Warmachine) by leaps and bounds, even among tournament players.

Actually X-Wing balance, if memory serves me, isn't that bad. There are some arguably overpowered things, but, if memory serves me thigns are overall relatively balanced. Also, to be fair, X-Wing has one thing you are not mentioning that gives it an edge over Warmachine. The brand. Just by being Star Wars it's going to have some fans already.

As for 40k, how would it ruin the taste? Warmachine and Infinity, whilst having good rules, don't have grand fluff and are largely built on very small skirmishes. At the moment, 40k is about big giant units and platoon (or wast it company) sized engagements. The thing that gives the units life is the fluff. If all the units were balanced, all of them would be worth it rather than the units that are so bad putting them on the field, despite what their fluff says, is a terrible choice.

**Savageconvoy**

Was that the only reason you didn't like the games or were there contributing factors like the aesthetics, the themes/fluff, and the scale of the game?

Those are all reasons I've seen for people not liking Warmachine, Infinity, and so on. But if you're contributing the key factor of those games is because they are balanced, I have to ask the obvious.

Was it the people that were against house ruling and homebrew because there was less need to do so?

**Zweischneid**

StarTrotter wrote:

Actually X-Wing balance, if memory serves me, isn't that bad. There are some arguably overpowered things, but, if memory serves me thigns are overall relatively balanced. Also, to be fair, X-Wing has one thing you are not mentioning that gives it an edge over Warmachine. The brand. Just by being Star Wars it's going to have some fans already.

X-Wing balance is laughable, for a game that has barely 10 different gaming pieces, only 2 factions and probably less possible combinations than the Space Marines Sternguard entry. It also has blatantly "buy-me-overpowered"-baiting for certain expansions.

But the main thing it has over Warmachine isn't the brand. The main thing it has over Warmachine is the fact that X-Wing is actually fun.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Savageconvoy wrote:

Was it the people that were against house ruling and homebrew because there was less need to do so?

Mix-match armies/models/equipment, mix-up game-play a bit (say.. without Casters for example in Warmachine, to spice up the tired old routine that makes all the games very samey), even changes in the fluff / modelling department were generally ill-regarded.

**Azreal13**

Yeah, X Wing balance is waaaay better than 40K, you know what else happens?

The things that aren't quite working or are a bit too strong get some sort of adjustment/counter as new releases allow.

For instance, A Wings are often called overpriced, so an upgrade that actually costs minis points is in the offing. TIE Swarm was probably a bit too strong, so things that are most effective against ships flying in close formation start to appear.

FFG care about getting as close as possible to a balanced game, GW blatantly don't.

But this is another one of Zwei's little pet things isn't it deary?