Games Workshop Slip up?

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.

**Johnnytorrance**

Zagman wrote:
darkcloak wrote:
Even if they are on a 2 year schedule you guys would still buy a new brb?

That blows my mind. Sure I have 7th, but that was the first rulebook I got!

I can't believe that people would be so careless with their money.

Haha, I've been playing this game for 12 years and never have spent money on a BRB. And after 6th ed Tau and Eldar Codice(which I bought with Farsight Enclaves) I refuse to spend money on any rules put out by GW. And because they don't even attempt to fix the game, just break it further I am no longer even spending money on models from GW, instead I'm selling them.

GW needs to realize by putting out so many rules and charging a premium for them they are as much a game/rules company as they are a model company and they are selling a horrible product.

your opinion is debatable.

no one plays any other game as much as people play 40k. personally, I think the game is balanced, the problem is that you need to buy codexes, FW, data slates and special formations.

its a lot to buy but the options balance out the game. its too hard to make a cookie cutter list.

**Blacksails**

...you seriously, honestly, truly believe 40k is balanced?

Want to talk about debatable opinions?

*Edit* Step up your game Geek.

**ImAGeek**

What do you mean 'no one plays other games as much as people play 40k'? There's loads of people who play other games more than 40k...

And the game isn't balanced. Full stop. All those things don't make it balanced at all, if anything there's far too much stuff in the game with all the formations and dataslates.

God dammit Blacksails. Got me again.

**Johnnytorrance**

the game is balanced. what is balanced? either side can win a game.

this holds true. you want to play a game and you want your army to stomp the other army right?

maybe your list is not good enough, maybe you cant build an army. if you want your fluffy list to be fun and competitive you might have to do more research that just play your codex.

theres a lot of options out there. not my fault you refuse to play a FW model, or your FLGS limits detachments and allies. the game is balanced and the options it offers make it hard for one faction to be a head of another one.

don't cry to me if the list you want to play is not viable. fething make it viable and stop crying.

you don't like GW, go cry somewhere else and play a more competitive game like Warmachine, have fun there

**ImAGeek**

Ah, the old 'learn to play' argument. 'The game is balanced, your list is just bad'. Sure.

**Blacksails**

So the game is balanced if you ignore all the things that make it unbalanced and ensure your list and your opponent's list are on the same power level?

Airtight argument you got there.

**Zagman**

Johnnytorrance wrote:
Zagman wrote:
darkcloak wrote:
Even if they are on a 2 year schedule you guys would still buy a new brb?

That blows my mind. Sure I have 7th, but that was the first rulebook I got!

I can't believe that people would be so careless with their money.

Haha, I've been playing this game for 12 years and never have spent money on a BRB. And after 6th ed Tau and Eldar Codice(which I bought with Farsight Enclaves) I refuse to spend money on any rules put out by GW. And because they don't even attempt to fix the game, just break it further I am no longer even spending money on models from GW, instead I'm selling them.

GW needs to realize by putting out so many rules and charging a premium for them they are as much a game/rules company as they are a model company and they are selling a horrible product.

your opinion is debatable.

no one plays any other game as much as people play 40k. personally, I think the game is balanced, the problem is that you need to buy codexes, FW, data slates and special formations.

its a lot to buy but the options balance out the game. its too hard to make a cookie cutter list.

Johnnytorrance wrote:the game is balanced. what is balanced? either side can win a game.

this holds true. you want to play a game and you want your army to stomp the other army right?

maybe your list is not good enough, maybe you cant build an army. if you want your fluffy list to be fun and competitive you might have to do more research that just play your codex.

theres a lot of options out there. not my fault you refuse to play a FW model, or your FLGS limits detachments and allies. the game is balanced and the options it offers make it hard for one faction to be a head of another one.

don't cry to me if the list you want to play is not viable. fething make it viable and stop crying.

you don't like GW, go cry somewhere else and play a more competitive game like Warmachine, have fun there

I don't think "Balanced" means what you think it means.

So, Dark Angels are "balanced" with the new SM dex? Really? DA are balanced with Eldar? No, there is not balance between the codices. I mean, BA are paying the same price for scouts that are now vastly inferior.

Just because it is somehow remotely possible for someone to win a game does not make it balanced. That is like saying we could play chess, I'll just do it down a rook, knight, and bishop. Now, I might still will, as I'm a very skilled player or I get lucky and you make mistakes, but the game is not "balanced".

40k uses a Points metric that has no internally or external consistency and is not balanced.

**Vaktathi**

Johnnytorrance wrote:
the game is balanced. what is balanced? either side can win a game.

This does not equate to balance. If one side only realistically wins 1 in 20 games, and the other wins 19 of 20, that's not balanced.

this holds true. you want to play a game and you want your army to stomp the other army right?

nobody is saying that.

maybe your list is not good enough, maybe you cant build an army. if you want your fluffy list to be fun and competitive you might have to do more research that just play your codex.

Ah, the old "L2P" retort. It doesn't hold water. One can look at the data we do have available from various large tournaments, and there's clearly strong trends with many armies routinely placing much higher than others.,

theres a lot of options out there. not my fault you refuse to play a FW model, or your FLGS limits detachments and allies. the game is balanced and the options it offers make it hard for one faction to be a head of another one.

don't cry to me if the list you want to play is not viable. fething make it viable and stop crying.

you don't like GW, go cry somewhere else and play a more competitive game like Warmachine, have fun there

More "L2P" comments, without actually explaining or supporting your position otherwise...

Games Workshop themselves have gone out of their way to make clear they are not designing a balanced, competitive ruleset. They've openly stated that balance is not a primary function they're overly concerned with for several years now, going back to their 2012 Open Day event. GW itself will be the first to tell you its not balanced. They don't care.

From GW's perspective, 40k i is a sandbox framework for people to play with the plastic army men GW sells, not a tactical wargame.

**Kain**

"Guys super smash brothers brawl was totally balanced if you disregard every character tier but C." :U

**jeffersonian000**

If you play with what's in the game without outside limits, yes, I feel that 40k is at its most balanced. Issues pop up when you limit yourself while expects others to do the same, or when outside limits are imposed that hurt some options while magnifying others.

Want to play a balanced game of 40k? Use all of the rules on a big table with lots of terrain. That means mysterious terrain, maelstrom, mysterious objectives, allying, and fielding your models with the above options in mind.

What to play a competitive, tournament style game? Start throughing balance out the window, one bit at a time, one option at a time, until you have the game pared down to a finite set of options that certain lists excel at while others can't compete.

That is not a "fluff over crunch" statement. It's a "the game balances itself when played by the game's rules" statement.

And yes, 8th will hit in December.

SJ

**Zagman**

jeffersonian000 wrote:
If you play with what's in the game without outside limits, yes, I feel that 40k is at its most balanced. Issues pop up when you limit yourself while expects others to do the same, or when outside limits are imposed that hurt some options while magnifying others.

Want to play a balanced game of 40k? Use all of the rules on a big table with lots of terrain. That means mysterious terrain, maelstrom, mysterious objectives, allying, and fielding your models with the above options in mind.

What to play a competitive, tournament style game? Start throughing balance out the window, one bit at a time, one option at a time, until you have the game pared down to a finite set of options that certain lists excel at while others can't compete.

That is not a "fluff over crunch" statement. It's a "the game balances itself when played by the game's rules" statement.

And yes, 8th will hit in December.

SJ

Just because some semblance of balance can be achieved when only the most competitive options are chosen from only a select few codices does not make the game balanced. Saying that when you only take the top 5% of optoins in combinations the game plays balanced is wrong. Across the whole scope of 40k, between the different units in codices internally and between the codices externally. When the whole scope of 40k is taken into account and compared to the metric we are given to measure such things, the point, it is grossly unbalanced to a near comical degree.

**-Shrike-**

jeffersonian000 wrote:
If you play with what's in the game without outside limits, yes, I feel that 40k is at its most balanced. Issues pop up when you limit yourself while expects others to do the same, or when outside limits are imposed that hurt some options while magnifying others.

Want to play a balanced game of 40k? Use all of the rules on a big table with lots of terrain. That means mysterious terrain, maelstrom, mysterious objectives, allying, and fielding your models with the above options in mind.

What to play a competitive, tournament style game? Start throughing balance out the window, one bit at a time, one option at a time, until you have the game pared down to a finite set of options that certain lists excel at while others can't compete.

That is not a "fluff over crunch" statement. It's a "the game balances itself when played by the game's rules" statement.

And yes, 8th will hit in December.

SJ

Source for that?

**Talys**

FishBrainn wrote:
As many of you know, the English codex: Space Marines has already leaked. Link: http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2015/06/09/rumor-it-tired-reading-german-space-marine-rules/
Now, this no insane changes have been made. It seems like a copy with some buffing 7E FAQ's inside it. However, I am not here to share my opinion about it. I am here to discuss something: a strange typo.

Now, I would like to ask to check out the ranged weapon profiles. Not a specific weapon, but the ones described in the BRB, like flamers and bolters. It says that these profiles can be found at page 200 of the rulebook. Now go to page 200. The first thing you will see is the destroyer table, perils of the warp, etc. Wait hold on. Those aren't weapon profiles. That's odd, IMO. And before you start checking the melee profiles: yes, this is also the case with melee weapons. Now, let's not panic: there are more rulebooks. As mentioned, most of the new codex seems copy-pasted, which would refer to the 6th edition codex and rulebook. So I checked both of those: the codex only refers to the rulebook, no specific page number, and page 200 of the 6th edition rulebook is an image. No profiles. So no 6th edition reference. How about 8th edition? Would this mean that GW is working on 8th edition? Did one of the writers mess things up and accidentally leak a hint to the next edition rulebook? Or does this mean nothing, and was there some other kind of screw-up? To be honest, if they were to fit both melee and ranged weapon profiles, it would be a thing rulebook, but I see no other direct explanation to this typo.

/tl;dr/ GW referred to page 200 of the rulebook for the weapon profiles, but both the 6th and 7th edition have the weapon profiles on different pages. Is this a hint to 8th edition, or a strange typo?

Huh? Page 200 refers to the last page of the "Profiles" sheet. You know, the one that's in every single codex.

You are comparing a printed copy page reference with a digital copy page number. The printed version has exactly 200 numbered pages.

**SagesStone**

-Shrike- wrote:
jeffersonian000 wrote:
If you play with what's in the game without outside limits, yes, I feel that 40k is at its most balanced. Issues pop up when you limit yourself while expects others to do the same, or when outside limits are imposed that hurt some options while magnifying others.

Want to play a balanced game of 40k? Use all of the rules on a big table with lots of terrain. That means mysterious terrain, maelstrom, mysterious objectives, allying, and fielding your models with the above options in mind.

What to play a competitive, tournament style game? Start throughing balance out the window, one bit at a time, one option at a time, until you have the game pared down to a finite set of options that certain lists excel at while others can't compete.

That is not a "fluff over crunch" statement. It's a "the game balances itself when played by the game's rules" statement.

And yes, 8th will hit in December.

SJ

Source for that?

The same place the "40k is balanced" argument comes from.

**Talys**

Vaktathi wrote:

Games Workshop themselves have gone out of their way to make clear they are not designing a balanced, competitive ruleset. They've openly stated that balance is not a primary function they're overly concerned with for several years now, going back to their 2012 Open Day event. GW itself will be the first to tell you its not balanced. They don't care.

From GW's perspective, 40k i is a sandbox framework for people to play with the plastic army men GW sells, not a tactical wargame.

It's actually in one of the previous codex editions -- a lengthy text block that explains why balance is very hard, if not impossible, to achieve in a game like 40k, and their philosophy around it. Whether you think it's reasonable/desirable or not, GW targets their game to happy hobbyists who are reasonable rather than fiercely competitive players that are looking to exploit rules for an edge.

At the core, GW believes 40k is supposed to be about nerds who model and paint 40k models that get together to have fun with their toy soldiers in battles that replay 40k canon. If you read the Interwebz, miniature wargaming is all about donkey caves that play random strangers and build their armies in the most abusive way possible because all they care about is the longest win streak.

**Vash108**

I may have to tap out of this hobby if 8th comes out so soon.

I am going to put out a prediction.

GW will move to a subscription based model where you pay a monthly fee for access to updates to rules and codex.

**Yarium**

Vash108 wrote:
I may have to tap out of this hobby if 8th comes out so soon.

I am going to put out a prediction.

GW will move to a subscription based model where you pay a monthly fee for access to updates to rules and codex.

You know what, I'd rather they did this - so long as those rules were better written and updated regularly!

**darkcloak**

Make your list viable.

Actually means buy more models and shutup about Britanny.

**Makumba**

It's actually in one of the previous codex editions -- a lengthy text block that explains why balance is very hard, if not impossible, to achieve in a game like 40k, and their philosophy around it. Whether you think it's reasonable/desirable or not, GW targets their game to happy hobbyists who are reasonable rather than fiercely competitive players that are looking to exploit rules for an edge.

Then why do other systems have no problems with doing both at the same time. In fact for a lot of system the very idea of separate armies within the same system does not exist.

At the core, GW believes 40k is supposed to be about nerds who model and paint 40k models that get together to have fun with their toy soldiers in battles that replay 40k canon. If you read the Interwebz, miniature wargaming is all about donkey caves that play random strangers and build their armies in the most abusive way possible because all they care about is the longest win streak.

Becuase someone who doesn't start a DA army, he may like the looks of, because they suck, makes him or his opponents donkey caves. People don't play against strangers, and that is the problem. If the play groups were huge like I remember them from 5th ed, the problem of playing with or against some army would not exist. Because even if your army would suck, you could always find others with suck armies too. But when you play against someone you know, what are you or your opponents suppose to do. My army sucks against my friends armies and now what? Should they suddenly buy bad armies too? What if their codex is so good that it doesn't have bad options , or has 2-3 good options in the whole book? Wait for 2 years hoping that next edition will go better? What if it doesn't, like the last few updates for chaos or DA ?

**Rippy**

Zagman wrote:
darkcloak wrote:
Even if they are on a 2 year schedule you guys would still buy a new brb?

That blows my mind. Sure I have 7th, but that was the first rulebook I got!

I can't believe that people would be so careless with their money.

Haha, I've been playing this game for 12 years and never have spent money on a BRB. And after 6th ed Tau and Eldar Codice(which I bought with Farsight Enclaves) I refuse to spend money on any rules put out by GW. And because they don't even attempt to fix the game, just break it further I am no longer even spending money on models from GW, instead I'm selling them.

GW needs to realize by putting out so many rules and charging a premium for them they are as much a game/rules company as they are a model company and they are selling a horrible product.

>selling all GW stuff
>posts in 40k general anyway
>offtopic all the while

**Blacksails**

Rippy wrote:

>selling all GW stuff
>posts in 40k general anyway
>offtopic all the while

>edgy post in the style of 4chan

Yeah, this isn't 4chan. Further, what kind of backwards thinking is that? Go look through Zag's post history and tell me that this user shouldn't be posting in 40k general.

I'll wait.

**kaotkbliss**

Vash108 wrote:
I may have to tap out of this hobby if 8th comes out so soon.

I am going to put out a prediction.

GW will move to a subscription based model where you pay a monthly fee for access to updates to rules and codex.

I don't plan on dropping out (not that I've yet to have a chance to get back in), I plan on getting all the 2nd ed books again and moving back to that (or maybe some version between) and finding a group that doesn't mind playing those rules.

So I might lose some units like fliers (not that I have any yet) or TWC (not that I have any of those yet either)

But in the end, would probably be a lot more enjoyable.