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.
2019/12/22 18:22:26
Subject: Re:GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
alextroy wrote: I don't know how someone can see all the changes to Matched Play 40K from the original rules, two three Chapter Approved with points updates, twice yearly general FAQs, and 2-Week FAQs for each product and say GW isn't trying to balance the game.
They may not be great at it. They may not be close to achieving it. They may not be putting in "enough" effort to satisfy you, but they are definitely trying.
I guess they have other competing priorities that prevent them from satisfying some people.
Not putting in effort =/= trying.
I read this several times and can only say
What are they trying to do? Are they trying to "balance the game" (=make all options (which army to use, which units to use, which upgrades to take) worth taking under some circumstance), or are they trying to give a sales bump to whatever's clogging up the warehouse?
nataliereed1984 wrote: ...They even tend to make fun of people wanting perfect balance and put scare quotes around it.
...Nobody wants "perfect balance". Everyone wants the rules not to punish them for liking the wrong models, points values that aren't gibberish, and rulebooks that aren't made nonfunctional by endless typos. I don't understand where the question "can you make (army X) not be unplayable garbage/not be an auto-win button?" turns into "can you make a perfectly balanced wargame in which everyone has precisely a 50.00% winrate against everyone else?" in GW designers' brains.
Absolutely this. Nobody has ever asked for perfect balance. What we've asked for is rulebooks that aren't busted within 10 minutes of skimming through them, forces that aren't in such a skew that you can curbstomp people or get curbstomped just because you like a certain model or faction without factoring in anything else, and expecting "professional" designers to show some level of professional skill.
It's disingenuous to try and push this "perfect balance" myth when that isn't what anyone is asking. All we are asking for is actually fething competent rules, and they seemingly can't even do that. It's not unreasonable to expect people to actually be good at their job.
alextroy wrote: I don't know how someone can see all the changes to Matched Play 40K from the original rules, two three Chapter Approved with points updates, twice yearly general FAQs, and 2-Week FAQs for each product and say GW isn't trying to balance the game.
They may not be great at it. They may not be close to achieving it. They may not be putting in "enough" effort to satisfy you, but they are definitely trying.
I guess they have other competing priorities that prevent them from satisfying some people.
Not putting in effort =/= trying.
I read this several times and can only say
What are they trying to do? Are they trying to "balance the game" (=make all options (which army to use, which units to use, which upgrades to take) worth taking under some circumstance), or are they trying to give a sales bump to whatever's clogging up the warehouse?
To be fair we have no idea if that second statement is or has ever been true. It might look like it sometimes but equally, we find brand new models that are trash. I'm not sure there's an ulterior motive at all; it's far too random and nonsensical to be anything other than not really having a clue how to do it and throwing something together.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/22 18:23:47
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2019/12/22 18:24:12
Subject: Re:GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
alextroy wrote: I don't know how someone can see all the changes to Matched Play 40K from the original rules, two three Chapter Approved with points updates, twice yearly general FAQs, and 2-Week FAQs for each product and say GW isn't trying to balance the game.
They may not be great at it. They may not be close to achieving it. They may not be putting in "enough" effort to satisfy you, but they are definitely trying.
I guess they have other competing priorities that prevent them from satisfying some people.
Not putting in effort =/= trying.
I read this several times and can only say
Okay, I'll rephrase it for you to make it easier to understand in the form of a question.
If they're not putting in enough effort to balance the game, how can you say they're at least trying? The two are NOT compatible.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2019/12/22 18:26:13
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Trying doesn’t necessarily equal succeeding. They’re not synonymous. You’ve failed hard at this attempted putdown, Slayer.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
2019/12/22 18:27:29
Subject: Re:GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
alextroy wrote: I don't know how someone can see all the changes to Matched Play 40K from the original rules, two three Chapter Approved with points updates, twice yearly general FAQs, and 2-Week FAQs for each product and say GW isn't trying to balance the game.
They may not be great at it. They may not be close to achieving it. They may not be putting in "enough" effort to satisfy you, but they are definitely trying.
I guess they have other competing priorities that prevent them from satisfying some people.
Not putting in effort =/= trying.
I read this several times and can only say
Okay, I'll rephrase it for you to make it easier to understand in the form of a question.
If they're not putting in enough effort to balance the game, how can you say they're at least trying? The two are NOT compatible.
I mean you can try and still fail to achieve the goal. The issue is GW doesn't REALLY seem to be trying, just saying they are (and having people say they are) because they put out FAQs and Chapter Approved, both of which indicate that they don't really understand the problems in the first place, let alone how to solve them.
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2019/12/22 18:28:52
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
nataliereed1984 wrote: ...They even tend to make fun of people wanting perfect balance and put scare quotes around it.
...Nobody wants "perfect balance". Everyone wants the rules not to punish them for liking the wrong models, points values that aren't gibberish, and rulebooks that aren't made nonfunctional by endless typos. I don't understand where the question "can you make (army X) not be unplayable garbage/not be an auto-win button?" turns into "can you make a perfectly balanced wargame in which everyone has precisely a 50.00% winrate against everyone else?" in GW designers' brains.
- Some people here clearly want balance and hardcore competitive play to be the main priority of GW, at the expense of other considerations and other players, and in contradiction to the entire 30+ year history of 40k. That's the problem.
- Of course the game could be improved, and it would be nice for every faction to have a reasonably fair shot at winning, no faction to be an obvious God Tier, and no clearly auto-take or never-take models. Of course. How many times does that caveat need to be offered?
- GW designers' brains AREN'T thinking that bizarre strawman. They're just thinking in roughly the same way as a lot of us in this thread are: it's not meant to be an intense tournament game, it's meant to be a fun game about simulating a battle within the IP, so that's the aspect of the game that gets the most attention from the designers and playtesters. It is really, really, REALLY hard to balance a game consisting of two dozen distinct factions with dozens of different unit types each, all with different stratagems and relics and sub-faction benefits and special rules, while maintaining a system that can replicate the "feel" of the IP and all those different factions and different units, all while written by different people with different brains and visions and hampered by only having the cumbersome tool of the English language to communicate with, and WHILE having to constantly churn out new models and new books and new editions in order to keep the money coming in and the shareholders happy.
So yeah, when the game turns out to, inevitably, have mistakes in terms of balance, and then the competitive players immediately seize on them, and break the game, to dominate the meta for a couple months, but then also go on webforums to complain bitterly that that thing they just made happen happened, yeah, GW is probably going to think " you guys. You're demanding way more than we can possibly give, act like you hate us and we owe you everything you personally want regardless of other players, and you aren't even using the product the way it's intended. I'm not particularly arsed to sort it all out for you."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/22 18:29:12
***Bring back Battlefleet Gothic***
Nurgle may own my soul, but Slaanesh has my heart <3
2019/12/22 18:29:50
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
I've asked this before, and nobody offered a reply, so I'll see if different people can offer a different response.
Can anyone, corner cases and corrected blips aside, name a mainstream commercial wargame that's as consistently poorly balanced and poorly written as 40K?
This is asked with no agenda and genuine curiosity.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
I guess they have other competing priorities that prevent them from satisfying some people.
That's the core of the whole thing.
They are juggling a LOT of different chainswords in the air to keep this game and IP going. Competitive balance is only one of them.
They can do MOST things MOSTLY right MOST of the time, but they can't do ALL the things WHOLLY right ALL of the time.
Can anyone, corner cases and corrected blips aside, name a mainstream commercial wargame that's as consistently poorly balanced and poorly written as 40K?
This is asked with no agenda and genuine curiosity.
You probably didn't get an answer yet because you phrased the question in a loaded way that implicitly requires the answerer to agree that it's consistently poorly balanced and poorly written.
Not saying you did so intentionally, just pointing out that it's there.
A more neutral version of the question would be "can you name a mainstream commercial war-game that you think is balanced and written worse than 40k is?"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/22 18:39:07
***Bring back Battlefleet Gothic***
Nurgle may own my soul, but Slaanesh has my heart <3
2019/12/22 18:41:56
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Does anyone play anything else? Asking people who’ve largely only experienced one game to name other, not-played-much games seems fruitless. 40K has a huge install base. Everything else in the sci-fi wargames sphere... not so much.
Also you asked that question with a tonne of agenda ;-)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/12/22 18:44:24
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
2019/12/22 18:44:13
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Azreal13 wrote: I've asked this before, and nobody offered a reply, so I'll see if different people can offer a different response.
Can anyone, corner cases and corrected blips aside, name a mainstream commercial wargame that's as consistently poorly balanced and poorly written as 40K?
This is asked with no agenda and genuine curiosity.
X-Wing
Infinity
Flames of War
Heavy Gear
Star Wars Legion
All Dropzone Games
... etc ..
...
2019/12/22 18:46:58
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Azreal13 wrote: I've asked this before, and nobody offered a reply, so I'll see if different people can offer a different response.
Can anyone, corner cases and corrected blips aside, name a mainstream commercial wargame that's as consistently poorly balanced and poorly written as 40K?
This is asked with no agenda and genuine curiosity.
X-Wing
Infinity
Flames of War
Heavy Gear
Star Wars Legion
All Dropzone Games
... etc ..
...
LOL imagine thinking ANY of those games are as unbalanced as 40k.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/22 18:47:40
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2019/12/22 18:51:27
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Azreal13 wrote: I've asked this before, and nobody offered a reply, so I'll see if different people can offer a different response.
Can anyone, corner cases and corrected blips aside, name a mainstream commercial wargame that's as consistently poorly balanced and poorly written as 40K?
This is asked with no agenda and genuine curiosity.
X-Wing
Infinity
Flames of War
Heavy Gear
Star Wars Legion
All Dropzone Games
... etc ..
...
You're either joking or lying or have never actually played anything other than 40k. Keep in mind we are talking about AS bad as 40k, not "has balance issues" because every game has that. But I Have never, in 20+ years, ever found a game as consistently poorly balanced with seemingly as little effort put into it balance as any GW game. The other games at least genuinely try and have designers who seemingly actually know statistics and real game design not claim they have a formula but get so much wrong that either their formula isn't even remotely right or they're just lying about it. So no, those games aren't as bad as GW games. GW has the worst balance I've ever seen come from a company where things are consistently missed or not even thought of (and we're talking about basic interaction here not corner-case things).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/22 18:54:52
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2019/12/22 18:52:23
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
JohnnyHell wrote: I mean, it does work if you read my take on it. If you ignore it and repeat yours of course it doesn’t. That’s how opinions work.
I get the frustration some people have with Strats. Seeing them as the more heroic moments helps me reconcile them. Units are using their Auspexes and scanners and fly clouds and knife feet etc all the time. That one Hellfire Shell is the one that hits the crucial spot, whereas the others plinked off the armour and might as well have been regular rounds. All the Eldar planes are jinking about but that one gal is just *super good at it*. That kind of thing. The exemplars and outliers are the ones the Strats represent, to me. YMMV. Whatever is most fun for you.
It's very shallow to think it's just the one Heavy Bolter that landed the shot on the Imperial Knight out of 15 you have in your army, meanwhile the rest are shooting with 2 hits average.
So no it still doesn't work in your bizarre interpretation.
I almost always try to find narrative moments, even when I'm at a tournament. I'll send my Master into close combat with the Demon Prince even though it would make more sense to allow the Terminators to grind it down on their own. So I might give up a Slay the Warlord VP to my opponent - its about the glory of the moment. The "Narrative way of playing" is not the same thing as playing narratively. I don't tend to play scenarios or "historical refights." I do, however, enjoy playing in a style where the narrative emerges.
Then we get purposely bad moves like this. This is why GW probably doesn't catch broken crap. They probably play like THIS.
Fajita Fan wrote: They don’t need to try. We keep buying this stuff regardless so they don’t need to change or invest the effort it would take to balance 87 codices.
And they know that everyone who complains bitterly and hates the game will still go right on playing it because "nothing else is as popular", so they never have to worry about Warmahordes or Infinity ever outpacing them…
That's because none of you CAAC players vote with your wallets. You gobble up everything.
Slayer,
I am having a hard time understanding the point you are trying to make - are you referring to my bad move of charging in with my Master? If you are trying to insult me by saying that I play the way the designers play then I guess I'll take it as a compliment? For the record I had already won that game when I sent my Master in. I don't try to lose, in fact I try to win. I try not to miss an opportunity, though, to create a cinematic moment. I have a real-world job with real world consequences etc. This is my hobby. And I quite enjoy the hobby that GW has created.
Additionally, we (whomever we are - I guess I'm a CAAC who plays in tournaments?) do vote with our wallets when we purchase something, or do not purhcase something. That's our decision - our choice. I left for 7th after playing for some 20 years but came back and stayed for 8th. Based on what I see at the gaming communities I belong to many folks are indeed voting with their wallets and are buying/playing GW. You should try to build a bridge and get over that. Worrying about how others are enjoying their hobby is a bizarre hobby to have.
I do think that the IH supplement shows that the design team have some blind spots or "failures of imagination". They probably didn't think of an IH flyer spam or thought about FW interactions. They may be ignorant of the scale of Leviathan forgery-world copies out in the wild. It's a problem, for sure, and it will likely take another rules fix to resolve (like FW models do not benefit from Faction abilities but they do not break Faction coherency etc). I do think that a couple of in-house powergamers locked in the basement of Nottingham (a Red Team of sorts) might help catch these.
Finally, based on the sheer number of fixes that GW has issued since 8th dropped you cannot possibly say that they are not trying to achieve "balance." Even if "balance" gets air-quoted.
Cheers,
T2B
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
2019/12/22 18:55:06
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
I haven't played any war-games BESIDES 40k, Necromunda and Kill Team in like twenty years. My own answers wouldn't have any relevance.
By the way…
What the hell does CAAC mean? I initially thought it meant "Competitive At All Costs" but now it seems like it's being used in the opposite sense, like "Casual At All Costs"????
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/22 18:57:08
***Bring back Battlefleet Gothic***
Nurgle may own my soul, but Slaanesh has my heart <3
2019/12/22 18:57:39
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
JohnnyHell wrote: Does anyone play anything else? Asking people who’ve largely only experienced one game to name other, not-played-much games seems fruitless. 40K has a huge install base. Everything else in the sci-fi wargames sphere... not so much.
Also you asked that question with a tonne of agenda ;-)
No, I fething didnt, if I intended it that way, I'd have simply left the question without qualifying it.
The fact is, the only way it looks like an agenda is if you suspect that I'm fishing for a specific answer and not genuinely open to a variety or responses, and only if you actually think the answer to the question is no.
I'm not assuming people responding only play 40K. I don't play one system to the exclusion of all else, and have played many games over the years, why would I assume other are all that different? If people only play 40K and still feel comfortable defending it from a position of total ignorance of the wider context of the market, then that at least massively undermines any argument they make, if not completely invalidates it.
I'm also fairly sure the last time I asked was in a topic in General Discussion, so theoretically far more people who play other systems would have been participating.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/22 18:59:09
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Finally, based on the sheer number of fixes that GW has issued since 8th dropped you cannot possibly say that they are not trying to achieve "balance." Even if "balance" gets air-quoted.
Cheers,
T2B
I would be more inclined to agree if the fixes indicated they were doing anything other than kneejerk reacting without actually understanding the problem. Although I agree they might be "trying" just trying incredibly poorly (again because it seems like they just don't understand what makes things unbalanced, or they do and are unwilling to fix the root cause)
JohnnyHell wrote: Does anyone play anything else? Asking people who’ve largely only experienced one game to name other, not-played-much games seems fruitless. 40K has a huge install base. Everything else in the sci-fi wargames sphere... not so much.
Also you asked that question with a tonne of agenda ;-)
No, I fething didnt, if I intended it that way, I'd have simply left the question without qualifying it.
The fact is, the only way it looks like an agenda is if you suspect that I'm fishing for a specific answer and not genuinely open to a variety or responses, and only if you actually think the answer to the question is no.
I'm not assuming people responding only play 40K. I don't play one system to the exclusion of all else, and have played many games over the years, why would I assume other are all that different If people only play 40K and still feel comfortable defending it from a position of total ignorance of the wider context of the market, then that at least massively undermines any argument they make, if not completely invalidates it.
I'm also fairly sure the last time I asked was in a topic in General Discussion, so theoretically far more people who play other systems would have been participating.
On this note I think a big part of the issue is that many people who think 40k is balanced haven't played any other games, so really aren't qualified to talk about balance since their vision is skewed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/22 18:59:02
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2019/12/22 19:00:23
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
I haven't played any war-games BESIDES 40k, Necromunda and Kill Team in like twenty years. My own answers wouldn't have any relevance.
By the way…
What the hell does CAAC mean? I initially thought it meant "Competitive At All Costs" but now it seems like it's being used in the opposite sense, like "Casual At All Costs"????
There's the WAAC (where someone cheats and does whatever they can to win, sometimes measuring to the mm of a movement or purposely misremembering a rule, which while compatible with competition isn't necessary for the personality) and CAAC (the virtue signaling player that says making even a slightly cohesive list is a tryhard, and toy soldiers and all that garbage).
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2019/12/22 19:07:29
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
JohnnyHell wrote: Does anyone play anything else? Asking people who’ve largely only experienced one game to name other, not-played-much games seems fruitless. 40K has a huge install base. Everything else in the sci-fi wargames sphere... not so much.
Also you asked that question with a tonne of agenda ;-)
No, I fething didnt, if I intended it that way, I'd have simply left the question without qualifying it.
The fact is, the only way it looks like an agenda is if you suspect that I'm fishing for a specific answer and not genuinely open to a variety or responses, and only if you actually think the answer to the question is no.
I'm not assuming people responding only play 40K. I don't play one system to the exclusion of all else, and have played many games over the years, why would I assume other are all that different If people only play 40K and still feel comfortable defending it from a position of total ignorance of the wider context of the market, then that at least massively undermines any argument they make, if not completely invalidates it.
I'm also fairly sure the last time I asked was in a topic in General Discussion, so theoretically far more people who play other systems would have been participating.
On this note I think a big part of the issue is that many people who think 40k is balanced haven't played any other games, so really aren't qualified to talk about balance since their vision is skewed.
Agreed. 6th and 7th really knocked the stuffing out if my local clubs enthusiasm for 40K, so we started playing other games. While that brings its own issues with fragmentation and people sometimes struggling to get a game of their first choice if the right people aren't there each week, from a pure enjoyment of gaming perspective it's been a revelation.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
nataliereed1984 wrote: ...They even tend to make fun of people wanting perfect balance and put scare quotes around it.
...Nobody wants "perfect balance". Everyone wants the rules not to punish them for liking the wrong models, points values that aren't gibberish, and rulebooks that aren't made nonfunctional by endless typos. I don't understand where the question "can you make (army X) not be unplayable garbage/not be an auto-win button?" turns into "can you make a perfectly balanced wargame in which everyone has precisely a 50.00% winrate against everyone else?" in GW designers' brains.
- Some people here clearly want balance and hardcore competitive play to be the main priority of GW, at the expense of other considerations and other players, and in contradiction to the entire 30+ year history of 40k. That's the problem.
- Of course the game could be improved, and it would be nice for every faction to have a reasonably fair shot at winning, no faction to be an obvious God Tier, and no clearly auto-take or never-take models. Of course. How many times does that caveat need to be offered?
- GW designers' brains AREN'T thinking that bizarre strawman. They're just thinking in roughly the same way as a lot of us in this thread are: it's not meant to be an intense tournament game, it's meant to be a fun game about simulating a battle within the IP, so that's the aspect of the game that gets the most attention from the designers and playtesters. It is really, really, REALLY hard to balance a game consisting of two dozen distinct factions with dozens of different unit types each, all with different stratagems and relics and sub-faction benefits and special rules, while maintaining a system that can replicate the "feel" of the IP and all those different factions and different units, all while written by different people with different brains and visions and hampered by only having the cumbersome tool of the English language to communicate with, and WHILE having to constantly churn out new models and new books and new editions in order to keep the money coming in and the shareholders happy.
So yeah, when the game turns out to, inevitably, have mistakes in terms of balance, and then the competitive players immediately seize on them, and break the game, to dominate the meta for a couple months, but then also go on webforums to complain bitterly that that thing they just made happen happened, yeah, GW is probably going to think " you guys. You're demanding way more than we can possibly give, act like you hate us and we owe you everything you personally want regardless of other players, and you aren't even using the product the way it's intended. I'm not particularly arsed to sort it all out for you."
I'm not a competitive player.
I don't give a flying f*** about tournament winrates.
I don't expect GW to give a flying f*** about tournament winrates.
What I do expect is for GW to consider the fact that when they put out a book giving points values for units people are going to seize on those points values as meaning something. I don't understand why GW, and by extension people like you, insist that there is either the game as it exists now, which is good enough, or the game tournament players want, which is impossible. The game as it exists right now isn't good enough and could be dramatically improved with very minimal effort far short of being the game tournament players want.
The problem is that if I want to wander into a gamestore with an army and find a game I cannot trust GW's points to produce an accurate estimate of what kind of game I should expect. In a competently-designed wargame if I show up with a thousand points of models and you show up with a thousand points of models we should be able to have a reasonable game. In 40k if I show up with a thousand points of Custodes and you show up with a thousand points of Iron Hands I am going to get leafblowered off the table without any opportunity to do any damage to anything because GW's designers like one of those armies and don't like the other, completely independent of the points/PL they supposedly give us to balance a pick-up game. This is not "the best they can do", this is not a case of "guys, they're trying, stop asking the impossible." I don't want the game to be a tournament-competitive game. I want the designers to give equal attention to everything they put out instead of slavishing love and attention on the armies they play and tossing off a half-baked uninteresting slurry of overpriced garbage for the armies they don't. I want to be able to get pick-up games where I don't get eaten alive because I brought the wrong models and go home thinking "well, what was the point of playing this game, then?" or steamroll someone else because they bought the wrong models and send them home thinking "well, what was the point of playing this game, then?" I want to not throw away a pile of models because there'll be zero demand for them since their rules are s*** and I'll be lucky to recoup the cost of shipping. I want to not have to sit down and do research about whether whatever new cool models I want to buy and paint are going to be shelf-jockeys collecting dust because the writers didn't understand how their rules were supposed to work. I want GW to recognize that maybe they f***ed up some of the basic assumptions about the math of 8e they did in the Indices and try and overhaul some datasheets instead of accepting that the game is f***ed and then charging me to fiddle prices occasionally. I want to stop having to tell newbies who like the lore and like the models that they can't play the models they like if they want to have a shot of not getting stomped off the table in two turns every time they play the game.
But no. I'm asking too much that there should be a reason to use every army and every unit. It's entirely okay for boxes of models to be dead shelf space that won't sell until someone throws them out because it's been a decade since anyone on GW's design team has liked them enough to try and fix them. It doesn't hurt GW at all that Warhammer generates its own endless spiral of frustrated burn-outs who hate the game and everything it stands for because the promises of the design team are lies and it's all entirely okay because "it isn't meant to be a competitive game, you guys!"
I haven't played any war-games BESIDES 40k, Necromunda and Kill Team in like twenty years. My own answers wouldn't have any relevance.
By the way…
What the hell does CAAC mean? I initially thought it meant "Competitive At All Costs" but now it seems like it's being used in the opposite sense, like "Casual At All Costs"????
There's the WAAC (where someone cheats and does whatever they can to win, sometimes measuring to the mm of a movement or purposely misremembering a rule, which while compatible with competition isn't necessary for the personality) and CAAC (the virtue signaling player that says making even a slightly cohesive list is a tryhard, and toy soldiers and all that garbage).
And why does "I wanted a cinematic showdown between HQ's" = CAAC? You know nothing of their list, the game or anything. They might have been winning a tourney with iron hands and since it was in the bag, charged the prince with a chapter master for a laugh.
But of course you don't seem to understand that fun can be found in a scenario that isn't bleeding edge efficiency.
2019/12/22 19:09:53
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
I haven't played any war-games BESIDES 40k, Necromunda and Kill Team in like twenty years. My own answers wouldn't have any relevance.
By the way…
What the hell does CAAC mean? I initially thought it meant "Competitive At All Costs" but now it seems like it's being used in the opposite sense, like "Casual At All Costs"????
There's the WAAC (where someone cheats and does whatever they can to win, sometimes measuring to the mm of a movement or purposely misremembering a rule, which while compatible with competition isn't necessary for the personality) and CAAC (the virtue signaling player that says making even a slightly cohesive list is a tryhard, and toy soldiers and all that garbage).
So they're meant to reflect the extremes - WAAC being really obnoxiously hardcore competitive players who are no fun to play with and build lists that just spam the most OP and cost-efficient units, farm CP, and unleash ridiculous combos, and totally ignore stuff like the other player's interests, having a good time, any sense of immersion or narrative sensibility, etc, and CAAC being the obnoxiously casual narrative player who absolutely refuses to take any aspect of the game seriously, just wants to role-play their army while ALSO ignoring stuff like the other player's interests, having a mutually enjoyable good time, and having some genuine sense of excitement and tension to the battle?
But, given that this a webforum for a fandom, and therefore everyone has to fight all the time, the terms get applied universally to everyone, as a hard binary with no outside or in-between positions possible?
- Of course the game could be improved, and it would be nice for every faction to have a reasonably fair shot at winning, no faction to be an obvious God Tier, and no clearly auto-take or never-take models. Of course. How many times does that caveat need to be offered?
But no. I'm asking too much that there should be a reason to use every army and every unit. It's entirely okay for boxes of models to be dead shelf space that won't sell until someone throws them out because it's been a decade since anyone on GW's design team has liked them enough to try and fix them. It doesn't hurt GW at all that Warhammer generates its own endless spiral of frustrated burn-outs who hate the game and everything it stands for because the promises of the design team are lies and it's all entirely okay because "it isn't meant to be a competitive game, you guys!"
Apparently the caveat needs to be offered several more times…
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/12/22 19:13:02
***Bring back Battlefleet Gothic***
Nurgle may own my soul, but Slaanesh has my heart <3
2019/12/22 19:17:01
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Point of order, this is a sub forum for a fandom on a forum for wargaming in general. Sadly GW gets all the attention, but equally it is only really the GW subs that this distinction really applies. Most other games it doesn't really matter what your attitude to the game is because the rules are robust enough to accommodate it without requiring player agency to make adjustments.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
What the hell does CAAC mean? I initially thought it meant "Competitive At All Costs" but now it seems like it's being used in the opposite sense, like "Casual At All Costs"????
It means something Slayer doesn't like, as far as I can tell from the usage. You'd think that taking a casual non-strict attitude towards WYSIWYG would count, but apparently that's opposite-day rules...
2019/12/22 19:19:05
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
nataliereed1984 wrote: - Of course the game could be improved, and it would be nice for every faction to have a reasonably fair shot at winning, no faction to be an obvious God Tier, and no clearly auto-take or never-take models. Of course. How many times does that caveat need to be offered?
But no. I'm asking too much that there should be a reason to use every army and every unit. It's entirely okay for boxes of models to be dead shelf space that won't sell until someone throws them out because it's been a decade since anyone on GW's design team has liked them enough to try and fix them. It doesn't hurt GW at all that Warhammer generates its own endless spiral of frustrated burn-outs who hate the game and everything it stands for because the promises of the design team are lies and it's all entirely okay because "it isn't meant to be a competitive game, you guys!"
Apparently the caveat needs to be offered several more times…
I don't think the caveat is relevant. The fact that "it isn't meant to be a competitive game, guys!" isn't and shouldn't be an excuse for the points being gibberish has nothing to do with whether or not it'd be nice if the game were better-balanced.
What the hell does CAAC mean? I initially thought it meant "Competitive At All Costs" but now it seems like it's being used in the opposite sense, like "Casual At All Costs"????
It means something Slayer doesn't like, as far as I can tell from the usage. You'd think that taking a casual non-strict attitude towards WYSIWYG would count, but apparently that's opposite-day rules...
No, CAAC is used to mean someone who is essentially a sore loser. The person who takes a garbage list (that the list is garbage is another issue entirely), loses with it and then goes on a rant about how their opponent is a filthy TFG for daring to pick units that synergize well. It, like WAAC, has generally devolved into being an insult that means "You don't play the way I do" but the original intention is the person who not only doesn't care to play well or build strong lists but complains about the fact their opponent DID while at the same time refusing to do it because they feel morally superior by not doing it.
It's basically an extreme example of David Sirlin's "Scrub": A player who imposes their own limitations that the game doesn't, and then complains when not everyone does the same thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/22 19:30:25
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2019/12/22 19:28:29
Subject: Re:GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
I play Flames of War and Team Yankee. Anybody who thinks that GW has the monopoly on unbalanced factions/books has clearly not played either in a mildly competitive setting. Anybody remember the BAR fiasco from the EW release? How about the US Tank Destroyer spam and Blood Guts and Glory Patton lists? East German BMP1 spam?
The big difference between FOW and 40K is that the 40K reboot from 7th to 8th was a smashing success and the FOW reboot from 3rd to 4th was a disaster. Its too bad, I liked FOW. Anyhoo, this is a 40K General Discussion sub-board.
Ultimately, GW seems to be getting something right. Guess I'm a CAAC White Knight? Huah!!!
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
2019/12/22 19:28:59
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
I don't give a flying f*** about tournament winrates.
I don't expect GW to give a flying f*** about tournament winrates.
What I do expect is for GW to consider the fact that when they put out a book giving points values for units people are going to seize on those points values as meaning something. I don't understand why GW, and by extension people like you, insist that there is either the game as it exists now, which is good enough, or the game tournament players want, which is impossible. The game as it exists right now isn't good enough and could be dramatically improved with very minimal effort far short of being the game tournament players want.
The problem is that if I want to wander into a gamestore with an army and find a game I cannot trust GW's points to produce an accurate estimate of what kind of game I should expect. In a competently-designed wargame if I show up with a thousand points of models and you show up with a thousand points of models we should be able to have a reasonable game. In 40k if I show up with a thousand points of Custodes and you show up with a thousand points of Iron Hands I am going to get leafblowered off the table without any opportunity to do any damage to anything because GW's designers like one of those armies and don't like the other, completely independent of the points/PL they supposedly give us to balance a pick-up game. This is not "the best they can do", this is not a case of "guys, they're trying, stop asking the impossible." I don't want the game to be a tournament-competitive game. I want the designers to give equal attention to everything they put out instead of slavishing love and attention on the armies they play and tossing off a half-baked uninteresting slurry of overpriced garbage for the armies they don't. I want to be able to get pick-up games where I don't get eaten alive because I brought the wrong models and go home thinking "well, what was the point of playing this game, then?" or steamroll someone else because they bought the wrong models and send them home thinking "well, what was the point of playing this game, then?" I want to not throw away a pile of models because there'll be zero demand for them since their rules are s*** and I'll be lucky to recoup the cost of shipping. I want to not have to sit down and do research about whether whatever new cool models I want to buy and paint are going to be shelf-jockeys collecting dust because the writers didn't understand how their rules were supposed to work. I want GW to recognize that maybe they f***ed up some of the basic assumptions about the math of 8e they did in the Indices and try and overhaul some datasheets instead of accepting that the game is f***ed and then charging me to fiddle prices occasionally. I want to stop having to tell newbies who like the lore and like the models that they can't play the models they like if they want to have a shot of not getting stomped off the table in two turns every time they play the game.
But no. I'm asking too much that there should be a reason to use every army and every unit. It's entirely okay for boxes of models to be dead shelf space that won't sell until someone throws them out because it's been a decade since anyone on GW's design team has liked them enough to try and fix them. It doesn't hurt GW at all that Warhammer generates its own endless spiral of frustrated burn-outs who hate the game and everything it stands for because the promises of the design team are lies and it's all entirely okay because "it isn't meant to be a competitive game, you guys!"
This is the most succinct and clear post that describes the issue I have seen in a very long time. Not only exalted, but anyone who disagrees with the idea GW needs to really try (not do a token try and they say "Hey look we're trying!") needs to read and re-read this post to understand exactly the problem. You hit the nail on the head.
The entire issue is there should never be swathes of models that look cool but are useless (unless you like to lose a lot) and sit on the shelf because, for whatever reason, the design team isn't skilled enough to understand how to make things viable or are secretly playing favorites with some units and not others (which we don't know if they are, but since we know nothing it's easy to assume it is because there is so little explanation otherwise)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I play Flames of War and Team Yankee. Anybody who thinks that GW has the monopoly on unbalanced factions/books has clearly not played either in a mildly competitive setting. Anybody remember the BAR fiasco from the EW release? How about the US Tank Destroyer spam and Blood Guts and Glory Patton lists? East German BMP1 spam?
The big difference between FOW and 40K is that the 40K reboot from 7th to 8th was a smashing success and the FOW reboot from 3rd to 4th was a disaster. Its too bad, I liked FOW. Anyhoo, this is a 40K General Discussion sub-board.
Ultimately, GW seems to be getting something right. Guess I'm a CAAC White Knight? Huah!!!
I also play FOW however I started with 4th though so I don't know the differences between 3rd and 4th, but 8th being a smashing success means little other than people fell hook, line and sinker for GW's smoke and mirrors, since it's become arguably worse than 7th edition ever was in a very short time. 40k has a lot of inertia and a lot of "it's good enough" attitude floating around. Other games don't get that luxury so have to try harder. It's only GW that can put out horsegak and have the masses eat it up like it's candy and ignore all the problems because hey at least it's popular.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/12/22 19:35:41
you guys. You're demanding way more than we can possibly give, act like you hate us and we owe you everything you personally want regardless of other players, and you aren't even using the product the way it's intended. I'm not particularly arsed to sort it all out for you."
