Can 40K be fixed by GW?

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.

**jonolikespie**

It's all well and good to say that a evil competitive player is evil when he takes units that are OP, but what about little Timmy who constantly beats the snot out of little Jimmy, and subsequently makes litle Jimmy leave the hobby, all because the game tells them that two 1500 point lists are fair and they aren't experienced enough to know better, but Timmy likes his fluffy elda jetbike list while Jimmy thinks chaos space marines look cool and he wants to run 50 of them across the board?

**spacelord321**

Crimson Devil wrote:
spacelord321 wrote:
GW is not responsible for this mess. Munchkin gamers will always arise, eventually, in any system that has been around this long.

The fact that people blame GW is hilarious and a self serving cycle. These people whine and complain at GW, and at the same time, praise and admire people who take the obvious 2-3 toughest units in a codex and fit as many as possible of said units as they can into a list... (not all, but generally from my experience).

...and you call these people champions? It's no wonder that this is what GW gave you.... it's what you showed them you wanted. Not a game that we can realize amazing sci-fi stories with, but like the reality of insecure people themselves, an arms race where we can use our societal leverage (money) to gain traction against everyone around us.

We ALL messed this up, not GW. Blame them all you want, but I've been passive on this board watching many of you jump amongst the strongest meta army time after time, with your dollars actually winning games for you. Its funny. Now, after the game is reaching the point where those same people can't spend enough to keep ahead of the meta, the complaints of brokenness have risen drastically. Ha!!! You created this.

Disclaimer... I've played mech Tau since 3rd. I had fielded a riptide during 6 and 7th on 3 different occasions, each a single one in those games. I have never used riptides in any but those three. My win ratio was at about 40% at that time with draws happening frequently as well. Don't let munchkin gamers intimidate you. They are too afraid to try to face you in a fair match, and are the ones who complain, as their ego has a vested interest in 40k, instead of their imagination.

(Edit...I will admit that the players that switch armies to play to the current meta are a large driver of GWs total sales, so in a weird paradoxical way their method of playing is also one of the main things that keeps the game afloat.)

That's not how it works. If you create a situation that gets out of hand, YOU will be held responsible for the outcome.

Say for example you give a monkey a gun. If he shoots somebody, the police are not going to arrest the monkey. They're going to arrest you. In your case; GW gave a bunch of monkeys guns. You got shot and now you want to go all Charlton Heston on them.

And so in your comparison you're the monkey?

I think I see the problem...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jonolikespie wrote:
It's all well and good to say that a evil competitive player is evil when he takes units that are OP, but what about little Timmy who constantly beats the snot out of little Jimmy, and subsequently makes litle Jimmy leave the hobby, all because the game tells them that two 1500 point lists are fair and they aren't experienced enough to know better, but Timmy likes his fluffy elda jetbike list while Jimmy thinks chaos space marines look cool and he wants to run 50 of them across the board?

As has been pointed out before, they were never trying to pass time with a game, they were just trying to beat each other.

Don't let the vets fool you into playing their game. (Some of) The vet tourney players are the biggest complainers of the meta, nowadays and always. Many of those same voices have been the most unapologetic narcissists this game has seen. They don't like a game that can't be decided in the list purchase phase.

You blame GW for giving them the ability to be donkey-caves, even when the players decides that is the way they want to play.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
As an aside, I play both low level and competative, haven't played since a month after seventh edition released, but have kept up on the game vicariously so...

I will be taking a min maxed hunter contingent with one (maybe two if I can paint it quick enough) riptides, no keels or surges, to DelaWar. I'm registered as Dan Theman. We'll see how I do.

I have no personal problems with tourney lists. I'm an adult who's ego is not so hinged upon his wargaming abilty (although I'd KYA

. Just don't expect me to congratulate you for winning with 5 knights/riptides. I will give you a zero comp score right in front of you, and explain it with a smile. I enjoy these people in my gaming scene. They remind me that my personal quirks balance out!

**Nithaniel**

In order to fix 40k they would need to rewrite the rules and codex's simultaneoulsy. And this done by a core group of skilled game designers that can bring balance and character to each of the army types.

This cannot be done because of the way GW work as a PLC. They need to constantly drip feed product to the market to ensure revenue streams are constant.

On a side note what is the plural of codex?

**spacelord321**

Illuminati

The sample size point is a good one, and I tried to pay it service by admitting that the "play with their wallet" types (not all by far) are perhaps the largest monetary contributors to our hobby.

**IllumiNini**

^ It's 'Codeces'

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And @SpaceLord321: fair enough.

**spacelord321**

Nah, they'll bring back mass 1st turn assault in 8th and the other half of the generals will have their chance to sit back and congratulate themselves on their tactical brilliance. And the pseudo (un)balance of life shall continue. And I shall play Tau.

**jonolikespie**

Nithaniel wrote:
In order to fix 40k they would need to rewrite the rules and codex's simultaneoulsy. And this done by a core group of skilled game designers that can bring balance and character to each of the army types.

So.. they need to copy what literally every other company in the market do

Seriously, GW are the only ones that try for backwards compatibility in their editions aren't they?

**Kilkrazy**

spacelord321 wrote:
GW is not responsible for this mess. Munchkin gamers will always arise, eventually, in any system that has been around this long.
...

GW made the game. They are responsible. Other games reduce munchkinism by either being balanced, or not bothering with balance at all (e.g. AoS, or historical rules that use realistic OOBs to generate army lists.)

It is the illusion of balance created by a points based system that's actually out of whack that encourages munchkinism.

GW have over the past 10 years disappeared down a rabbit hole of pretending the game is balanced with points, while simultaneously unbalancing it more and more by the use of formations and so on.

During the same time they've lost a significant percentage of sales, so their strategy obviously is wrong.

GW can fix the game, but they need to identify what is wrong with it and address various different ideas about what it should be -- competitive or casual -- tight or sprawling --- skirmish or mass battle. They need ideally to square these various circles in order not to drive away a significant chunk of players who lean towards one or other end of the spectrum.

I thin this can be done by reorganising the rules into a small level skirmish game, a medium size competitive game, and a big battle game, which share a common core of rules that is expanded by optional add-on books.

**Crimson Devil**

spacelord321 wrote:
Crimson Devil wrote:
spacelord321 wrote:
GW is not responsible for this mess. Munchkin gamers will always arise, eventually, in any system that has been around this long.

The fact that people blame GW is hilarious and a self serving cycle. These people whine and complain at GW, and at the same time, praise and admire people who take the obvious 2-3 toughest units in a codex and fit as many as possible of said units as they can into a list... (not all, but generally from my experience).

...and you call these people champions? It's no wonder that this is what GW gave you.... it's what you showed them you wanted. Not a game that we can realize amazing sci-fi stories with, but like the reality of insecure people themselves, an arms race where we can use our societal leverage (money) to gain traction against everyone around us.

We ALL messed this up, not GW. Blame them all you want, but I've been passive on this board watching many of you jump amongst the strongest meta army time after time, with your dollars actually winning games for you. Its funny. Now, after the game is reaching the point where those same people can't spend enough to keep ahead of the meta, the complaints of brokenness have risen drastically. Ha!!! You created this.

Disclaimer... I've played mech Tau since 3rd. I had fielded a riptide during 6 and 7th on 3 different occasions, each a single one in those games. I have never used riptides in any but those three. My win ratio was at about 40% at that time with draws happening frequently as well. Don't let munchkin gamers intimidate you. They are too afraid to try to face you in a fair match, and are the ones who complain, as their ego has a vested interest in 40k, instead of their imagination.

(Edit...I will admit that the players that switch armies to play to the current meta are a large driver of GWs total sales, so in a weird paradoxical way their method of playing is also one of the main things that keeps the game afloat.)

That's not how it works. If you create a situation that gets out of hand, YOU will be held responsible for the outcome.

Say for example you give a monkey a gun. If he shoots somebody, the police are not going to arrest the monkey. They're going to arrest you. In your case; GW gave a bunch of monkeys guns. You got shot and now you want to go all Charlton Heston on them.

And so in your comparison you're the monkey?

I think I see the problem...

You're right, I apologize for disagreeing with you.

I find it interesting you play Tau and you seem to be advocating the very argument that the anti-tau lobby is pushing. "All Tau players are donkey-caves, for simply choosing to play that army in the first place."

**jonolikespie**

I find it more interesting that anyone who plays competitively is apparently being painted with the same brush as the very worst WAAC That Guys, and worse that anyone who cares at all for balance must all of a sudden be competitive players.

I wasn't a competitive player at all when I played 40k, but the crap balance was still what drove me away from it because fluffy players are effected by crap balance too *shock* *gasp*.

**shiwan8**

the_Armyman wrote:

But, how does GW fix what it has broken: a hopelessly complicated and unbalanced melange of codexes, supplements, webstore exclusive formations, and one-off rules additions? I don't think it can. I don't foresee a time when GW tells its customers that all of these formations and gigantic $100+ models are no longer welcome in a standard game. How could it? What would be the backlash to such a complete walk-back of existing rules?

So, if GW is unable or unwilling to fix its game, what chance is there of an independent ruleset being introduced and widely played? Ninth Age and Kings of War have had decent success, but they stepped in to a void that GW created with its abandonment of WFB. Can a new, independent ruleset be created and adopted by players while GW still actively produces an official version of 40K?

I see threads created about fixing this unit or that codex, and it never ceases to amaze me that the majority of the suggestions to fix something almost invariably involve MORE RULES: this gun needs rending, this unit needs FNP, or this codex needs this set of special rules. Needless complexity and never-ending, cascading rules are what's wrong with 40K. It's like looking at a rotting building with structural problems, and thinking "If we just add a few more floors and extra rooms..." 40K needs a complete re-thinking of its core mechanics. It would need a complete re-balance and re-write of every single codex in one fell swoop. GW will never do this. It is not their financial interest to do so.

It's not that GW can't fix the game. It's that they will not. It's also not that formations and huge things make the game worse, their point costs do. At the moment 2 worst things in the game are eldar spams and deathstars, neither of which really depend on formations. More rules is also not a problem either since they almost always are the thing that make units viable.

Correct pricing on units would fix it all. This would include adding points to imperial knights and wraithknights, adding tax units to too good formations and so on.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jonolikespie wrote:
I find it more interesting that anyone who plays competitively is apparently being painted with the same brush as the very worst WAAC That Guys, and worse that anyone who cares at all for balance must all of a sudden be competitive players.

I wasn't a competitive player at all when I played 40k, but the crap balance was still what drove me away from it because fluffy players are effected by crap balance too *shock* *gasp*.

My experience is that it's the WAAC players who do not care about the balance...which is almost every competitive player out there.

**spacelord321**

Indeed they are. They're codex will have it's time again. I played through early 6th with the 3rd edition dex and people couldn't understand why I would still play Tau. I had just switched gaming groups from a group of friends, to a new flgs in a new area. Most there weren't 40k players exclusively. Just gamers. They already had 1-3 armies, and many were working on what they considered the new power list in the meta. These were the first to drop from 40K, as they eventually succumbed to the cool new dex of the day, and GW started throwing new rules at them faster than their wives would allow them to buy their way ahead of.

**shiwan8**

spacelord321 wrote:
GW is not responsible for this mess.
...

That is just not true. Players play the game GW made and use the tools given to them. Nothing more. Sure, some personality traits lead to more extreme behavior but if that behavior leads to huge balance problems the fault is not in the gamer but rather in the tools given to him. Try playing monocodex CSM agains mono eldar. Try using fluffy list agains extreme tournament builds. If the game was done right then neither of these was a situation where the winner would be predetermined. Since the winner is predetermined in both of these the design is....botched.

**GreyCrow**

The only way to fix 40k would be to start the design from the ground up, currently some units are very favoured while others are absolutely abysmal.
Some minor fixes here and there in the BRB could go a long way, but it doesn't fix the mess that some Codexes are when it comes to point costs.

The points pricing is utterly ridiculous as well. Back in 2nd ed, a Land Raider would cost 220 points while the Tactical Marines would cost 300 points for 10. With the current pricing, it would make Land Raiders at 105 points. At this point level, a Land Raider would be a very useful investment.
Take the Chaos Marines then, paying 10 points for a super useless gift of mutation while Eldr pay 10 points for a Scatter Laser.

____

The way to fix 40k would be to create a general ruleset and one for each weapon and units based on the universe. Here are some few simple steps :

1) Set the physics of the universe and make it make sense so it's intuitive for players to strategize.
Predator tanks are supposed to be advancing on the enemy while pumping out shots. Yet, they can't do that and be worth the plastic in the current ruleset.

2) Picture how each unit fits within the universe. What are their capabilities ? What is their power level ? Then put the stats on them.

3) Add special rules to the units. Because special rules go a long way in making a unit have flavour and character. If we look at Warmahordes, we can see how much character they give to units due to unique special rules, and this allow them to balance out the points issues.
Want a Melta to be a tank slagger ? Make it deal huge damage rather than having a better chance to deal 1 damage. Want HYMP to have a very large amount of shots ? Do that.

4) Price accordingly and according to basic formulas. Price based on resistance and Price based on damage dealt. Factor in the possible synergies that players will find and increase the cost accordingly on a unit per unit basis.

5) Profit.

**spacelord321**

I fully accept competative 40k players. I like those style formats, and I enjoy taking my Tau to them. That said, I don't play net Tau. Sure, its tough. An army of all MCs breaks so many of the game mechanics that it skews the odds immensely. Still, that player will likely congratulate himself for the win, without acknowledging the list won it for him. Even as a competative player, I feel these people should be called out for the trolls they are. I will play against them, and enjoy it if they are humble. But those who act superior should be called out as the munchkin gamers they are. When you see battle reports that promote this uber unit min max unit crap, down vote them and leave comments ridiculing them. Tell them to actually LTP. Put up your own batreps with much more sensible lists (Tabletop Tactics comes to mind. A good mix with those guys. Thanks!).

In the end, GW produces nice minis and fun rules, balance only slightly factored, and shifting in phases. They are not ruining your game, you are, when you support people who play in this fashion.

Competative players are ruining your game and recreating it in their image, not GWs. If you want it to stay casual, stand up and call out munchkin gamers.

Once again I will add that the meta chasers are what keep 40k afloat monetarily, so damned if ya do.....and if ya don't.

**GreyCrow**

spacelord321 wrote:

In the end, GW produces nice minis and fun rules, balance only slightly factored, and shifting in phases. They are not ruining your game, you are, when you support people who play in this fashion.
.

I'm sorry, but that's a load of BS. No offense meant, but you can't expect players to be responsible for the possibilities allowed by a ruleset.

By nature, 40k is a PvP game, and PvP is competitive by nature. The rulemakers are responsible for making units absolutely overpowered and units pile of crap within a constrained ruleset.

When you play Poker or Tarot, the game is balanced enough that if you lose, it's because the other player was better and no one is given crap about being " munchkin player" if he wins a game. You don't lose because you have crap cards while the opponent has good cards, especially when there are only 3 to 4 cards per faction that are worth bringing.

**spacelord321**

shiwan8 wrote:
spacelord321 wrote:
GW is not responsible for this mess.
...

That is just not true. Players play the game GW made and use the tools given to them. Nothing more. Sure, some personality traits lead to more extreme behavior but if that behavior leads to huge balance problems the fault is not in the gamer but rather in the tools given to him. Try playing monocodex CSM agains mono eldar. Try using fluffy list agains extreme tournament builds. If the game was done right then neither of these was a situation where the winner would be predetermined. Since the winner is predetermined in both of these the design is....botched.

CSM... I remember being cried to how they were a useless dex while I was losing to them with my 3rd ed dex in 6th. They're jealous envy of the imperials really is fitting.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

GreyCrow wrote:
spacelord321 wrote:

In the end, GW produces nice minis and fun rules, balance only slightly factored, and shifting in phases. They are not ruining your game, you are, when you support people who play in this fashion.
.

I'm sorry, but that's a load of BS. No offense meant, but you can't expect players to be responsible for the possibilities allowed by a ruleset.

By nature, 40k is a PvP game, and PvP is competitive by nature. The rulemakers are responsible for making units absolutely overpowered and units pile of crap within a constrained ruleset.

When you play Poker or Tarot, the game is balanced enough that if you lose, it's because the other player was better and no one is given crap about being " munchkin player" if he wins a game. You don't lose because you have crap cards while the opponent has good cards, especially when there are only 3 to 4 cards per faction that are worth bringing.

Oohh, oohhh! Lets use your poker analogy!

If GW made decks of cards, then they are a casino that let's me pick my hand before the poker game starts. "Well I'll take a straight flush, because i can only be betean by a straight flush of the trump suit" (codex of the day).

It's not balanced and never has been. Is it skewing towards larger units? Yes. Is the meta set in stone? No!!! It changes a lot! Are there codex imbalances? Absolutely, but they do shift over the years. I've left myself when I felt I would just wait out the whole serpent shield meta.... and it ended (I know, I know!).

If you have to win just to feel justified in your hobby, switch armies. If you want to start sticking it to the meta chasers, start taking hard counters to SPECIFIC meta builds to tourneys, not for the purpose of winning overall. Enough specific counters start working and those OP players will have to shift out of her comfort zone. I'm trying to design my next tourney list to specifically counter Tau tidewing and Surge builds. I hate the bad name these players have given Tau, and I hope that I can make some munchkin monster tau players rage quit and sell on ebay.

**kodos**

spacelord321 wrote:
GW is not responsible for this mess.

Who else should it be?

Me and a friend playing since 3rd Edi and for some army's we just have the same models and lists since than.

So I have my Thousand Sons and he his Eldar SamHain and and now GW should not be the one to blame that we both can only Play against each other (using old rules) and not against someone else because I have no chance with the current rules and my friend would be called "that guy"

**spacelord321**

kodos wrote:
spacelord321 wrote:
GW is not responsible for this mess.

Who else should it be?

Me and a friend playing since 3rd Edi and for some army's we just have the same models and lists since than.

So I have my Thousand Sons and he his Eldar SamHain and and now GW should not be the one to blame that we both can only Play against each other (using old rules) and not against someone else because I have no chance with the current rules and my friend would be called "that guy"

As I said the meta shifts. It'll come back around. I feel assault is the next direction GW will go to drive sales, and us shooy armies will be the ones crying.

Oh... and except for the most dire of matchups, you always have a chance for a close game. GW allows those uber army builds for those who enjoy it. But a PUG doesnt have to be that. But plenty of people have said this many times. Also, multiple formats exist to allow different armies better chances.

So as not to veer too far off OPs topic, I will be perfectly fine if the 'tide gets nerfed soon. Tide spam made it hard to get a game in 6th, let alone 7th. And the surge should be a vehicle w/o stomps imho.

Taking a wing/surge list is autoplay. Those people deserve no credit.
And that is my main point... no matter what format, gamers will try to break it just for the act itself. It will happen to all of the fledgling companies that GW is held up against, should they wish to grow to such a size. The large amount of variety leads to a large margin of unbalance, and neccesarilly so, as it would be stale and boring otherwise.

Lastly, to once again reference the card game "balance" you mentioned earlier, how many new numbers and suits have they added in the last few years?

**Frozocrone**

They've slowly nerfed Assault over the years. The only recent support it's had is for Marines only, which is charge from Deep Strike and deny Overwatch (howling banshees get this too, but they are S3 lol).

**kodos**

spacelord321 wrote:

As I said the meta shifts.

And what has the Meta to do with GW not writing a CSM Codex for 4 Editions now?

**Kilkrazy**

Doe 40K need to be balanced?

Is the lack of balance something that needs to be fixed?

**spacelord321**

kodos wrote:
spacelord321 wrote:

As I said the meta shifts.

And what has the Meta to do with GW not writing a CSM Codex for 4 Editions now?

I thought they got one in 6th...

But I still think orks got it worse... they need some MC status for KK

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frozocrone wrote:
They've slowly nerfed Assault over the years. The only recent support it's had is for Marines only, which is charge from Deep Strike and deny Overwatch (howling banshees get this too, but they are S3 lol).

Which is why it's coming back now. The Marines are just the beginning. I can't wait for old first turn stealer charges and whatnot again!

**kodos**

spacelord321 wrote:

I thought they got one in 6th...

there some books for Chaos Renegades....

**spacelord321**

Crimson Devil wrote:
spacelord321 wrote:
Crimson Devil wrote:
spacelord321 wrote:
GW is not responsible for this mess. Munchkin gamers will always arise, eventually, in any system that has been around this long.

The fact that people blame GW is hilarious and a self serving cycle. These people whine and complain at GW, and at the same time, praise and admire people who take the obvious 2-3 toughest units in a codex and fit as many as possible of said units as they can into a list... (not all, but generally from my experience).

...and you call these people champions? It's no wonder that this is what GW gave you.... it's what you showed them you wanted. Not a game that we can realize amazing sci-fi stories with, but like the reality of insecure people themselves, an arms race where we can use our societal leverage (money) to gain traction against everyone around us.

We ALL messed this up, not GW. Blame them all you want, but I've been passive on this board watching many of you jump amongst the strongest meta army time after time, with your dollars actually winning games for you. Its funny. Now, after the game is reaching the point where those same people can't spend enough to keep ahead of the meta, the complaints of brokenness have risen drastically. Ha!!! You created this.

Disclaimer... I've played mech Tau since 3rd. I had fielded a riptide during 6 and 7th on 3 different occasions, each a single one in those games. I have never used riptides in any but those three. My win ratio was at about 40% at that time with draws happening frequently as well. Don't let munchkin gamers intimidate you. They are too afraid to try to face you in a fair match, and are the ones who complain, as their ego has a vested interest in 40k, instead of their imagination.

(Edit...I will admit that the players that switch armies to play to the current meta are a large driver of GWs total sales, so in a weird paradoxical way their method of playing is also one of the main things that keeps the game afloat.)

That's not how it works. If you create a situation that gets out of hand, YOU will be held responsible for the outcome.

Say for example you give a monkey a gun. If he shoots somebody, the police are not going to arrest the monkey. They're going to arrest you. In your case; GW gave a bunch of monkeys guns. You got shot and now you want to go all Charlton Heston on them.

And so in your comparison you're the monkey?

I think I see the problem...

You're right, I apologize for disagreeing with you.

I find it interesting you play Tau and you seem to be advocating the very argument that the anti-tau lobby is pushing. "All Tau players are donkey-caves, for simply choosing to play that army in the first place."

Because you can, doesn't mean you should. My fellow Tau players spamming tides is one of the situations that has people fleeing the game. They are playing within the rules but not within ettiquette.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kodos wrote:
spacelord321 wrote:

I thought they got one in 6th...

there some books for Chaos Renegades....

The hardback in 6th was renegades? 1st slaughter maybe? Can't remember, everyone played circus deamons then.

**wuestenfux**

Xerics wrote:
GW cant fix it game. However GW AND the playerbase can. If GW would listen to us and maybe fully playtest its rules with people outside of GW then I think you will see a better edition. Let GW make a codex and not release it. Then ask for volunteers on their website to recieve an un published codex to test the rules and have them give feedback.

What's the player base?
Here I think about tournament players in the first place. They have a quite different opinion about 40k than players playing for leisure.

**GreyCrow**

spacelord321 wrote:
shiwan8 wrote:
spacelord321 wrote:
GW is not responsible for this mess.
...

Oohh, oohhh! Lets use your poker analogy!

If GW made decks of cards, then they are a casino that let's me pick my hand before the poker game starts. "Well I'll take a straight flush, because i can only be betean by a straight flush of the trump suit" (codex of the day).

It's not balanced and never has been. Is it skewing towards larger units? Yes. Is the meta set in stone? No!!! It changes a lot! Are there codex imbalances? Absolutely, but they do shift over the years. I've left myself when I felt I would just wait out the whole serpent shield meta.... and it ended (I know, I know!).

If you have to win just to feel justified in your hobby, switch armies. If you want to start sticking it to the meta chasers, start taking hard counters to SPECIFIC meta builds to tourneys, not for the purpose of winning overall. Enough specific counters start working and those OP players will have to shift out of her comfort zone. I'm trying to design my next tourney list to specifically counter Tau tidewing and Surge builds. I hate the bad name these players have given Tau, and I hope that I can make some munchkin monster tau players rage quit and sell on ebay.

You gotta love it when someone arguments against you and end up making your case even further

You see, once again in the casino example, the casino designed an imbalanced game. And not even you blame the players for these imbalances. Acknowledging that there are imbalances doesn't imply accepting these imbalances and just put up with them, waiting for the oh merciful meta change.
When you design good hands and crap cards, and sell both of them at equal value without telling the players whether they are good or gak, it's borderline false advertising :p

You see, what you don't understand is that I don't want to stick it to the meta chasers, because they are not ruining the game. They did not take the game and make it into something awful, because everything they do is 100% legal within the ruleset. There will always be players who play competitively in PVP games and that's perfectly fine. But when the game is awful enough that the competitiveness is defined in the meta (unit selection) rather than the game itself (ruleset). Just because something is allowed, it will be done. It's human nature

You then take solace in the fact that the imbalances change from Codex to Codex. Sweet Eisenhorn, thank the Emprah that GW gives me the opportunity to buy my way into winning games because I can afford to spam the new flavour of the month which coincidentally matches with their brand new kit. Pay2Win games always have had a good reputation, and enjoy long lasting succes, don't they /sarcasm off.

You suggest to change armies, because the game is rigged and might as well take the rigging in your favour. That's a sound advice, good outside of the box thinking and I can't argue with that. I'll even go one step further, why not change games at all, because many players share my disinterest for rigged games. And that's no wonder why GW has been bleeding sales at a staggering pace for the past few years, and the combined release of AoS and B@C (+ the release of the new SM codices which are the most played faction) managed only to stop the bleeing without starting the healing process. If 2 big releases per year is the only thing that allows a company to keep their customers, then clearly they are on the wrong track.

The implied premise of a game is that everybody starts with a fair chance and their skills as well as a tad of randomness are what determines the outcome of the game. It is not the case in 40k and that's definitely not the fault of any type of player if some players have access to good rules and some others don't.

The new releases of GW clearly show that they care nothing about the game balance. I can't wait to see players ragequit because of the stupid Librarius psychic powers.

**hobojebus**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Doe 40K need to be balanced?

Is the lack of balance something that needs to be fixed?

Look how x-wing's taken off people want a balanced game that's quick to play and they can't find that with either of GW's games.

No one wants to play a game that's decided in the list building stage.

If both sides don't have a 50/50 chance then I've no interest.

**spacelord321**

wuestenfux wrote:
Xerics wrote:
GW cant fix it game. However GW AND the playerbase can. If GW would listen to us and maybe fully playtest its rules with people outside of GW then I think you will see a better edition. Let GW make a codex and not release it. Then ask for volunteers on their website to recieve an un published codex to test the rules and have them give feedback.

What's the player base?
Here I think about tournament players in the first place. They have a quite different opinion about 40k than players playing for leisure.

Exactly. I enjoy both (having a top mid dex), but the two sides seem to be at odds more than I can l remember

**Kilkrazy**

wuestenfux wrote:
Xerics wrote:
GW cant fix it game. However GW AND the playerbase can. If GW would listen to us and maybe fully playtest its rules with people outside of GW then I think you will see a better edition. Let GW make a codex and not release it. Then ask for volunteers on their website to recieve an un published codex to test the rules and have them give feedback.

What's the player base?
Here I think about tournament players in the first place. They have a quite different opinion about 40k than players playing for leisure.

The player base changes according to the state of the rules.

I used to be a casual 'fun' player who went to small local tournaments as a good way of getting several games in a day, as well as motivation for fininshing armies and terrain. I gave it up because of rules sprawl and expense.

How can GW get me back into the game? Simply by taking all the Apoc stuff they produced as optional supplements during 5th edition, and making it optional supplements agains, not core rules.

Would this change piss off everyone who thinks the current edition is best game ever? I hope not, because all the Psychich Phase, Gigantic Creatures, Flyers and so on would still be a valid part of the game, but not compulsory for those who didn't want to play them.