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.

Please note that I am working from a point of view here that is purely, my opinion.

As the title asks," Could a lack of Focus be the Fatal Flaw with the latest editions of 40K?".


Current status and direction of the game/rules:

GW is trying to make a game of everything for everyone. That they are doing so, in the pursuit of selling models. This isn't a statement of condemnation, just an acceptance of the reality that GW is a publicly traded multinational corporation with a duty to their stockholders to generate money.

Their current business model seems to be that they are trying to give the players a reason to buy as many models as their imaginations can conceive by removing the restrictions on what model combinations are allowed. All in all, a good short term sales strategy.

But what about the long term?



My observations:

By trying to make the game for everyone (read as- attempting to cater to players of vastly different gaming expectations), GW is in effect fracturing the player base (read as- 40K player community).

That by creating a rule set with no clear focus or structure other than the very nebulous "Forge the Narrative" GW has left it to the players with no centralized point from which to discuss their expectations of the game.

Because there is no centralized starting point, the various players are left to start from their own personal and often extreme views of what to expect from a game. As is normal for many humans, rather than spend hours negotiating what type of game we are going to play, the players tend to gravitate towards like minded individuals and avoid those with different playing philosophies(read as different play styles). In essence, the players form cliques.

Once a group of players have formed a clique, there is a very common tendency to belittle those who choose to play by a different philosophy. The psychological reasons for this are many but they all have the same effect of creating an exclusionary attitude that is often dismissive of "non-believers" and is "occasionally" openly hostile to those who play differently.
We first saw this in the Casual Gamer Mafia versus the Competitive Tourney players.

Over time, such divisions tend to grow deeper. As each group becomes more entrenched in their position, they grow less tolerant of any deviation from the accepted play philosophy/playstyle. Often the groups will begin fracturing from within as players try to open up the play-style to a bit of diversity. These factions are usually viewed as somewhat "heretical" and are shunned by their original group.
We now see this in the, "Your not Playing Casual Enough!" and the "If you're not playing it as a RPG style then you are doing it wrong" comments.



My hypothesis:

Table-top gaming is all about the community of players. That without a thriving community, few players would be willing to invest in a game, no matter what the price point. (Anecdotal evidence supports this as in a few friends of mine developed a game and offered it free to the players at our local flgs. Most common comment was, "No point if no one else is playing it".) Players want to know that their will be others to play against before they even invest in learning a set of free rules. Now my friends are talking about doing a kickstrarter and those same players are now getting interested.

What does this have to do with 40K? Doesn't it have a massive playerbase already?

Well, yes, it has a substantial player-base/player community, but there is compelling evidence that this community has been dwindling drastically.

I believe this fall off in the numbers of players has less to do with market pricing and more to do with how the lack of focus and structure are creating a divided player community. That such division is preventing the community from engaging in the activities that bring in new players. That not only do the entrenched factions drive people away with the negativity but that the things that attract the curiosity of new players (pick-up games, large-scale themed battles and large gatherings of players who are all playing the system the same) are becoming less common.

Some will say that their casual group of friends bring in new players. this is true, they will bring in 1 maybe 2 players every couple of years for every casual group of 4-6 players. In that same time they will often lose that same number or even more. In no way does this match the potential of what can be generated by a flgs with a harmonious community that, for the most part, agrees as to what game they are playing.


Summation:

My points are that:
A) The lack of focus has left room for greatly varied interpretations of how the game is to be played.
B) That the various interpretations have created ever growing and deepening divisions within the 40K community.
C) That these divisions create an atmosphere that turns away new players.
D) These divisions within the community prevent the 40K player-base from engaging in "community building activities" that bring in new players.
and
E) Without new players, the community dwindles to a point of where prospective new players ask, "What is the point in investing in a game that no one plays in my area?"


Discuss,

ff

Interesting.

I think that GW may be splashing around at the deep end of the pool (large numbers of 28mm models) instead of either being a 28mm skirmish game or a 6 or15 mm wargame. This is where the lack of focus may hurt, but at the same time it may also create unique opportunities. No 28mm skirmish game really lets you uncork such truly massive armies. No 6 or 15 mm war game lets you have such detailed character models.

I think GW would be well served by having both Apocolypse and Kill Teams as well developed extensions of the core rules so that players were more easily able to structure the gaming experience they wanted in advanced. An official set of 'Tournament Rules' for a common base point might also be handy (ie general point level, Battle Forged only, etc).

Truthfully, by creating these games within the game GW might open up extra opportunities for themselves.

I also think a number of official video battle reports would clear up a lot about how the game is supposed to be played.

The reason why 28mm skirmish games do not allow you to uncork massive armies is, it doesn't work.

The basic concept of skirmish games is to have a lot of detail in the rules and models for individual figures. This cannot be reconciled with very large numbers of figures because they cost too much, take too long to paint, take up too much space on the table, and games are too slow to play.

40K as you say would be better split into a detailed skirmish game like Kill Team, and a streamlined Apocalypse style game, around the core rules which work pretty well at 1,000 to 2,000 points.

The issue is they have rules that are written for a skirmish/company level game that they encourage massive armies with. That's mutually exclusive because rules meant for smaller-scale battles tend to have more depth and detail, while larger-scale tends to be more abstract. There's a reason why the vast majority of actual large-scale wargames are 15mm or lower, and everything not large-scale is 28mm or higher.

What they should do is have simplified, abstract, streamlined rules for large scale 40k games and the more detailed, almost 2nd edition/RT-like rules for the platoon and company and squad-level games where that level of detail is beneficial and doesn't just bog the game down with superfluous rubbish.

I think the hypothesis is flawed because I don't see an incompatibility between competitive play and non-competitive. Zwei-something had a great big argument with several of us in another thread (well, repeated threads really) that improving it for competitive play made it worse for non-competitive players. The idea was never supportable. And in fact, the reverse is more the case.

Someone thinks a Revenant Titan is cool, so they spend (a lot) of money on it, paint it up, are really happy that this will be the centrepiece of their army. And then find no-one will play them. That is an example of poor balance restricting options. I really like Howling Banshees. The idea of them is cool to me. I would like to have a swarm of them in my army. But doing so is pretty much pressing an "I lose" option. Or at least putting myself at a severe disadvantage. Thus I am forced to choose between game effectiveness and fluff taste. If their points cost were adjusted to be more appropriate to their power, I would not be forced to choose and thus fluffy / narrative play is not penalized. If fluffy / narrative play is not penalized, you get more of it.

This dichotomy between casual play and competitive play is only touted as a real thing by those trying to defend WH40K's weakness as a competitive game. In fact, there's no especial reason why there should be a dichotomy and it's only when someone points out that WH40K is poor as a strategy game that people raise this false notion that you'd have to lose something for casual players if you improved that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jefffar wrote:
I think that GW may be splashing around at the deep end of the pool (large numbers of 28mm models) instead of either being a 28mm skirmish game or a 6 or15 mm wargame. This is where the lack of focus may hurt, but at the same time it may also create unique opportunities. No 28mm skirmish game really lets you uncork such truly massive armies. No 6 or 15 mm war game lets you have such detailed character models.

I think you're onto something there. I cannot be the only person who thought Space Marine / Epic 40K, was the highpoint of the setting as an actual strategy / tactics game.

I don't see the problem with there being a lack of focus. Just use Steady Shot or Cobra Shot more often, depending on your spec.

The problem isn't GW trying to make the gun fun for everyone, it's the veteran players who are longing for a time long lost and refusing to accept change

 Lobomalo wrote:
The problem isn't GW trying to make the gun fun for everyone, it's the veteran players who are longing for a time long lost and refusing to accept change

Be careful when handling those strawmen, they're a fire hazard.

I play at two different clubs in two different cities and the biggest point of contention for me is the fact the new rule set leaves so much open to discussion. It's really annoying to have to remember two sets of house rules and make sure I bring the correct list for the correct club.

I feel there is a fissure between the casual and competitive community. The fissure I have noticed is that the competitive players have no issue with only selecting the best models from a codex and the casual ones, myself included look at our codex and wish that all of the units were useful and not viable in one specific scenario. So now when I play I bring a tougher tournament list and a fluff list to have a fun list and use our units that will never see the light of day. It works out well for GW as I have purchased more plastic to ensure I can have fun with either type of opponent.

As an indicator on how well I feel this had been working for the 40k community I have seen both of my clubs slowly bleeding players. Two years ago when 6th came out one club had a regular sunday showing of roughly 20 players, my second club about 12. Now the first club is lucky to see 10 on a good day and the other maybe 6.

 Lobomalo wrote:
The problem isn't GW trying to make the gun fun for everyone, it's the veteran players who are longing for a time long lost and refusing to accept change

You mean those heady days when WH40K was clearly written and all the armies balanced?

Even as a strawman, that doesn't make sense.

 knas ser wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:
The problem isn't GW trying to make the gun fun for everyone, it's the veteran players who are longing for a time long lost and refusing to accept change

You mean those heady days when WH40K was clearly written and all the armies balanced?

Even as a strawman, that doesn't make sense.

Not a straw man. There are at least three shops I play at since I have started and they all have the same issue, veteran players looking down on those getting into the hobby who complain about a time when things were "better". I've watched as potential players flat out changed their minds about getting into the game because of this mindset, because, as one of these new players, we really do not want to hear about how things used to be. This has no bearing on now. If you want to think about a time long by, keep it to yourself because this isn't what we, as new players, in the here and now want to hear.

I cannot speak for all new players on this, but for the few dozen who I see on a weekly basis around the shops this is the case. We flat out refuse to play with veterans most of the time because all we hear throughout the game and all around the shop are whines.

For this game to continue to grow or even to continue to keep going at a stagnant rate, you need to get new players into the game and showing them disdain or becoming annoyed with them because they don't want to hear or care about how things used to be, is only going to push them away.

This, is not a straw man. This is an actual occurrence at the shops I attend.

The plural of anecdote isn't data.

If you want new players to the game, how about making a ruleset that was properly written and balanced, with a reasonable entry fee and easy to access starter point.

 Blacksails wrote:
The plural of anecdote isn't data.

If you want new players to the game, how about making a ruleset that was properly written and balanced, with a reasonable entry fee and easy to access starter point.

As a new player in a playgroup of mostly newish players. Some were around for 6th, the rest of us are 7th, we really haven't come across anything we couldn't figure out for ourselves.

These imbalances you are alluding to simply do not exist to us because we were not around for a time when things may have been as "balanced" as you claim. To us, this is how it is and we are fine with this. To veterans, this edition is broken, imbalanced and badly written. Do you really think new players want to sit and listen to this?

I agree about the entry fee, had to use a paycheck to actually finish an army, but I'm glad I did as I have loved the Warhammer series for over a decade so a little money to have my army is worth it to me.

You'll note I never alluded to there ever being a time of better balance.

I'm simply stating that the game could be improved, which would be the real solution to bringing in new players.

The fact that you could make it work is irrelevant to pointing out that the game does in fact lack in several key areas. Pointing out that you can make it work actually strengthens the argument that 40k needs help, as a game shouldn't have to be house ruled, or fixed, or patched by the players, especially after the cost of this particular system.

I also further wanted to point out that your experiences are not facts, or data. Don't assume that you club is representative of anyone else's experiences.

 Blacksails wrote:
You'll note I never alluded to there ever being a time of better balance.

I'm simply stating that the game could be improved, which would be the real solution to bringing in new players.

The fact that you could make it work is irrelevant to pointing out that the game does in fact lack in several key areas. Pointing out that you can make it work actually strengthens the argument that 40k needs help, as a game shouldn't have to be house ruled, or fixed, or patched by the players, especially after the cost of this particular system.

I also further wanted to point out that your experiences are not facts, or data. Don't assume that you club is representative of anyone else's experiences.

You're right, using my clubs alone would not work. The opinions of new players across all of the forums I am a member of can though.

You are right, the game can always be better, but this does not denote a problem with the game. I can't think of a game that could be made better with some modern day tweaking. Flying kings in Checkers comes to mind for some reason.

This is a sensitive issue on the forums as I have seen, but I have seen this same mindset in other games as well and it has always been an issue for newer players.

 Lobomalo wrote:


You're right, using my clubs alone would not work. The opinions of new players across all of the forums I am a member of can though.

You are right, the game can always be better, but this does not denote a problem with the game. I can't think of a game that could be made better with some modern day tweaking. Flying kings in Checkers comes to mind for some reason.

Which is still a small cross section. The issue with the game isn't because of veterans talking about disliking the current edition. That's a symptom to the issue that 40k is becoming increasingly fractured, lacking in balance, and sliding further down into bloated and poorly written rules.

While everything always having room for improvement doesn't automatically imply its broken is true, 40k is definitely in need of some help. The game isn't balanced. The game isn't well written. The game is clunky. The game is costly. The game is confusing and often poorly laid out. The game doesn't even lend itself to 'Forging a Narrative' very well because of the issues I outlined.

In the case of 40k, there is a problem, and it can be a lot better.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:


You're right, using my clubs alone would not work. The opinions of new players across all of the forums I am a member of can though.

You are right, the game can always be better, but this does not denote a problem with the game. I can't think of a game that could be made better with some modern day tweaking. Flying kings in Checkers comes to mind for some reason.

Which is still a small cross section. The issue with the game isn't because of veterans talking about disliking the current edition. That's a symptom to the issue that 40k is becoming increasingly fractured, lacking in balance, and sliding further down into bloated and poorly written rules.

While everything always having room for improvement doesn't automatically imply its broken is true, 40k is definitely in need of some help. The game isn't balanced. The game isn't well written. The game is clunky. The game is costly. The game is confusing and often poorly laid out. The game doesn't even lend itself to 'Forging a Narrative' very well because of the issues I outlined.

In the case of 40k, there is a problem, and it can be a lot better.

You may be right, but I think this is a problem for you, because of previous experience with other editions. I'll repeat, for my play group and the shops I frequent, there is balance, the game is well written, the game is not clumpy nor is it confusing or poorly laid out. We create our own stories for our games so forging a narrative isn't an issue and it is indeed costly.

For the players I play with, the game is not in need of help, it is in need of acceptance and understanding from those who do not like what it has become.

 Lobomalo wrote:


You may be right, but I think this is a problem because of previous experience with other editions. I'll repeat, for my play group and the shops I frequent, there is balance, the game is well written, the game is not clumpy nor is it confusing or poorly laid out. We create our own stories for our games so forging a narrative isn't an issue and it is indeed costly.

For the players I play with, the game is not in need of help, it is in need of acceptance and understanding from those who do not like what it has become.

Its not in need of acceptance or understanding to what it has become. Many people can see what its become and don't like it, for a variety of reasons.

I can assure you though, while the game may function in your group due to all being of the same mindset, the game itself is not balanced. Looking at the Eldar and Tau codices compared to the Ork codex, or Blood Angels shows a very clear and obvious discrepancy in balance. While its possible to self-police and ensure no one is bringing a list too strong, its not an acceptable solution for many others.

 Lobomalo wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:


You're right, using my clubs alone would not work. The opinions of new players across all of the forums I am a member of can though.

You are right, the game can always be better, but this does not denote a problem with the game. I can't think of a game that could be made better with some modern day tweaking. Flying kings in Checkers comes to mind for some reason.

Which is still a small cross section. The issue with the game isn't because of veterans talking about disliking the current edition. That's a symptom to the issue that 40k is becoming increasingly fractured, lacking in balance, and sliding further down into bloated and poorly written rules.

While everything always having room for improvement doesn't automatically imply its broken is true, 40k is definitely in need of some help. The game isn't balanced. The game isn't well written. The game is clunky. The game is costly. The game is confusing and often poorly laid out. The game doesn't even lend itself to 'Forging a Narrative' very well because of the issues I outlined.

In the case of 40k, there is a problem, and it can be a lot better.

You may be right, but I think this is a problem for you, because of previous experience with other editions. I'll repeat, for my play group and the shops I frequent, there is balance, the game is well written, the game is not clumpy nor is it confusing or poorly laid out. We create our own stories for our games so forging a narrative isn't an issue and it is indeed costly.

For the players I play with, the game is not in need of help, it is in need of acceptance and understanding from those who do not like what it has become.

Or maybe the veteran players know more about the game, what works, what doesn't and what leads to fun games. The fact that they see the new edition of 40k lacking in the balanced/fun department should be telling. Maybe instead of dismissing them, find out why they think the game is not fun anymore. If you haven't noticed deep balance issues, maybe you haven't played enough or you play with a small group of like-minded friends.

Or maybe we know what fun is for us. We have played against Tau and Eldar and we definitely understand their strengths, do the next game we change our tactics and for the most part, we usually beat these same players consistently the next time.

What an army has access to and what you bring does not give you a win, superior tactics and dice rolls do.

The gun lines of the Tau player for example are daunting, but on a map with a lot of LoS blocking terrain and objectives scattered all around, this advantage disappears and the game becomes balanced.

We may not be veterans, but a veteran is simply someone who has been around longer and experienced more.

When it comes to 7th edition though, we are all equals as anything before this, no longer matters.

Again, this is my observation. It may be different for you and where you play and that is fine, I was listing one of the reasons I feel that this game has, to quote the original poster,

"lacked focus"

 MWHistorian wrote:
Or maybe the veteran players know more about the game, what works, what doesn't and what leads to fun games. The fact that they see the new edition of 40k lacking in the balanced/fun department should be telling. Maybe instead of dismissing them, find out why they think the game is not fun anymore. If you haven't noticed deep balance issues, maybe you haven't played enough or you play with a small group of like-minded friends.

To be fair though, the last scenario in your post is what GW believes is the "correct" way to play. And, for all the flack I give them and all the vitriol I hold, in a group like that 40k works out reasonably well. It's when you play competitively or play pick-up games where you never know who will turn up for a game is where 40k has the problems, because for every group who plays like GW does and picks Howling Banshees because they look cool and suit the army, rules be damned, there's the guy who will show up with a Gravstar or Screamerstar because he can.

Now yes, having balanced rules fixes that problem because you never run into a situation where a unit is total crap to where you never want to take it (Howling Banshees) or so good that you want as many as you can get (Riptide) or where you can combo things to be near unbeatable (Coteaz and Friends, Seercouncil + Baron Sathonix). It's pretty clear though that GW either doesn't know or doesn't care about balance, or just have no desire to impose any kind of restrictions that they don't have to and leave it to the players to actually decide these things for themselves, which is just as wrong because if you're rewording or outright throwing out half the rules, then why are you paying $85 for them in the first place?

Jefffar wrote:Interesting.

I think that GW may be splashing around at the deep end of the pool (large numbers of 28mm models) instead of either being a 28mm skirmish game or a 6 or15 mm wargame. This is where the lack of focus may hurt, but at the same time it may also create unique opportunities. No 28mm skirmish game really lets you uncork such truly massive armies. No 6 or 15 mm war game lets you have such detailed character models.

I think GW would be well served by having both Apocolypse and Kill Teams as well developed extensions of the core rules so that players were more easily able to structure the gaming experience they wanted in advanced. An official set of 'Tournament Rules' for a common base point might also be handy (ie general point level, Battle Forged only, etc).

The lack of focus now goes beyond the scale issues, of which I agree are an issue. I have played with15mm proxies and the game "flowed" better due to the scale making tactical movement relevant. But I digress.

The lack of focus I am referring to is that the game tries to do everything with a one size fits all rule set. GW has recently backslid into trying to make the game "a narrative non-game story telling exercise" that is still also trying to be a role playing game, a War-game with competing factions, a Skirmish Game, a Rogue Trader era Mercenary forces game, a high model count horde game, a low model count mini-titan game, an aerial combat game, a tank battle game, a back-story re-enactment game and with all of the aforementioned varieties......a make up your own rules to try and make the system work game.
Seriously, I can't believe anyone actually paid for a rule set that tells you to pretty much go out and make up your own rules, yet "some" did. I will say that the fact that our local game stores didn't sell-out of the new edition over night was quite telling and gives me hope that some of the player base have decided to stop rewarding GW's poor workmanship.


As to Apoc and Kill Teams??...... If developed as stand alone extensions they are fine. It is the inclusion in the base rules as a "regular" part of 40K that causes issues. Same goes for escalation, formations and flyers.Now, I would be willing to accept such additions in the BRB if GW would just note that these are optional rules and not an integral part of the core rules. It is tyhe jamming them all under the 40k one-size fits all umbrella that is tearing the community apart in my opinion.

Kilkrazy wrote:The reason why 28mm skirmish games do not allow you to uncork massive armies is, it doesn't work.

I agree that the scale is a big issue, But, it is no longer the the largest issue. The "core rules" now have "more ways to play" than "Hefner" has had wives, types of drugs "Kieth Richards" has ingested and "drummers" who have played with AC/DC.

You might remember that back at the end of 5th I was looking for people to help me set up a 15mm version of 40K using proxies. The response was less than enthusiastic because the players were already invested/entrenched in 40K's 28mm scale. The replies were, "I don't have the money for another scale of models" and when I pointed out how much less 15mm was then they would say "But 15mm models don't have the detail / are poor castings / or there are no good 15mm proxies for my army.
When I showed them the new 15mm sci-fi /sci-fantasy mini's available they would then say "Those are nice but, (what is the point of buying them when no one else will have them?).".

It is this," I want to be a part of the herd / community" mentality that has been keeping 40k alive in spite of GW's short view handling of their IP. Yet, now the latest incarnations of the rules are removing that one feature. The fracturing of the player base has removed the community from the equation. Instead, the game is creating isolated player groups that are dismissive of others who play even the slightest bit differently.


In my above reply to Jeffar, I detailed the many of directions that GW is currently and simultaneously taking the Core rules. I also then noted how GW had relaxed the list building restrictions without setting forth a cohesive base method of play.

IMO, GW has basically made the rules to where each person interprets them in their own way......So, in essense they have Religious-ized the book from a how to manual into a subjective belief methodology..... ...... Yeah, that has proven to be a sound strategy for harmonious co-existence through-out the history of the real world.

knas ser wrote:I think the hypothesis is flawed because I don't see an incompatibility between competitive play and non-competitive. Zwei-something had a great big argument with several of us in another thread (well, repeated threads really) that improving it for competitive play made it worse for non-competitive players. The idea was never supportable. And in fact, the reverse is more the case.

Please go back and re-read my hypothesis. It makes no assumption about an "actual" incompatibility between casual and competitive play.

My hypothesis is from purely what type of game that the average player is expecting to play. That, while in the past there might have been balance issues, most players were on board as to what to expect from a game of 40K. Starting with 6th edition GW decided to go for a "less restrictive" Forge the Narrative" philosophy of rules writing. To me this "Forge the Narrative" lingo was just ad-speak for, "Just buy the Damn models because we are no longer going to try to write a decent rules system".

Lobomalo wrote:The problem isn't GW trying to make the gun fun for everyone, it's the veteran players who are longing for a time long lost and refusing to accept change

Wow,...just wow. A game with a well developed player community that is dying off because of divisions over the directions of the rules is somehow the "Players Fault???" With thinking like that, you would do well at GW corporate.

isatarin wrote:I play at two different clubs in two different cities and the biggest point of contention for me is the fact the new rule set leaves so much open to discussion. It's really annoying to have to remember two sets of house rules and make sure I bring the correct list for the correct club.

I feel there is a fissure between the casual and competitive community.

...........-snip-................

As an indicator on how well I feel this had been working for the 40k community I have seen both of my clubs slowly bleeding players. Two years ago when 6th came out one club had a regular sunday showing of roughly 20 players, my second club about 12. Now the first club is lucky to see 10 on a good day and the other maybe 6.

Same thing has happened in some of the larger markets where I "was" playing. Flgs's at Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Denver and Baltimore / Annapolis have all seen steadily diminishing player turn out with this current direction GW has taken the game.

Lobomalo wrote:
For this game to continue to grow or even to continue to keep going at a stagnant rate, you need to get new players into the game and showing them disdain or becoming annoyed with them because they don't want to hear or care about how things used to be, is only going to push them away.

Yet,it could be said that you seem to show the same disdain and annoyance with the veteran players that you complain about. If this is not you intent then please correct me but if your intent is to belittle the veteran players for their views then I ask: "Why is it you are right to do this, but wrong for others of different viewpoints?"

You see, this is the exact divisive behaviour that I was describing in my hypothesis. This extreme "you are wrong to view it your way but I am right to view it my way" attitude that has crept into the 40k player-base is divisive by nature.When differing groups take strong opposing stances and refuse to compromise or even listen to each other all that is accomplished is a guaranteed way of destroying communication.........and without communication, you have no community.

Lobomalo wrote:

These imbalances you are alluding to simply do not exist to us because we were not around for a time when things may have been as "balanced" as you claim. To us, this is how it is and we are fine with this. To veterans, this edition is broken, imbalanced and badly written. Do you really think new players want to sit and listen to this?

Or, maybe you are just inexperienced? Just because you have not seen such in your self admitted very limited playing experience does not preclude the existence of such.

I remember being where you are now. from 3rd /4th ed through a good part of of 5th ed., I felt that the balance issues in existence at the time could be made up with good generalship. Then, as my experience grew, and GW's power creep became a power stampede, I realized what the other more experienced players were talking about. The players didn't "break" the game, GW did. GW not only broke the game, they did it flagrantly and told us to buy the current competitive armies /models if we wanted any chance at a fair / balanced game.

As to your last question, I'll answer with a question....

Do you think that veteran players enjoy or want new players to come up and tell them that "You have to like the new edition, omgitsawsome." or "You guys are playing it wrong."?

Lobomalo wrote:Or maybe we know what fun is for us. We have played against Tau and Eldar and we definitely understand their strengths, do the next game we change our tactics and for the most part, we usually beat these same players consistently the next time.

What an army has access to and what you bring does not give you a win, superior tactics and dice rolls do.

The gun lines of the Tau player for example are daunting, but on a map with a lot of LoS blocking terrain and objectives scattered all around, this advantage disappears and the game becomes balanced.

We may not be veterans, but a veteran is simply someone who has been around longer and experienced more.

When it comes to 7th edition though, we are all equals as anything before this, no longer matters.

Again, this is my observation. It may be different for you and where you play and that is fine, I was listing one of the reasons I feel that this game has, to quote the original poster,

"lacked focus"

Now, we are getting somewhere.

I agree that veteran players can become entrenched in the methodology of past editions. Yet, many have stuck around and learned the different editions. Now as to the anger over change??????? Well, maybe if GW had a more open approach as to the how and why changes are made, there would be less veteran disappointment / angst / rage. If GW just cared enough to release a "Whats changed and why" quick reference sheet / pamphlet, I'd bet some of the players that leave would stick around. Especially, if it seemed that GW was taking a balanced approach through measured changes based upon player feed back.

Having said this, I advise caution about minimizing veteran players feelings on the changes, after all in another 4 years (If 40K doesn't crater again like last year) you will be a couple of editions in and be the veteran whose input some new player is saying doesn't matter.

 Lobomalo wrote:

 knas ser wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:
The problem isn't GW trying to make the gun fun for everyone, it's the veteran players who are longing for a time long lost and refusing to accept change

You mean those heady days when WH40K was clearly written and all the armies balanced?

Even as a strawman, that doesn't make sense.

Not a straw man. There are at least three shops I play at since I have started and they all have the same issue, veteran players looking down on those getting into the hobby who complain about a time when things were "better".

Oh, well in that case, those people are idiots. I think you can make a case that WH40K 7th is somewhat worse than some previous editions, depending on what you like, but I don't think you can at all make a case that it was ever a well-constructed and balanced game. Okay then - sorry for calling that a strawman. However, I will say that I don't think this is what anyone in this (or most) threads is coming from so whilst the people in your shop might be deserving of such criticism, it's not an answer to the points that most people here are making. I'm certainly critical of the 7th ed. design and balance and I'm also certainly not doing it out of some misconception about golden days of better rules. It's an eternal cycle of fix one thing break another with GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
The plural of anecdote isn't data.

Yes it is. That's the point of data - it's a collection of information points. That's why a singular anecdote isn't useful but many of them start to constitute useful data.

You have a good point. I for one would like to see supplimental rulebooks that could focus on different types of game - one for cinematic battles, one for more tactical battles, one for more video-game like battles, one for small scale necromunda-esque battles, etc.

I don't think that'll ever happen though.

 knas ser wrote:


Yes it is. That's the point of data - it's a collection of information points. That's why a singular anecdote isn't useful but many of them start to constitute useful data.

You misunderstand.

A series of anecdotes is simply just that.

If you want data, you go and conduct research to gather appropriate the appropriate information.

Collecting a bunch of stories isn't proof of anything.