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.

 Steve steveson wrote:
I really want the people saying "balance is possible with open gaming and narrative play" to show games that manage it, as I can't think of any. Cirtanly non that reach the diversity and scale of 40k. Yes 40k could be more balanced, but the more open you get, the more rules interactions you get, the more room for broken combinations. And the more open the choices the more rules interact, the more likely there is to be problems.

Flames of War? Highly narrative game, vast amount of tactical possibilities, vastly superior balance.

 Steve steveson wrote:
I really want the people saying "balance is possible with open gaming and narrative play" to show games that manage it, as I can't think of any. Cirtanly non that reach the diversity and scale of 40k. Yes 40k could be more balanced, but the more open you get, the more rules interactions you get, the more room for broken combinations. And the more open the choices the more rules interact, the more likely there is to be problems.

The problem is not that the odd broken combination gets through whatever passes for "play testing" at GW, every single widely played game of any note has had those sorts of issues, be it CCG, electronic or tabletop, but the utter lack of action to correct it that is unforgivable.

With regard to narrative gaming, this has nothing to do with rules "openness" whatever that means, and everything to do with the player input. Infinity is perfectly usable as a ruleset to recreate a small force raiding a base in order to retrieve stolen data files, one can easily use FoW to try and recreate the landings at Omaha beach, want to play a game that represents the last ditch attempt of a beleaguered Retribution outrider force to break through an encircling Khador army? Warmachine will have you covered, want to play a game where a small allied infantry force tries to hold a farmhouse against a mechanised German force? Try Bolt Action!

There is nothing inherent to the GW ruleset that makes it more suitable for storytelling games, and to try and argue otherwise probably suggests a relative ignorance of other systems or an acceptance of the GW marketing spin more than anything.

Perfect balance is tricky, and pretty much requires a living ruleset of some sort, with regular FAQs and updates to ensure everything is balanced.

However, adding options to every faction/army/character, that might not be used often but that CAN be used if a particular tactic or build is dominating play, is Multiplayer Asymmetric Game Design 101.

Finding the current game full of flyers? Just pack the Specialised Super-Anti-Flyer Unit! Your codex does have one, obviously, because it's balanced. And if you've filled the force org slot with three of those and are still getting overwhelmed with flyers, it's time to bring in an Almost As Specialised Almost As Super-Anti-Flyer Unit or three.

Current game full of MSU vehicles? Switch around a bit so you have at least a few Specialised Super-Anti-Light-Vehicle units...

It's pretty easy.

What? Your codex doesn't have those units...? Not even one? Sorry, that's just plain bad game design. I would be quite willing to fail a student project that didn't include those kinds of backup options, where the designer didn't actually expect anyone to need to field very many of them, but where they are available in case another army's options proved unbalanced (because you can't predict for that perfectly, or balance for it perfectly, at least in the 1st iteration of your ruleset, even with way more playtesting than GW does).

 Steve steveson wrote:
I really want the people saying "balance is possible with open gaming and narrative play" to show games that manage it, as I can't think of any. Cirtanly non that reach the diversity and scale of 40k. Yes 40k could be more balanced, but the more open you get, the more rules interactions you get, the more room for broken combinations. And the more open the choices the more rules interact, the more likely there is to be problems.

That I've played: Infinity, Malifaux, Warmachine. None of them are perfect, and gurus on the game could likely point to things that are under- or over-costed or overly effective combos, but almost never to the extremes of funless non-games that 40K can manage. It's really not that hard, if the rules writers simply care about balance, and make an effort.

As for narratives, I've never had a real problem imagining a story with any of those games (especially not Malifaux, which has a whole chapter devoted to story-based encounters). Certainly, it was never as hard as justifying why an Ordo Xenos inquisitor was chilling out with Dark Eldar.

He's hanging with both vanilla and chocolate flavors of eldar, btw. Totally legit... and barely as "narrative" as the ridiculous combinations of unbound possible.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:

However, adding options to every faction/army/character, that might not be used often but that CAN be used if a particular tactic or build is dominating play, is Multiplayer Asymmetric Game Design 101.

Finding the current game full of flyers? Just pack the Specialised Super-Anti-Flyer Unit! Your codex does have one, obviously, because it's balanced. And if you've filled the force org slot with three of those and are still getting overwhelmed with flyers, it's time to bring in an Almost As Specialised Almost As Super-Anti-Flyer Unit or three.

That's pretty much how X-Wing works. Even though there's only 2 sides, they do end up doing mirror matches in tournaments. But yeah, you see TIE Fighter swarms, more people look at fielding assault missiles or the other various combination counters.

Cool. I've not played X-Wing yet. It is how most CCGs work, though, as well as Streetfighter style digital games.

As long as the game is fun to play, the models look great, the rules are clear and concise, and the armies are pretty balanced; then I don't care about narrative at all. If you do, you can easily interject that into your game. GW has only really got the model part down.

But some cool scenarios like ambushes, assaulting bases, and other types of games would be great as well.

take whatever you want from your collection and put it on the table.................. 85 dollars please.

they must have thought really hard on that one. probably took 5+ years in development and now they are ready to unveil their masterpiece.

xttz wrote:
GW have never stated anywhere their intent is to fix game imbalance. If anything, their design philosophy is the exact opposite; they're creating a 'sandbox' game where balance is set aside for story purposes. If you're expecting carefully balanced rules and stats from 40k, you're playing the wrong game, because that's not what they're selling. Try chess instead.

It's not chess?

Ahh, please to understand the confusion with their being so many "White Knights" on the board.

xttz wrote:
It's really sad to see so many old-school players bitch and moan when a good chunk of the extra features in this release are founded in some degree of nostalgia. Some people wouldn't be happy even if the manager of the design studio made a personal visit to their house, implemented their entire wishlist of terrible rules ideas and orally pleasured them afterward.

Maybe we old players are "bitching" because GW "is" ruining the game by trying to cash in on nostalgia. The move away from 2nd ed was hailed as a good move by the "majority" of the playerbase. In fact, sales figures back up that editions 3-5 saw the best growth for the 40k community.
6th has not been a success primarily "because" of GW revisiting broken game mechanics from the past. We "old" players bitch because we remember how bad these "nostalgic" elements were for game play.

Byte wrote:Well the information leaks have slowed down, but the GW hate in this thread has picked up. Hard to get through all the banter and hand wringing.

Hard to have a discussion with all the White Knights interrupting
every discussion to brand those who question GWs direction as "haters"(read heretics).

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Nem wrote:
They think they are appealing to casual gamers.

And it seems that they are appealing to most casual gamers as well.

My small group of friends & I can't wait to try some Unbound, as it now gives us the ability to play the super fluffy forces we've always wanted to but never could due to the how restrictive the "3 and done" slot system is...
- Our DA player is hyped as he can now field a pure Ravenwing + Deathwing force without being forced to take an expensive special character. Instead, he get's his Bike Chappy + Termie Libby and a 9free for all between the various Ravenwing units and then some Deathwing Termies to Deep Strike into play.
He also has a Chaos Marine force, (because let's face it, DA's are just CSM's who haven't admitted it yet!), and is wanting to try out an all Termie CSM force.

- Our Ork player loves his Nobs. Now he can just field nothing but various Nob units + Flash Gits + Battlewagons.

- Our Night Lords player is stoked about being able to field a proper 'Terrorwing' force of massed Raptors + Bikers + deep striking Termies with only a handful of Chaos Marines in a supporting roll.

- I myself can finally field a 100% Daemonic force of Tzeentch goodness supported by masses of Possessed, Warp Talons, Oblits & Daemon Engines.

And so on so forth...

We get it. GW made 7th ed "just" for "you" and "your" gaming group. I'm sure that you'll enjoy having the 40k universe all to "yourselves".

There is a difference between appealing to "most" casual players and appealing to "only the most" casual players.

Experiment wrote:Unbound is only 100% awful when used by the same donkeycaves who already abuse the hell out of the system with the sole intent of dick-punching their opponent & crushing their army as fast as possible.

Love the CGM(casual gamer mafia) hyperbole and propaganda here.

Seriously, I am tired of treating the special snowflakes with kit gloves.

9 times out of 10 the donkeycave is some casual gamer bully that wants to "force" you to play their "narrative" of where his /her "super special elite battle group" of nothing but homebrewed/home statted special characters wipes a legal army off the board.
( Actual quote from one of these people...." This is my Warlord, PureShadow. She is Commander Shadowsuns daughter. She costs 150 points and has the *new xv 28 stealth armor that only allows the opponent to target her if they are within 12". It has a 3+ save, 2++ invul and 2+ coversave that is re-rollable. She is armed with 2 experimental Fusion Gatlings that are range 18" S8 AP2 assault 3...blah blah...FNP.....blah blah Eternal warrior...and so on.) And the rest of the army is just as over the top.

Point being, I'm tired of being bullied with the threatof being branded as a comp donkeycave because I dont want to play with some emotionally challenged individual that is way to invested in their creation.

Experiment wrote:
Besides, IIRC, the WDW also mentioned that Unbound will be 'opponent's permission', which if true, means you can always just refuse to play it if that's your choice and/or you feel an opponent is only using it to curbstomp your army.

This right here is a major part of the problem that you don't seem to understand. It is not just unbound vs battle forged that are by opponents permission only. ALL GAMES are by opponents permission only. And you shouldn't need a WD to tell you that.

If we follow the implication of what you typed above then you are, in essence, saying that an unbound or battle forged player could in some way "force" another player with the same type army into a game. Yep seems to fit with the "casual/narrative" based players that I've had to deal with.

When I game, thats what I want to do, play a game. I do not want to instead help some individual live out their fantasy-reality. Seriously, not much in this life more unconfortable than finding out your opponent is semi-psychotic and in the course of playing against them you "break" their fantasy.

 TedNugent wrote:

 xttz wrote:


The more I think about Unbound, the more I like it. It lets me work around the flaws in GW's products without waiting 4 years between fixes. As a Tyranid player who owns only one FMC (and doesn't want to buy anymore), I can struggle to compete with certain perfectly FOC-legal builds. Unbound means I don't need to have a long conversation with my opponent before a game explaining my lack of ranged anti-armour and why there should be some kind of handicap to fight his AV14-heavy army. Instead I just take a more appropriate force without worrying about the overcrowded Elite slots or mandatory but poorly performing Troops.

Or it means, as the WD quote suggested, that he's going to show up with an entire list of AV14. Scoring AV14.

Because that is a legal list now. I don't understand why you can't understand that. It was in the very first White Dwarf quote. He said you can make an entire list of Leman Russes, and even encouraged it.

I understand it perfectly. Yes, 7E lets you take highly focused or spammy lists. But so did 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E and 6E - literally nothing has changed on that front. Anyone willing to field a scoring Russ list with no prior discussion or warning would also have no compunction about fielding pure Skyblight+FMC spam, Wave Serpent spam, re-rollable 2++ Daemon lists, or any number of other lists that are little fun to play against.. This is human nature, some people will just put their own sense of 'fun' in front of everyone else's and a bunch of text written in a game manual isn't going to change that.

What's new is that there is now a wider scope for both list creation and counter. While they weren't scoring under 6E, it's already perfectly legal to put 10 Leman Russ into a single FOC along with a very strong character unit. However there are two reasons I'm not worried about that scenario:

1) No one at my club ever randomly showed up with such a list without discussing it first, because they know it's not fun to play against.
2) If someone did say they wanted to try an armoured company list, I now have two ways to deal with it without changing or ignoring any rules. I can either stick with Battle Forged and override their scoring ability, or I can go Unbound and bring all the Elite options I own without needing to pad my list with pointless Troops or useless chaff to unlock certain formations.

If someone showed up to a game with one of the many now possible 'not fun' lists unannounced in 7E, I now at least have options to try and counter it. If I didn't have what I needed, they'd simply get the same response from me as under any of the previous 6 editions: tone it down or take it home.

All this "narrative" stuff misses the boat. Sure, you can do fun narrative games with your close friends. I enjoy it quite a bit as you can see in this thread here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/524342.page However, its not something I can do all the time, or even would want to do all the time. Most 40K for me consists of showing up at the store and getting a game with someone you don't know all that well, and even that isn't that common. Somebody has to mediate between us and we pay the game design company to do that. I don't want to feel bad if I use two fliers, and I would prefer not having to guilt my opponent into not using 6 fliers. Any two people ought to be able to meet up with any two legal lists and expect a fair game. I like a competitive game, I want a reasonably level playing field that isn't too random. Negotiating with strangers sucks. I want to be able to use the best things I can find without feeling like a jerk, and I want my opponent to be able to do the same. Yes there ware broken lists in the past. I expect there to be FEWER with each edition, not more.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:

 Flashman wrote:

 Brotherjanus wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
Could it be we are "exploring the time of ending".??

We are exploring the time of 40k ending for alot of people I believe.

Yes, this will be the first edition of 40K I haven't bought. It might be my age (38) or it might be that I prefer games with a bit more structure and balance.

Well, I have ten years on you (I'm 48), and will be avoiding this edition completely as well. Possibly even to the point of divesting myself entirely of 40k.

After playing several other games, from other manufacturers, over the last six months I will say that it becomes more obvious just how poorly done 40k really is as a game. Sad part is, I no longer think for people still clinging to it that it is the rules doing it, but the years of building and collecting armies.

Everything I have seen with this edition so far, from my personal perspective, sounds like this is actually going to be worse than 6th edition turned into. They are, once again, just piling more on top of an already clunky ruleset and fixing NOTHING of what is really needed. There are a few tweaks, sure, but not any true fixes from everything that is known at this point.

Well I am 58, so I've got ten years on you aswell. I've played second world war games, I dabbled in DnD in the seventies. If I wanted to play a fantasy type game I would. But I chose 40k instead. Random this, random that is not fun.

I too am in the 40-50-ish age range and agree with you guys. I sat out 6th ed and seeing as 7th ed looks to be only worse, I'll be sitting this one out too.

I have come to the opinion that 40k has reached a point for a pathfinder type ruleset. This is why I am now announcing the creation of the collaborative effort called the "Gamee Waaughyors"(GW). We are a group who will look to use the legal protection of "satire" and court decisions stating that unsupported games can not be protected by ip laws in order to produce a stream-lined and FREE "4DK" ruleset from past(no longer supported editions).

Later

I wonder if there will be substantial leaks this week, as they seem to have slowed down over the past one. Controlled leaks on GW's part?

kb305 wrote:
take whatever you want from your collection and put it on the table.................. 85 dollars please.

they must have thought really hard on that one. probably took 5+ years in development and now they are ready to unveil their masterpiece.

And there is the truth that they constantly deny. Of course they know that the majority of players adhere closely, if not in complete lockstep, with the rules in the book. These "little changes" which are in fact foundational paradigm shifts are suited just for those that strictly adhere to the rules and play in a socially competitive way or strictly competitive way. It's an obvious marketing ploy, but they cannot let that be stated outright.

You don't have to have rules written to explain how to use your imagination. I never had to tell any of my children how to play pretend or that if you don't like the way a game plays to change how it works. That ability is inherent in the human condition.

The same marketing stratagem can be witnessed in the new Psychic rules. They stated that they found that psykers were woeful in 6th ed. and needed to boost them. That's utter hogwash for anyone that has played the game. They merely added rules that would can cause you to buy another codex and more models from a historically poor performing line of product with an emphasis on purchasing the really big/expensive models that don't cost them that much more to make.

 Thokt wrote:
I wonder if there will be substantial leaks this week, as they seem to have slowed down over the past one. Controlled leaks on GW's part?

I think at the minimum we'll see the WD pretty early. The rulebook will be a hit or miss sort of thing on if it comes early I think.

New 40k video:

 Sidstyler wrote:

bullyboy wrote:
(oh, you play Tau...got it)

And?

Shooting is as much a part of the game as assault is and has every right to be, especially when you have entire armies dedicated to the concept, like Tau, which simply won't function without it. I've invested as much into this game as anyone else and I have every right to enjoy it the same, whether I'm playing Tau or Marines, and whether or not the dice I'm rolling are for bullets or clubs.

Assault is not "the most important aspect of 40k lore". It's an aspect, like shooting is, but nothing more than that. If it seems like the game, art or fluff revolves around assault or that it's glorified in some way, then it's only because close quarters fighting is considered more "cinematic" than shooting at range, and that's what GW's all about anymore. It's more "cinematic" when the plucky hero and the hard villain get into a long, dramatic, "honorable" sword fight instead of poking out of cover every few seconds to pop shots off at each other. Having the mighty Space Marine smash a demon's skull with his energy hammer tells a better "narrative" than having the same Marine put a bolter round between its eyes from range. In other words it makes the product look "cooler" and that's pretty much it.

If you're going to put quotation marks about what I said have the common decency to actually use the words I wrote and not insert your own. That's straight up BS right there and basically makes the rest of your material worthless.
I never once said shooting is NOT important, it is, but it should not be the only aspect of importance. Of course, someone who's army is geared around shooting would want ti that way so they can win all their battles of toy soldiers and be the king of the game store...well done, you're a legend. But since it's inception, 40K has had the assault phase be an integral part of the game and it should remain so. This does not mean that it should be a breeze for armies to charge into combat and mash the other army in one turn, but just because your army lacks cc ability or psykers should not diminish that role for other armies where they are important parts of their army.

For me, the worst thing (at least from the little I can glean here) is that the expectation and onus of who is "right" has changed too much. In the past, if you came with a batpoop crazy army of spammed OP stuff, you didn't reasonably expect it to be fine with everyone else. Now, that utterly ridiculous army is, according to WD, the defacto baseline for the game. If you break it, people will build it and (more importantly) buy it. It changes from the "bad guy" being the one bringing the previously illegal army to the mean guy who won't let him play with his completely legal toys. In a tourney setting, that's fine because all participants know (or at least should know) what they can or can't use. That isn't the case with pickup games with strangers.

I had an interesting discussion with another gamer yesterday about this and he said he noticed young gamers who came into 40k with 6e not having any issue with fliers, allies, and spam whereas it was a steep learning curve for him to accept (which he ultimately did). I suspect we'll have the same breakdown (pun intended) with this new edition that doubles down on the stuff seeming that alot of veteran players don't like whereas new players won't mind it as much since they don't know any better.

I'm probably coming across as a horrid WAAC tourney-playing GW-hater, but I have a pre-order placed with my FLGS for 7th edition, and I played a huge fluffy Apocalypse game yesterday with a bunch of such Extreme! Narrative Builders that none of them cared about points limits and they were using a more-or-less random mix of 4th to 6th ed rules (and a mix of 5th and 6th ed Apoc).

 xttz wrote:

puma713 wrote:Now, it is in the rules, so you might can see why those people are a little miffed by this.

You want to play by the rules? Awesome, because the rules now say you don't need to follow the FOC anymore!

. . .thanks? for simply repeating what I pointed out. Did you have anything to add to the conversation or did you just want to belittle others for having a differing opinion? Because right now, it seems like the latter rather than the former.

 Captain Avatar wrote:

Love the CGM(casual gamer mafia) hyperbole and propaganda here.
....
9 times out of 10 the donkeycave is some casual gamer bully that wants to "force" you to play their "narrative" of where his /her "super special elite battle group of nothing but homebrewed/home statted special characters wipes a legal army off the board.

Pro tip: it's generally considered poor form to complain about hyperbole, then write your own hyperbole within 2 lines

 Captain Avatar wrote:


Maybe we old players are "bitching" because GW "is" ruining the game by trying to cash in on nostalgia. The move away from 2nd ed was hailed as a good move by the "majority" of the playerbase. In fact, sales figures back up that editions 3-5 saw the best growth for the 40k community.
6th has not been a success primarily "because" of GW revisiting broken game mechanics from the past. We "old" players bitch because we remember how bad these "nostalgic" elements were for game play.

Byte wrote:Well the information leaks have slowed down, but the GW hate in this thread has picked up. Hard to get through all the banter and hand wringing.

Hard to have a discussion with all the White Knights interrupting
every discussion to brand those who question GWs direction as "haters"(read heretics).

We get it. GW made 7th ed "just" for "you" and "your" gaming group. I'm sure that you'll enjoy having the 40k universe all to "yourselves".

There is a difference between appealing to "most" casual players and appealing to "only the most" casual players.

You're misunderstanding me completely. I'm not defending or white knighting GW in any way shape or form. At no point have I said that I agreed with their practices or like their way of doing business. I disagree with a lot of their decisions, most notably the closure of the Specialist Games line. And if I wasn't so heavily invested with 20 years of Warhamming fluff, I very much doubt I'd ever get into this hobby today based on the merits of the rules.

I'm also not gaking up a rumour thread by whining about what GW should or should not be doing in some theoretical parallel universe. What I am doing is injecting some reality into this thread, and from this post it's clear you need some of that. GW did in fact make 7E just for him and his gaming group, and any other gaming groups just like it. They also made Rogue Trader, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E and 6E for the same audience. This should be abundantly clear by now after years of this approach to game design. Wailing and gnashing of teeth on some random internet forum isn't going to change the 40k game into something it isn't and never has been.

Complaining 40k doesn't have a tightly balanced ruleset is like ordering apple pie and complaining it doesn't taste of strawberries. If you want strawberries, go buy some strawberries and stop gaking up a news + rumour thread with your unrelated gripes.

I have really been enjoying 40k.
The players in the area (even at two tourneys i went too) have for the most part engaged in playing for the fun of the game rather than trying to bring the most OP unit spam to the table possible. Sure theres always a neck beard in every crowd, but for the most part, if you play for fun, take units you want to field together, the game can be a lot of fun and the lack of balance is not really a factor in how much fun i have.

The randomness can be a bit of a problem, however ANY game that relies on dice is inherently random. I too would like to see a bit more balance in 40k, however, even when loosing i enjoy seeing the game pan out. Narrative or not, the game was never designed for competitive play, and those often very vocal individuals in the community who complain endlessly about balance and wanting a competitive game will never be happy.

I enjoy building, covering and painting the models. I enjoy collecting said models. i enjoy playing the game with my friends. Since i play with my friends, the balance issue i not a big deal. If your playing with someone and you know they field cheese you can choose to either not play them, or to play cheese yourself.

I for one am interested to see what the next edition brings to the table. The daemon summoning psychic abilities worry me, but since NO ONE i know has seen what the rules are beyond the limited info GW has released. I'm not going to get all worked up and rage quit.

 xttz wrote:

Complaining 40k doesn't have a tightly balanced ruleset is like ordering apple pie and complaining it doesn't taste of strawberries. If you want strawberries, go buy some strawberries and stop gaking up a news + rumour thread with your unrelated gripes.

Wouldn't complaining that the rules not only aren't "tightly balance" but have also become even less balanced be right on the nose for a news and rumors discussion? Considering that the discussion all revolves around the news and rumors of the game becoming less balanced.

Pretty sure that is precisely on topic.

 xttz wrote:
GW did in fact make 7E just for him and his gaming group, and any other gaming groups just like it. They also made Rogue Trader, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E and 6E for the same audience. This should be abundantly clear by now after years of this approach to game design. Wailing and gnashing of teeth on some random internet forum isn't going to change the 40k game into something it isn't and never has been.

I actually agree with this. They have always said it is a "beer and pretzels" game. The more recent editions lent themselves to expansive Tournament play, but it was never a game built for tournaments and the people that crave that sort of balance/gameplay. Now that it has shifted back toward its roots a bit (and added some more loose allowances), the people clamoring for balance and rigidity in the rules seem to be the event/tournament crowd. The casual gamer can just as easily discuss with his opponent beforehand about the game, but the tournament player builds armies, practices, tweaks their list, etc., so to have a rule(s) come out that could possibly shake up that ritual is disturbing.

But, in the end, it was a beer and pretzels game that got picked up by the tournament scene. Now that it has shifted away from that again, the group that it picked up along the way isn't happy about it, while the ones who are happy may not notice the change as starkly as the event-goer.

Except 40K pretty much defies all but the most twisted and contorted definitions of what constitutes a "beer and pretzels" game.

Which brings back to the question of who, outside of themselves, are GW making the game for?

 puma713 wrote:

 xttz wrote:
GW did in fact make 7E just for him and his gaming group, and any other gaming groups just like it. They also made Rogue Trader, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E and 6E for the same audience. This should be abundantly clear by now after years of this approach to game design. Wailing and gnashing of teeth on some random internet forum isn't going to change the 40k game into something it isn't and never has been.

I actually agree with this. They have always said it is a "beer and pretzels" game. The more recent editions lent themselves to expansive Tournament play, but it was never a game built for tournaments and the people that crave that sort of balance/gameplay. Now that it has shifted back toward its roots a bit (and added some more loose allowances), the people clamoring for balance and rigidity in the rules seem to be the event/tournament crowd. The casual gamer can just as easily discuss with his opponent beforehand about the game, but the tournament player builds armies, practices, tweaks their list, etc., so to have a rule(s) come out that could possibly shake up that ritual is disturbing.

But, in the end, it was a beer and pretzels game that got picked up by the tournament scene. Now that it has shifted away from that again, the group that it picked up along the way isn't happy about it, while the ones who are happy may not notice the change as starkly as the event-goer.

Without the tournament crowd driving up sales this game will wither away before next edition (sometimes next year?)

 azreal13 wrote:

Which brings back to the question of who, outside of themselves, are GW making the game for?

Well, in my opinion, they're not making it for anyone particular. They're making it for dollar signs. With the new edition being rumored to fail to fix glaring issues and instead add more issues, it feels like a cash-grab (maybe they thought 6E wasn't making enough money, so Unbound was the answer?) than anything. Just buy what you want and play. You don't need to follow a strict FoC. Oh, but you will need a separate codex and this book to play all that, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhnbrg wrote:

Without the tournament crowd driving up sales this game will wither away before next edition (sometimes next year?)

I'm not sure anyone is "driving up sales". If sales were being driven up, I doubt they'd have released a new edition so soon.

 azreal13 wrote:
Except 40K pretty much defies all but the most twisted and contorted definitions of what constitutes a "beer and pretzels" game.

Which brings back to the question of who, outside of themselves, are GW making the game for?

People who play Warhammered? You know, were you replace all your minis with shots of alchohol of the appropriate color (use of food coloring is allowed) that you have to drink if they die (Necrons have to refill their shots everytime they come back).

Because who cares about how good the rules are when you're three sheets to the wind?

 puma713 wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

Which brings back to the question of who, outside of themselves, are GW making the game for?

Well, in my opinion, they're not making it for anyone particular.

They're making it for dollar signs.

Those two ideas, while I don't necessarily think you're wrong, are almost mutually exclusive. But then, I've got far more criticism for the way GW appear to do business than the way they design their games.

With the new edition being rumored to fail to fix glaring issues and instead add more issues, it feels like a cash-grab (maybe they thought 6E wasn't making enough money, so Unbound was the answer?) than anything. Just buy what you want and play. You don't need to follow a strict FoC. Oh, but you will need a separate codex and this book to play all that, though.

Double digit drops in interim profits and turnover will send a public company scrambling for a short term fix, it's true.