MiguelFelstone wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
I hate to break it too you but the competitive scene is probably not the majority of the customer base.

I'd believe that if i wasn't watching the top selling products on GWs website for the last year or so, every single release you have some kind of meta breaking BS that just wipes out whatever stock GW had.

A good example of that recently was with the SM codices, IH hits and every single SM flyer in stock is gone within a day, and i don't think it was a bunch of casual gamers who just suddenly thought those flying bricks look really cool.

Another example would be with the IK release, for almost a year the top selling model on GWs website was the boogie man.


Casual players don't drop hundreds of dollars on the spot right after some new book drops, meta chasers do.

MiguelFelstone wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm gonna repeat the problem for you one more time. Let's see how well you understand when I make it stupid simple!

Dude you have 16,000 posts here and you straight up sound like an ashhole. You can't make an intelligent response without being super passive aggressive?
All of your posts in this thread can be summed in in 5 words: "You're wrong, so you".

 Crimson wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:
Both narrative and matched play games should be WYSIWYG so everything is clear to your opponent.

Yes.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Which then raises the question "what do CPs represent?"

In what world is "I would have called in an Orbital Strike but I instead promoted myself to Chapter Master" a narratively sensible thing?

"Sorry sir, we'd load and fire our hellfire shells at the Knight but Fred and Ted and Steve all got relics from the armory instead so we can't."

"Sorry Inquisitor, we would seize that man for interrogation but we fired too many Flakk missiles..."

"Sorry, commander, but you can't use the radio in the chimera anymore. We had to shoot Chaos harder too many times instead."

nataliereed1984 wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
GW like most companies wants the best of all worlds. They could, very easily clear all this up and just state on their community page " Warhammer is not and never will be meant to be a hardcore competitive game, play it as such at your own peril. We only give a passing glance balance, never expect more than this from this product. "

If they stated that, quite clearly for all their customers to see, I'd gladly never say another word on their awful balance as they quite clearly made it known that's a non issue for them.

However, they toss around the word and idea of balance about as much any tournament thumper does but it's awful usually.

For the people giving GW a pass, just have GW be clear what the game is and is not and many of these topics would die. GW is as to blame for lack of simple clarity that leads people to believe they actually care about balance, as what else are all these paid point changes, why would they care at all about Legends in tournaments, why would they even run their own tournaments or attend ones they aren't running, etc, etc that makes it seem a lot like they are trying for balance just crap at it.

Have you ever watched any Voxcasts or whatever?

The designers routinely DO say, quite clearly, that balance and hardcore competition is not their priority for 40k. They even tend to make fun of people wanting perfect balance and put scare quotes around it.

JohnnyHell wrote:I mean, it does work if you read my take on it. If you ignore it and repeat yours of course it doesn’t. That’s how opinions work.

I get the frustration some people have with Strats. Seeing them as the more heroic moments helps me reconcile them. Units are using their Auspexes and scanners and fly clouds and knife feet etc all the time. That one Hellfire Shell is the one that hits the crucial spot, whereas the others plinked off the armour and might as well have been regular rounds. All the Eldar planes are jinking about but that one gal is just *super good at it*. That kind of thing. The exemplars and outliers are the ones the Strats represent, to me. YMMV. Whatever is most fun for you.

AnomanderRake wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
...whenever they have a game/rules person on, it is reiterated over and over again.

it's like those against GW's stated position are standing in an echo chamber of their own creation. They choose to ignore it since it does not fit their narrative(see what I did there). I could understand this viewpoint if (@some point in the past) GW was the bestest, mostest, awesomest balance machine ever. With the tightest most efficient rules and no OP/under overcosted units. Since this is clearly not the case, continuing to complain about something that clearly is not even a moderate priority for GW, is insane.

Newbie who likes Dawn of War comes into a gamestore and says "Hey, I like (this army) and I want to buy a starter box/learn more about the game." The community is then presented with a choice. Do they say "Don't buy that army, the design team doesn't like them and their rules are all incredibly s**t", or do they lie about the state of the game to get the newbie to buy the stuff and then wait for them to discover that everything is grotesquely mis-priced and they're going to lose every game unless they go into games with a large points handicap?

Who wins in this situation? Who is this good for?

Wayniac wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
I would talk with them and see which models they like the most, what kind of army style they like, type of game(serious competitive/chill for fun/everything in between)etc. a 5 minute conversation goes a long long way to helping a new player/collector/painter/tourney goer for them to get the most out of their hobby.

Yes, but what happens when after that conversation you have to break it to them that the army/models they like are no good and they'll just lose every game unless they play this other army/take these other models that they may not like as much? Which of the following is the more likely response?

1) Oh okay, I guess I'll pick this other army then if the one I like is no good

2) Oh, really? Well that sucks *puts box back and goes to play a different game where they can play what they like and not be punished for it*

The sheer fact that you may have to discourage a new player from picking up what they like so they don't just constantly lose with little or no chance at winning until they buy an army that doesn't have that issue or get fed up with losing and stop playing is pretty damning. And I suspect that situation (eager new player just keeps getting crushed because the army/models they like are weak and eventually just stops showing up) happens a lot more than people want to believe.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Its just that casual lists don't min/max armies so flaws that only happen when you bend optimization to breaking point don't exist in casual games, so our game is a bit more balanced for it.

'Press X to doubt'

You personally, perhaps, but I have a hard time believing that all people who play casually don't enjoy stomping face and adhere to some unwritten set of rules.