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.

Ailaros wrote:I actually got the same distinct impression. It certainly feels like GW is making a conscious effort to reward fluffier play at the expense of competitive.

Personally, that actually doesn't bother me all that much. I think that previous versions of the rules encouraged an amount of competitive play incongruous with a game of chance like 40k.

The problem is key elements of 6th that have potential to help "forge the narrative" (allies) are easily abused by those that choose to do so.

For proof read some threads in the tournament discussion section or the various batreps by the usual suspects...

6th has great potential to facilitate fluff/narrative/campaign play, but at the same time has some elements that are ripe for abuse by those looking to play sportshammer.

More than ever it is going to be important to choose your opponents wisely and/or find like minded individuals to play with...

I'll just say that it forges one hell of an engaging narrative when I refuse to play against any Necron army because of how blatantly overpowered they are.

My take on things and many will likely disagree.
I believe competitive play hurts the hobby to a degree. its fun to go to tournis and i do, but when you mingle with tourni players a lot of emphasis is placed on winning through list building. GW does profit from selling models used in those lists, but they fill their codex with many options and models that are very unrepresented on the gaming battlefield. Have you seen many rippers or pyrovore being played in tournis? Maybe. but not usually in the overwhelmingly spammy genre of tourni player lists. So GW invested in molds to make these models that dont sell at all because the tourni scene is pushing players to more play less variety and more spam. Tourni play also puts lots of pressure on the new younger gamers who find it harder and harder to play with lists that are made up of models that they have in their collection (often bought because they are just cool models with a few fun rules.) The emphasis on WAAC lists may be reducing the number of new players. Just my .02$ and likely a lot of you will disagree.

That problem can be mitigated by making those less popular units worth taking in the first place. People never run rippers or pyrovores because they're terrible, because GW doesn't take the time to write rules that make them worth using. If every unit was made to be useful and viable, then armies would be more variable as there are more options made available for all levels of play.

Just look at Infinity. Most of the units are very well balanced, and because of that, you end up seeing a much wider variety of armies in all settings.

Fafnir wrote:...pyrovores because they're terrible, .

Pyrovores are fantastic, I've been using them since they came out. 6th made them even better.

The biggest problem I see with most army lists and the way people 'play' is pretty much the internet. A lot of people comment about things they don't know a lot about or make assumptions about units and tactics they've never tried.

Part of having a winning strategy is being able to take the things that are good about a unit, and then maneuvering them in a way to maximize that advantage against your opponent, or at least to minimize his.

Look at the sorry state of affairs the meta-game left 5th edition in. Vehicle spam against melta spam against spam spam spam baked beans spam and spam, it was pathetic and it made me feel ashamed of the hobby in general. And a lot of those lists weren't even that good unless you were fighting another spammy 'tourney' list, which thanks to people giving and getting terrible advice on how they should play was all there was for.

I hope GW continues to ignore what has been the model of 'competitive play', it is weak, unoriginal and boring; it deserves no better.

Casbyness wrote:I am getting a bit irritated by comments like "GW have added allies back in to force players to buy new models".

I think they did it because lots of players complained that they couldn't mix and match their old models.

Certainly.

I mean, their first step in this direction was with Apocalypse. It doesnt' come as much of a surprise that it's made its way to regular 40k. GW likes giving players with several large armies a lot of leeway, which was clearly where GW was intending to go.

Of course, what competitive players do with this...

CT GAMER wrote:The problem is key elements of 6th that have potential to help "forge the narrative" (allies) are easily abused by those that choose to do so.

Definitely. My opinion on allies is that they won't make any players WAAC, but they will certainly do much to reveal them.

WAAC players will be drawn to ally abuse like a moth to flame...

First of all, Pyrovores are objectively terrible. You may have had a few good games with them, but that may just be a symptom of your local metagame.

And once the metagame for 6th edition is developed, you'll see Leafblower spam (more potent than ever before), shooty mech spam (it's changed, but it will still be dominant), Necron Spam, and other delicious spam.

The competitive metagame is only boring because GW makes very few things worth taking in the first place. GW encourages a boring competitive metagame with their poor rules design.

"Objectively terrible?"

That's a pretty big claim. I have amassed no small quantity of experimental data and practical application of this carbuncle in the colon and I can tell you with confidence that my results, tested in the field, have shown that they are not, in point of fact, objectively terrible.

How many games have you used the Pyrovores in yourself? Can you give me a run down on tactics and use, I'd like to compare notes since you seem to have the inside track on how-to's and what-nots.

I would find a use for pyrovores, particularly under the new disembark rules, IF they weren't in the Elites slot, and IF I could park a Prime in their pod with them.

I'd never, ever take them over Hive Guard, Ymgarl, Zoanthropes, the Doom, or even stock Lictors.

I don't see why people complain about spam so much. I play IG, and if my list doesn't have at least 8infantry squads and 2-3 Russes I'm doing something wrong. Is that spam, yes I'm spamming Infantry squads and leman russes, But its Fluffy spam, not WAAC. Their is a difference.

Also its not GW that makes the competitive meta in 5th favor mech, it was Tournaments. Where they have limited terrain, and a time limit. If i wanted to play foot anything, we wouldn't get past turn 4. If my foot guard and my buddies foot orks played, we wouldn't get past turn 2-3. Thats because tournaments put artificial restraints on the game that where not intended to be there. I'm going to use some old folksy wisdom here, (I've been at my grandparents house all weekend, so its fresh in my mind,) "Remember when you point a finger at someone that you have 3 pointing back at yourself." We, as in all competitive players, are behind the spam mech meta, not just GW.

Grey Templar wrote:

RxGhost wrote:

Casbyness wrote:I am getting a bit irritated by comments like "GW have added allies back in to force players to buy new models".

Yeah, I never understood this either. I mean, you don't have to take allies...no one is getting forced into anything.

And in many cases the Allies are only situationally more effective then just taking your own codex units.

GKs really don't get much benifit from taking SW allies. And taking IG covers a long ranged combat shortcoming, but it means you also have less GKs to do what GKs do.

Allies still cost points. Points you could spend on your own army.


Tau and IG can take some decent melee units now, but at a cost of taking less Tau units. That might mean one less unit of Crisis Suits and a Hammerhead instead of Broadsides. Or maybe 3 Veteran Squads in Chimeras instead of 5. 2 units of 2 LRBTs instead of 2 units of 3, etc...

In many instances there's a huge advantage to that, if you can spend points on other units to cover a critical weakness when you've got plenty of units that can expound on your strengths already...where's the downside? Especially with Tau...

There's a reason a lot of armies lack certain things, and spending points on units outside the codex doesn't mean your weakening what you could otherwise take, that's a ridiculous argument. In many cases, the points spent on allies may do the same job better, may be far more cost effective, or may cover a gap you need covered that was never intended to be covered and by doing so now the army is far more capable than it was ever intended to be.


Did everyone completely forget the sillyness of Daemonhunter mystic bands+IG overnight?

RxGhost wrote:"Objectively terrible?"

That's a pretty big claim. I have amassed no small quantity of experimental data and practical application of this carbuncle in the colon and I can tell you with confidence that my results, tested in the field, have shown that they are not, in point of fact, objectively terrible.

How many games have you used the Pyrovores in yourself? Can you give me a run down on tactics and use, I'd like to compare notes since you seem to have the inside track on how-to's and what-nots.

My experience and results say otherwise, and especially for the slot they take up. It's why none of the Pyrovores I, or anyone I know bought, saw the field after the first few games with them.





I don't think I've ever seen a group of people so happy not to have balance, that a well written set of rules designed to give all players an equal footing was a bad thing, and that narrative play depending so hugely on the game not functioning as a balanced ruleset. That their enjoyment depending on the rules not functioning smoothly, and that abusive mechanics were mandatory for fun, fluffy play.

I'm not a hugely competitive player, I rarely attend tournaments anymore, I'm much happier playing a pre-designed fluff scenario or the like, and don't care too much about winning or losing, but I want to feel like it's all starting off from an even footing, that the models I'm playing with are capable of fulfilling their role (and nothing kills a narrative like a unit being bad at what it is supposed to do), that my heavy battle tanks and IFV's are going to just fall apart after their paint job gets scratched a few times (or that there's at least a hope of survival in an assault...) and that the game isn't going to be about what side has the most gimmicks and rules bending abilities, and 6th does not do that by design, and many seem to be cheering this.

Vaktathi wrote:
I don't think I've ever seen a group of people so happy not to have balance, that a well written set of rules designed to give all players an equal footing was a bad thing, and that narrative play depending so hugely on the game not functioning as a balanced ruleset. That their enjoyment depending on the rules not functioning smoothly, and that abusive mechanics were mandatory for fun, fluffy play.

I'm not a hugely competitive player, I rarely attend tournaments anymore, I'm much happier playing a pre-designed fluff scenario or the like, and don't care too much about winning or losing, but I want to feel like it's all starting off from an even footing, that the models I'm playing with are capable of fulfilling their role (and nothing kills a narrative like a unit being bad at what it is supposed to do), that my heavy battle tanks and IFV's are going to just fall apart after their paint job gets scratched a few times (or that there's at least a hope of survival in an assault...) and that the game isn't going to be about what side has the most gimmicks and rules bending abilities, and 6th does not do that by design, and many seem to be cheering this.

And really, it's not like it's impossible do do all this while being balanced and competitively sound either. Once again, I'll bring up Infinity. Almost every single unit in the game can perform competently at specific roles, and each army itself is fairly balanced in its design. Furthermore, each model acts extremely closely to its fluff (more so than many 40k units, in many regards), and battles can certainly become very cinematic, especially during decisive moments that the game encourages players to set up against one another through the core principles of the game's very design.

So it's certainly possible to get it right. The issue is that GW doesn't seem to care to do it.

Vaktathi wrote:I don't think I've ever seen a group of people so happy not to have balance, that a well written set of rules designed to give all players an equal footing was a bad thing, and that narrative play depending so hugely on the game not functioning as a balanced ruleset. That their enjoyment depending on the rules not functioning smoothly, and that abusive mechanics were mandatory for fun, fluffy play.

The thing you're missing is that "fun" and "balanced" are not necessarily the same thing. If you only get fun from 40k by having it be a serious competitive environment (sleek rules, properly balanced, etc.), then odds are you weren't having fun in 5th ed already, much less 6th.

If, however, you derive fun from other sources, then it is very possible to have a game that is both fun and not balanced. If you divorce these two ideas from each other, then the idea that a less-balanced system can also be more fun will make more sense.

The difficult thing here is that "fun" is something that's very poorly understood by psychologists, much less game designers. If the point of making a game is to provide fun, then other considerations, such as balance, are of secondary importance.

But the thing is that balance and fun do not have to be exclusive of one another.

No, but neither is the opposite true.

It is possible to make a game that is fun and perfectly balanced, and it's possible to make a game that is fun an hideously unbalanced (like Volga Bulgars or Axis and Allie).

If, in order to be fun for you, a game has to be balanced, that has much more to say about you than about games in general.

YakManDoo wrote:

I also wonder if TOs won't just codify 5th edition rules and codexes and keep playing 5th... Interesting times...

That outcome is earnestly to be hoped for. Even better would be players actively continuing to play earlier editions, of both BBB and codices.

Testify wrote:Is that why the warmachine section on dakka is so much bigger than the 40k section?

No, that's because the Privateer press forums are incredibly awesome.

I'm a casual player.

There is absolutely zero fun in winning a game if my win comes not from a better plan, deployment, tactics, recognition of opponents plan etc. That's why balance and ruleset is important, to ensure that there are no automatic or entirely luck based wins. If the outcome is unimportant, you don't need a rulebook. If I win only because of luck or too much advantages coming from lack of balance, it's 3 hours wasted and I'm sore but I enjoy loosing in proper games when my opponent makes some good move or his plan works. Not sure btw what WAAC actualy is but unless it's a cheater, I see no problem, if he's good and won, congratulations and thank you for the game. If I know the only way of beating him that day was to replace 70% of my army which against other fluff armies was working quite well, I know it's not a supposed WAAC fault.

The way tournaments and lists there look is entirely beause of GW writing. If they balanced the rules, units and combos, you would have much bigger chance taking your fluff list to a tournament and, asumming you didn't make obvious synergy mistakes, could win through a better tactics. The total overhaul of the field rules maybe, playtesting and monitoring a game, a clear vision for the game, don't know, more work is needed here and I'm quite sure of it. Wargames are there to make you think I thought, not just roll the dice to see something awesome.

Ailaros wrote:
If, however, you derive fun from other sources, then it is very possible to have a game that is both fun and not balanced. If you divorce these two ideas from each other, then the idea that a less-balanced system can also be more fun will make more sense.

Anecdotal experience here, but over the last 6-7 months three starting players to my group (of around 10-14 people that actually do show up and play) have given up entirely because of balance issues. A Tau player got disheartened at how bad his army performed at anything other than cracking AV14 and being shot off the board by IG and Necrons, A Nid player got bored of almost every game having his pionstakingly-painted MCs missile's and lascannoned away by turn 2, and the daemon player pretty much ragequit after some games with his also-starting friend who plays GK.

In all cases they spent months buying and painting the armies (Hell, the Nid player actually did a much sweeter job of painting his first army in the hobby than I can do now after a lot of practice!) and were just beggining to try them on the board. For some it took 5 games for them to see that their forces were not doing what they wanted and in some cases not doing much at all.

Now mind, in many cases they had veterans watching the games and offering advice. The fact is, there was often not much they could have done different. and in some cases it really was newbie vs. newbie and one was getting flattened 6 out of 6 times. I can't blame them for not being happy with "Maybe the new codex/edition will fix it" as an excuse to keep playing. Can you?

To purposefully leave that state of affairs unchanged just boggles my mind, especially in the age of Twitter and iPads, as well as competition from video games and MMOs where consumer feedback can mean a patch or fix within weeks or even days.

I admit it's possible to have fun in an unbalanced game. What will usually happen is that people will gravitate to the strongest faction/build and create a lot of wasted products (as seen by so many local clubs here that are basically 80% Marines slapping marines, someone's randon xenos army that is more a painting project than a gaming one, and someone's second army of Necrons or orks). If your vision of a fun 40K future os Blood Angels facing Space Wolves forever across every board, I guess that's fun. Chess has had the same army builds for ages, after all, but at leaste there aren't a grey and a red set of pieces that no one uses because they're crap.

I'd say that a reasonably balanced setting makes it possible for more people to have more fun over more time, though.

Sephyr wrote:
...
In all cases they spent months buying and painting the armies (Hell, the Nid player actually did a much sweeter job of painting his first army in the hobby than I can do now after a lot of practice!) and were just beggining to try them on the board. For some it took 5 games for them to see that their forces were not doing what they wanted and in some cases not doing much at all.

Now mind, in many cases they had veterans watching the games and offering advice. The fact is, there was often not much they could have done different. and in some cases it really was newbie vs. newbie and one was getting flattened 6 out of 6 times. I can't blame them for not being happy with "Maybe the new codex/edition will fix it" as an excuse to keep playing. Can you?
...
I'd say that a reasonably balanced setting makes it possible for more people to have more fun over more time, though.

Exactly this. A poorly balanced game doesn't just hurt competitive players, it hurts anyone who randomly picks a 'bad army' and that's a player who's going to quit the game. GW got their one army sale from that player, and no more.

What Sephyr and Redbeard said sums up the problem nicely on balance, IMO. I have seen many people buy models, play the game and leave the hobby because of balance issues regardless whether they started with an army with serious problems or started with a better force. Now some of these players might leave anyways but others would continue (especially with the investments already made) if 40K was a good game rather than a game with enormous potential that often fails.

And it is ridiculous to argue that balance/tight rules reduce fun. The casual player and competitive player benefits from good balanced rules. Sure you might find someone that enjoys spending loads of money, lots of time building and painting models and has a great time getting slaughtered game after game; year after year, but I think this is an odd person. As someone said, for many it is not whether you win or lose (but you are trying to win), it is that when you set up your pieces that you feel you have a good chance of winning and the units performing their roles decently towards that end.

GW could make a fairly balanced game if they put some real effort towards it. Look at tyranids in 5th edition versus GK. This was an uphill battle for nids with 2 players of equal skill. Nids had serious issues the day their dex was released and throughout 5th GW could easily have issued an errata to correct many of the issues to make the army much more balanced internally and externally - they chose not to. How many average nid players do you think really had fun playing armies that stomped them regularly and/or were forced into using a few units over and over because of the poor balance. This is not my idea of having fun.

Redbeard wrote:Exactly this. A poorly balanced game doesn't just hurt competitive players, it hurts anyone who randomly picks a 'bad army' and that's a player who's going to quit the game. GW got their one army sale from that player, and no more.

You're talking past yourself, though. You are saying that there are two groups of players, competitive players, and players who don't like losing. That's the same group of players, described twice.

What I am saying is that there are players out there who are ACTUALLY not competitive (or at least are much, much less competitive). For people who are ACTUALLY not competitive, the fact that the game isn't perfectly balanced really won't matter to them. Actually.

5th edition was geared to allow more competitive players to play in a more competitive environment. It looks like GW thinks that this was a mistake with the direction they've been moving in as of late. They are re-writing things, on purpose, to drive competitive players out of the game, and return its fan base towards non-competitive gamers.

As Sephyr notes, it's going to be very difficult for GW to make 40k as balanced of a game as lots and lots of other alternatives out there, nor, do I think, they should. As such, if they're not going to be a properly competitive game, then it doesn't make sense for GW to compete against other games for which allows for the most competitive play. If the idea of non-competitive play really makes no sense whatsoever to you, then of course you're not going to understand what GW is doing. In this case, though, it's a failure of understanding, not a failure of GW policy.

Ailaros wrote:What I am saying is that there are players out there who are ACTUALLY not competitive (or at least are much, much less competitive). For people who are ACTUALLY not competitive, the fact that the game isn't perfectly balanced really won't matter to them. Actually.

So your argument is what? That Warhammer 40,000 is perfect for people who, when they play a game, don't try to win? Great selling point! "Warhammer 40,000: the game for all those people who are used to being told that it's the taking part that counts!"

More pertinently, as nearly a page's worth of other posters have pointed out - and as you have entirely failed to address - 'competitive' doesn't equate to WAAC, it's just a matter of wanting to play a game where the two players' respective decisions dictate the outcome, not whether one picked from an overpowered/underpriced list, and certainly not because one player got a single lucky roll on a chart.

Ailaros wrote:5th edition was geared to allow more competitive players to play in a more competitive environment. It looks like GW thinks that this was a mistake with the direction they've been moving in as of late. They are re-writing things, on purpose, to drive competitive players out of the game, and return its fan base towards non-competitive gamers.

You do realise that 40k has essentially been the same 'competitive' game since 1998; more than half of its lifespan? Even if the present writers' babble about 'narrative' and 'cinematic' gameplay means anything beyond an excuse for being incapable of or unwilling to write balanced rules, don't be surprised that a significant proportion of the playerbase are disappointed at an edition which inserts more random elements and diminishes the impact of player choice.

English Assassin wrote:So your argument is what? That Warhammer 40,000 is perfect for people who, when they play a game, don't try to win? Great selling point! "Warhammer 40,000: the game for all those people who are used to being told that it's the taking part that counts!"

As I said...

Ailaros wrote: If the idea of non-competitive play really makes no sense whatsoever to you, then of course you're not going to understand what GW is doing.

Furthermore...

English Assassin wrote:More pertinently, as nearly a page's worth of other posters have pointed out - and as you have entirely failed to address - 'competitive' doesn't equate to WAAC

I understand the difference between competitive and WAAC. Statements I'm making affect both groups (well, the group and its subgroup).

English Assassin wrote:it's just a matter of wanting to play a game where the two players' respective decisions dictate the outcome, not whether one picked from an overpowered/underpriced list, and certainly not because one player got a single lucky roll on a chart. ...don't be surprised that a significant proportion of the playerbase are disappointed at an edition which inserts more random elements and diminishes the impact of player choice.

If you don't like the idea of losing a game because of unlucky rolling of dice, then you really need to stop playing 40k. 40k is a dice game, not a serious strategy game. If you don't like the random, then go play some game that doesn't have randomness.

Ailaros wrote:

Redbeard wrote:Exactly this. A poorly balanced game doesn't just hurt competitive players, it hurts anyone who randomly picks a 'bad army' and that's a player who's going to quit the game. GW got their one army sale from that player, and no more.

You're talking past yourself, though. You are saying that there are two groups of players, competitive players, and players who don't like losing. That's the same group of players, described twice.

First, I'm not saying there are two groups of players. There is a wide spectrum of players. There are players who only want to play at the top level of competitiveness. There are players who are more competitive than that, who are willing to cheat to win. There are players who want to play competitively, but within a more restrictive set of conditions for themselves (such as adhering to fluff, or only playing one faction). There are players who want to play with their friends and have narrative stories. There are players, like myself, who play both in competitive settings and also as a basement gamer having a few beers with friends.

Some players who play competitively don't mind losing - they see it as part of a process. Some people who play "for fun" do mind losing. Some people actually cheat in casual games because they want to win. Honestly, I've encountered more of the former than the latter.

I've been gaming (not just 40k) for a long time, over 30 years now. I have yet to encounter this mythical figure that you described of a person who is willing to lose forever. It's a one-on-one game. I don't care how non-competitive a person is, they're only going to take so much kicking before they try something else. It's one thing to play for thematic reasons and to be okay with losing. Everyone has a breaking point though. People who are truly non-competitive are simply not going to play the game at all. The act of participating in a one-on-one game implies some amount, however minimal, of wanting to win.

As Sephyr notes, it's going to be very difficult for GW to make 40k as balanced of a game as lots and lots of other alternatives out there

It's only difficult because they are not trying. Lots of things are difficult. The idea that we shouldn't do things that are difficult is, to me, against what it means to be human. We went to the moon. That wasn't easy. We build skyscrapers. That's not easy. People run marathons - that's not easy. "It's hard" is an excuse that a toddler uses.

As such, if they're not going to be a properly competitive game, then it doesn't make sense for GW to compete against other games for which allows for the most competitive play.

Again, there's no reason to assume everything has to be binary. There's a wide spectrum out there, and just because your goal is not to be the most competitive doesn't mean you should make no attempt at all at having a balanced game.

If the idea of non-competitive play really makes no sense whatsoever to you, then of course you're not going to understand what GW is doing. In this case, though, it's a failure of understanding, not a failure of GW policy.

So you're saying if we don't agree with you, it's because we don't get what they're trying to do...?

From the most basic concept in this game, the goal is to have a mechanism by which two players can have a fair battle with their toy soldiers. If true non-competitive play was the goal, there would be no need to have points for units. You would make an army that fit some published fluff that they came up with, and you'd set up your men, and discuss with your opponent how things should go. There would be no need of dice, or any other randomizing factor, because you'd just be creating a visual story with your toy soldiers, and some people would be more than happy doing just that. In fact, there are people whose hobby is painting historical miniatures and making dioramas of battles. They don't need rules to decide who is winning the scene they're creating, they just do what looks cool. I've played diceless games before, they're plenty of fun (with the right people). And that's really a non-competitive game.

By introducing a rules mechanism (points) by which two strangers can supposedly have a "fair" battle, there is some expectation that if you follow those rules, you'll have a fair battle. That's what the company is selling, that's what the players are buying. Why then is it seen as acceptable for this product, this system, to be flawed. For all the complaints about bubbles in Finecast products, you're getting far less of what you're paying for when you purchase a GW rule book.

And apologists, like you, seem to think this is acceptable. You're happy to buy a flawed product and even defend the flaws as a way to keep it non-competitive. When PC games have flaws like these, they get patched. Other companies patch their rules. GW doesn't need to, it has fanboys to defend them. "It's hard". No, it's not. When the exact same model with the exact same weapons and exact same stats can cost a different amount of points based on what color it is painted and what iconography is sports, that's not hard to spot. Tournaments run around the world every weekend. There's data to be mined, and points provide the easiest, most flexible balancing factor possible. Gee, everyone who can is taking units of Long Fangs - think they could be patched to cost a few more points?

I understand the difference between a non-competitive game and a flawed game, and GW is the latter.

English Assassin wrote:

Ailaros wrote:What I am saying is that there are players out there who are ACTUALLY not competitive (or at least are much, much less competitive). For people who are ACTUALLY not competitive, the fact that the game isn't perfectly balanced really won't matter to them. Actually.

So your argument is what? That Warhammer 40,000 is perfect for people who, when they play a game, don't try to win? Great selling point! "Warhammer 40,000: the game for all those people who are used to being told that it's the taking part that counts!"

More pertinently, as nearly a page's worth of other posters have pointed out - and as you have entirely failed to address - 'competitive' doesn't equate to WAAC, it's just a matter of wanting to play a game where the two players' respective decisions dictate the outcome, not whether one picked from an overpowered/underpriced list, and certainly not because one player got a single lucky roll on a chart.

Ailaros wrote:5th edition was geared to allow more competitive players to play in a more competitive environment. It looks like GW thinks that this was a mistake with the direction they've been moving in as of late. They are re-writing things, on purpose, to drive competitive players out of the game, and return its fan base towards non-competitive gamers.

You do realise that 40k has essentially been the same 'competitive' game since 1998; more than half of its lifespan? Even if the present writers' babble about 'narrative' and 'cinematic' gameplay means anything beyond an excuse for being incapable of or unwilling to write balanced rules, don't be surprised that a significant proportion of the playerbase are disappointed at an edition which inserts more random elements and diminishes the impact of player choice.

Spot on.

GW's attitude reminds me of the theme of the classic SF story, "The Gulf Between": A MACHINE DOES NOT CARE. GW is a machine that has programmed itself with the business model that the way to make the most money is to condition gamers to whine about the game getting "stale" every few years, and constantly bring out new rule sets whose primary if not only motivation is to get fanboys to snap up a bunch of new product. They then sit back and watch as those same fanboys have paroxysms of ecstasy about how cool the new rule sets are and how you can "still" do some things you used to be able to do with the old rule sets, and buy enough new product to overcompensate for those players they have alienated sufficiently to drive out of the market. They don't care about dissatisfied players because in their view (which unfortunately has a factual basis) they get more sales from newbies, fanboys and 9-year-old brats whose daddies have too much money than they lose from those same dissatisfied players.

Until market conditions change sufficiently to change that programming, the GW machine will continue not to care what we think.

If GW isn't doing in practice what you have perfected in your mind, it's because they're a bunch of lazy idiots? Ignoring the reality around oneself and ignoring the transmission by which desire becomes reality will give you a really bad attitude. I'm sure if only the sheeple would wake up and elect you president, then the entire world would finally be fixed properly as well...

40k is a game where you throw a vague sense of balance and a lot of rules and minis over what is fundamentally a dice game where the results are determined by chance. If GW's decision on where to draw their lines of making a game competitive is incongruous with what you desire for a competitive game, then don't play 40k. It doesn't mean that GW is making a game that is bad objectively, just bad subjectively, compared to what you want out of a game.

You are assuming that there is a gold standard (of which you have secret knowledge) that GW is too lazy and stupid to achieve, when in reality there is no such standard. That GW doesn't choose to make the game the way you want the game to be made doesn't mean that 40k is a bad game, or that GW is a bad company.

Ailaros wrote:
40k is a game where you throw a vague sense of balance and a lot of rules and minis over what is fundamentally a dice game where the results are determined by chance. If GW's decision on where to draw their lines of making a game competitive is incongruous with what you desire for a competitive game, then don't play 40k. It doesn't mean that GW is making a game that is bad objectively, just bad subjectively, compared to what you want out of a game.

You are assuming that there is a gold standard (of which you have secret knowledge) that GW is too lazy and stupid to achieve, when in reality there is no such standard. That GW doesn't choose to make the game the way you want the game to be made doesn't mean that 40k is a bad game, or that GW is a bad company.

Actually, it is possible to make an objective judgement about games, just like it is possible to make an objective judgement about art. One way of doing so is by comparing stated goals with results.

Stated Goal: two armies with the same point value will be balanced.
Obvious violation: 420 buys 7 Space Marine Predators, or 6 Chaos Space Marine Predators, with identical stats and behaviour in the game. 6 != 7, so this is not a balanced game.

These aren't goals I'm making up for the game, these are goals that GW has put forth, and then failed to meet. This is not my subjective desire for the game, this is them failing to meet their own stated goal. That is objectively poor design.

Redbeard wrote:Stated Goal: two armies with the same point value will be balanced.
Obvious violation: 420 buys 7 Space Marine Predators, or 6 Chaos Space Marine Predators, with identical stats and behaviour in the game. 6 != 7, so this is not a balanced game.

The spikes on the CSM predators make up the difference in points.

Redbeard wrote:Stated Goal: two armies with the same point value will be balanced.

Firstly, where does it explicitly say this? It is implied, but where is it actually stated?

As for stated goals, it's pretty easy to find examples where they explicitly state that the purpose is to make a game that is dramatic, cinematic, and that should be concluded with a handshake and some beers. That's what they're trying to do.

I can't find anything where GW says that it's trying to create a perfectly balanced game that supports players playing as competitively as they can (or care). In fact, they've done the opposite, what with no longer making a mention to things like 'ard boyz in the rulebook.

Even then, this is sort of beside the point. Artist statements are worthless, despite how much the artists want to pretend they're not. The value that someone gets is the value that the consumer gets, not what the artist states the value should be.