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.

Well if anything Fantasy´s 8th, one bad edition (thou i personally like it much better than 7 and 6) can send the game down the drain. I think Fantasy illustrates how despite what GW might want to believe and tell you, it is the GAMING aspect which keeps them afloat.

 Peregrine wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
why do all the codexes have to be balanced to work? I really don't hear too many people whining about the ineffetiveness of certain units in Flames of War; or would that be because some armies excel at certain things where others do not? Do you want lots of heavy artillery for Tyranids? or CC-oriented Tau?

Yeah, because "balance" means "everyone does all of the same things" not "each army has a roughly equal chance of winning".

Ok, if equal chances of winnong is what you're looking for, sorry, it will never really happen ever, with any game system.

Two examples:

Years ago (before it became a submission game rather than a beatdown game), I was playing in a Magic tournament. The winner, whom I played early on, was playing his "infamous" $4/$400 deck. He called it that because the net value of the deck (in 1995) was about 4 bucks, but it had won him 400 dollars worth of cards in antes and tournaments. It was all commons and a couple of uncommons. After winning that tournament, someone who had also played him offered to buy the deck from him. He agreed to sell it to him for $4. The new owner of the deck proceeded to sit down and play several people afterwards and lost every single game.

When I had first started in Warhammer, my two goals were to play at Ard Boyz and to beat my buddy's Ard Boyz army. After frustrating loss after loss, he decided to teach me a lesson. We traded armies. He beat me really bad, even almost tabling me by 4th turn. He was showing me that the army wasn't bad, as it had defeated his seemingly invincible Black Templars with my Dark Angels.

See the common thread? The true balance of a game is not created by the equality of the armies or the rules, but by the players. If someone gets mad because their codex is hard, then there are two options: get better or choose another army. Anymore, everyone thinks its GW's responsibility to make every codex equally competitive. Sorry, its almost impossible. Some are going to be harder than others, its called a challenge for a reason.

Where would the fun be in knowing that because you chose the army that you did that out-of-the-box, it would win everytime? Sounds a bit boring to me...

Oh, wait, did I imply that fun and challenging should be mentioned in terms of gaming?

You realize Peregrine was being sarcastic, right?

 Yonan wrote:
Given GW doesn't address issues speedily or effectively, would a "community patch" get much traction? Dakka has a substantial 40k population so playtesting shouldn't be a problem.

Using IG as an example, this should get a better variety of units on the board:
- Vendetta +20 points.
- Rough Rider -2 points
- Ratling -2 points
- Ogryn -5 points

Then some quick clarifications such as:
- Abaddon can join squads that have any chaos mark.
- All units with missile launchers can purchase flakk missiles for 10 points.

Just some rough, off the cuff examples. GW is slow addressing flyer concerns - the community can step in with a quick fix that keeps things playable.



Wouldn't need any mechanic changes, you could just modify points generally to ensure that even if GW tries a nerf/buff cycle to sell models the community can still use all (or at least a lot more) models in their codex and not be gimped.

id be all up for this - infact - would dakka sanction some realspace for this? a live true set of rules and values for every unit ever made in the grimdark universe would be brill - someone set it up (i dunno how to) and give everyone the post link.... this could be the answer were all been wanting gents...

 Yonan wrote:
Given GW doesn't address issues speedily or effectively, would a "community patch" get much traction? Dakka has a substantial 40k population so playtesting shouldn't be a problem.

Using IG as an example, this should get a better variety of units on the board:
- Vendetta +20 points.
- Rough Rider -2 points
- Ratling -2 points
- Ogryn -5 points

Then some quick clarifications such as:
- Abaddon can join squads that have any chaos mark.
- All units with missile launchers can purchase flakk missiles for 10 points.

Just some rough, off the cuff examples. GW is slow addressing flyer concerns - the community can step in with a quick fix that keeps things playable.

Wouldn't need any mechanic changes, you could just modify points generally to ensure that even if GW tries a nerf/buff cycle to sell models the community can still use all (or at least a lot more) models in their codex and not be gimped.

And this here highlights the problem with fan dexes, and balancing in general.

You think your rules look pretty good and balanced, and they do, to an extent. But look more closely at what you suggest:

All units can upgrade to flakk missles at 10pts. Thats not balanced. Those flakk missles are much more valuable to a designed heavy weapons team than to a tac squad or Ork shoota squad, so why should they pay the same price? They might be a 10point upgrade to a tac squad, who fires 1 missle each turn, if it has a viable target ect ect; where as a unit like devistators would get much more and effcient use from flakk launcher, and should cost more

DB wrote:

id be all up for this - infact - would dakka sanction some realspace for this? a live true set of rules and values for every unit ever made in the grimdark universe would be brill - someone set it up (i dunno how to) and give everyone the post link.... this could be the answer were all been wanting gents...

It would have to be done right of course, but even if you err on the side of caution, it could substantially improve the game imo. As is, Ogryns at 40 ppm, really? 30 is closer to worth taking but I said -5 ppm, not -10 ppm. Makes it more playable, a better place to start without risking a new "this is ridiculously op, at least in this build".

It works for games like Skyrim, Fallout etc - the community organises an unofficial patch to fix problems that the developer misses, doesn't care about or thinks isn't going to improve sales so they don't bother. You can choose to use them or not - your choice. Giving it sponsorship by a large community helps make it common enough to get some traction.

Hetelic wrote:

And this here highlights the problem with fan dexes, and balancing in general.

You think your rules look pretty good and balanced, and they do, to an extent. But look more closely at what you suggest:

All units can upgrade to flakk missles at 10pts. Thats not balanced. Those flakk missles are much more valuable to a designed heavy weapons team than to a tac squad or Ork shoota squad, so why should they pay the same price? They might be a 10point upgrade to a tac squad, who fires 1 missle each turn, if it has a viable target ect ect; where as a unit like devistators would get much more and effcient use from flakk launcher, and should cost more

As I said it was an off the cuff remark to give an example. It also hasn't been playtested - at all. Which is why a large community like dakka sponsoring the patch is important.

edit: I think I see what you mean. I meant - the same as the chaos dex - that it was 10 points per model. This is why you need a quick, responsive community patch, so small oversights like that can be addressed straight away ; )

edit 2: Thought I'd mention copyright issues too - since you're just listing an adjustment there should be no problem.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Ok, if equal chances of winnong is what you're looking for, sorry, it will never really happen ever, with any game system.

Except it does happen in other game systems. The chances of winning might not be perfectly equal, but it's MUCH better balanced than 40k.

The only problem here is that you completely missed the point of what I was saying. It's not about PLAYERS having equal chances of winning, it's about ARMIES having equal chances of winning. IOW, if you have two equally skilled players making their best lists from two different codices each should have a roughly equal chance of winning. Anything else is horrible and unprofessional game design.

Also, I notice that you completely ignored where I pointed out how ridiculous your "balance means Tau get assault units" argument was. I take it that's your concession of defeat on that point?

Anymore, everyone thinks its GW's responsibility to make every codex equally competitive. Sorry, its almost impossible. Some are going to be harder than others, its called a challenge for a reason.

Except other games do that just fine. Stop making excuses for GW, if the balance between codices is off it's game design, not "a challenge with a more difficult army".

Where would the fun be in knowing that because you chose the army that you did that out-of-the-box, it would win everytime? Sounds a bit boring to me...

Remember the part where the goal is BALANCE, and having the ability to win games just because of what army you chose is a BAD THING?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yonan wrote:
It works for games like Skyrim, Fallout etc - the community organises an unofficial patch to fix problems that the developer misses, doesn't care about or thinks isn't going to improve sales so they don't bother. You can choose to use them or not - your choice. Giving it sponsorship by a large community helps make it common enough to get some traction.

It works because those are single-player games, and you don't have to deal with two major problems:

1) Endless nitpicking of every choice by players with a personal interest in having their chosen faction be the best. With a single player game it doesn't matter if, say, archery in Skyrim is 5% better than swords, either you accept that it works that way and don't really care because there's no TFG dominating you with a broken archery character, or you edit the patch to suit your own idea of balance. On the other hand, with a game like 40k there's no realistic chance of getting everyone to agree on anything long enough to write a single coherent "patch".

and

2) Getting critical mass for it. Who cares how many people play a particular Skyrim fan patch, all that matters is whether or not YOU want to play with it. You don't have to find opponents who also like that patch, convince your friends to use it, etc. That's entirely different from a game like 40k where either everyone agrees and decides to use it or the "patch" never becomes anything more than a wishlisting thread on a forum somewhere. And the chances of getting that kind of critical mass player base for a fan "patch" are pretty much nonexistent.

if you have two equally skilled players making their best lists from two different codices each should have a roughly equal chance of winning. Anything else is horrible and unprofessional game design.

Really?

I've played much simpler games where 2 mythically equal players can see one side as being OP and another 2 equal players as both being balanced, or OP the other way round. It depends on what level of 'equal' player you are taljking about? 2 novices may see armies and how to play them very different to 2 top players, and that has a huge effect on whether they have an equal chance of winning.

As you say, their best lists may differ hugely dependinig on the skill level, player A who has only being playing a month may have a best list that is very different to Mr 3 times world champion. So their bests lists may have very different chances of winning against someone else even of equal skill level, because they are not some mythical objectively best list

So when you say players of equal skill, what level of equal skill are you talking?

Given 40k seems pretty much for casual, 'narrative' games and not competition/tourney style players I suspect that their idea of the level of skill they would aim balance at is different to many on dakka who are competitive/tourney players.

I tell ya, Peregrine, you really missed a out half of my post. Either you couldn't respond intelligently or I made too good of a point.

Of course Warmachine, etc. have a "perfectly balanced" system, they wrote them all right at the same time with the same crew. I would love to hear the gnashing and wailing if GW did this. "oh, they suck. not only did I have to buy a codex for the three armies I own, but because my opponent had no idea what was in his ook, this game lasted like 4 hours!"

puree wrote:
So when you say players of equal skill, what level of equal skill are you talking?

Any level above "clueless newbies picking random units and rolling dice". It's very simple:

Good games, like MTG, grow in complexity and continue to be balanced as you learn more and your skills improve. New players might have balance problems where one person in a group of newbies figures out a new combo first, but in the long run the better your skills get the more you converge on a balanced game.

Bad games, like 40k, fail as soon as you learn anything. New players might not have immediate balance problems when they're limited to a battleforce each, but the more you learn about the game the more you see the massive balance issues.

And of course let's not pretend that we're dealing with subtle variations in balance choices between target skill levels. GW's "balance" is laughably bad and doesn't work at ANY skill level beyond "newbie still learning the basic rules".

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Of course Warmachine, etc. have a "perfectly balanced" system, they wrote them all right at the same time with the same crew. I would love to hear the gnashing and wailing if GW did this. "oh, they suck. not only did I have to buy a codex for the three armies I own, but because my opponent had no idea what was in his ook, this game lasted like 4 hours!"

Actually I'd be happy with that outcome. Idiots might whine about it, but any short-term pain of a massive new release to buy and learn would be more than offset by the long-term benefits of finally having a balanced and ambiguity-free rule system.

And of course this doesn't justify GW's failures since the only reason they can't do it without short-term pain is that they've spent years getting into a hole and then doing their best to dig it even deeper. Companies that don't have GW's record of consistent failures have no problems making balanced and ambiguity-free games without having "buy it all now" or "too much to learn" problems.

 BlueDagger wrote:

Evertras wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
1- Balance issues all over the place. Done on porpoise to boost sales mostly i know.

I need an image of Matt Ward riding a dolphin. Like right now.

Went even better for ya

That just won the Internet.

 Peregrine wrote:


Any level above "clueless newbies picking random units and rolling dice". It's very simple:

Good games, like MTG, grow in complexity and continue to be balanced as you learn more and your skills improve. New players might have balance problems where one person in a group of newbies figures out a new combo first, but in the long run the better your skills get the more you converge on a balanced game.

Bad games, like 40k, fail as soon as you learn anything. New players might not have immediate balance problems when they're limited to a battleforce each, but the more you learn about the game the more you see the massive balance issues.

And of course let's not pretend that we're dealing with subtle variations in balance choices between target skill levels. GW's "balance" is laughably bad and doesn't work at ANY skill level beyond "newbie still learning the basic rules"..

I can't comment on MTG, not being much into card games.

However, I've played well in excess of a hundred different wargames over the years, and many of them suffer the problem I talk about, it is not simply about a newbie, and it certainly has nothing to do with what figures you happen to have. Many wargames require that you understand certain strengths and weaknesses of each side before you find them balanced, others that you don't understand more subtle strengths/weaknesses to retain balance. Sure when you start you just push units around and win or lose and find one side or another has a major advantage that way. A bit later you undertstand some of the more obvious issues faced by each side and how to handle them but that may just mean that one side or the other is still the clear winner. Later on you start to understand more subtle aspects of the 2 sides, or you gain a better grasp of the maths behind the game, or that victory conditions don't require the style of play you were using before, or that certain opening moves etc lead to certain possibilties later in the game. At that point it may that you find the game balanced, or that having thought the game was balanced you now find it unbalanced again because of your deeper knowledge.


I make no comment on 40k balance, but your idea that any game can be readily balanced for all skill levels is laughable. In a game with so many combinations that is an extremely hard thing to achieve. Star fleet battles, once one oof the biggest tourney games around at events like origins, and a pretty seriously hardcore game, that took years and and a specially cut down set of tourney specific rules and special tourney only ships to get reasonably balanced for tournament players. ASL uses set scenarios with set forces and conditions to achieve balanced games, not a bring your own army and assume it it is balanced to some unkown other force on a random map. Many historical wargames like FOG or DBA have issues with balance once you start fighting non-historical matchups, but that is what happens at tourneys.

It's not hard to see that Carnifex is fething broken internaly and externaly, just fixing such obvious issues would take 40k to a different level of balance. It is impossible and unnecessary to provide perfect or near perfect balance but it is not that hard to provide a much better balance than there is now.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
why do all the codexes have to be balanced to work?

I am not even sure if this is a serious question.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Do you want lots of heavy artillery for Tyranids? or CC-oriented Tau?

No and it has nothing to do with balance in 40k that is discussed.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
as a side note, if so many of you are such experts on game design and mechanics, why don't you try and work for a game company? or, better yet, design your own?

It doesn't take an expert or game designer to see huge flaws in 40k ruleset and balance, also I for example don't want to write rules, I want to pay and play a good tactical game. What kind of argument is that anyway, this is all simple feedback that any company that does quality managment would thank for, no need to send people to work for game companies just because they dare to point out mistakes and suggest solutions.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
as a side note, if so many of you are such experts on game design and mechanics, why don't you try and work for a game company? or, better yet, design your own?

It doesn't take an expert or game designer to see huge flaws in 40k ruleset and balance, also I for example don't want to write rules, I want to pay and play a good tactical game. What kind of argument is that anyway, this is all simple feedback that any company that does quality managment would thank for, no need to send people to work for game companies just because they dare to point out mistakes and suggest solutions.

Most likely his answer was a choice between that or "sell your models and play chess"

Hell, I'd volunteer 40 hours a week of my time (yes, unpaid) if GW would accept it to get a clearer rules set. If that's what it takes, that's what I'll do. I won't even address balance (directly - clarifying/changing rules might affect balance accidentally) but just attempt to clarify the rules and remove as much ambiguity as possible.

 Ailaros wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:1- Balance issues all over the place.
2- Rules that don't add up or have consistency issues.

These are matters of mere opinion, though. All you're saying is that GW doesn't agree with your idea of what balance should be, not that GW isn't doing balance correctly.

Plus, you can either have a rules edition that is carefully balanced, or you can have rules edition that adds new stuff, but you can not have both, especially not at the scale GW is doing things.

xxvaderxx wrote:3- Obvious lack of important rules like what actually are "small" and "large" terrain pieces.
4- Painful rules to apply while gaming like removing guys from the front when it applies to a 20+ piled in unit.

You know, you could always start playing 4th ed with your friends. Both of these were "fixed" back then.

Balance is actually not really about opinion. This is kind of a dumb thing to say.

My favorite example of a poorly written rule is that for multiple editions, the Assault Weapon and Rapid Fire rules state that the ability to charge is based on whether the model is carrying the weapon instead of firing that type of weapon.

Deadnight wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
40k may be poorly-balanced. It may not always make sense in context of the fluff. It may not contain the clearest or most logical rules ever written. It may not be the best game for competitive or tournament play ever written.

However.

40k, when played in a friendly setting with a group of rational people who know each other and are willing to construct house rules and house interpretations of the rules, and who are willing to build lists that are fun to play and to play against rather than throwing the most broken combination of things they can find at their foes, works fairly well.

I realize these are rather stringent qualifications to place on any game, but if you can find a friendly setting and agree upon resolutions to issues with the rules, it's actually a very fun game.

In other words, you are having fun in spite of the rules, rather than because of them.

What you are saying is this: "if you can ignore everything that is bad, and dodgy, and not put together right, its actually pretty OK". Christ, that kind of attitude could be used to make getting the bloody plague sound like a good experience! And i'm sorry, but that kind of attitude from a company will not sell me on anything, whether its a game of toy soldiers, or a car or anything in between.

It's actually more along the lines of "If you take their rules and tack some fan interpretations on it works pretty well". More like saying "If you take this car and replace a few parts it runs pretty well" than saying "If you take this car and ignore the parts that don't work then it runs pretty well", since ignoring things in the rules has an actual effect on them. Holes in the rules are there because of the release schedule; GW has to keep a relatively even revenue stream, which requires staggering the release of new models and rules, which requires them to adapt to a changing metagame and a changing battlefield in ways that are rather difficult to predict ahead of time. They're a consequence of the business model, which isn't likely to change; taking the parts of 40k that work well (the models, for the most part, and a large portion of the rules) and patching over the parts that don't work (vagueness and inconsistencies in the rules) makes for a quite good game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 snooggums wrote:
My favorite example of a poorly written rule is that for multiple editions, the Assault Weapon and Rapid Fire rules state that the ability to charge is based on whether the model is carrying the weapon instead of firing that type of weapon.

Again. It's something you look at, say "That's silly", and reinterpret to mean what would make sense. Having a regular group makes it easier to codify these things and get all players to sign onto the interpretations.

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
And @Deadnight, here in Perth Warmahordes has surpassed 40K (alot of 40K players playing warmahordes but not all of them play 40K)in popularity but the gaming groups have kinda fractured recently making it harder to completely confirm it

I really have to make an effort to head up that way for a few games some time! Where do you guys normally play?

 Ailaros wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:1- Balance issues all over the place.
2- Rules that don't add up or have consistency issues.

These are matters of mere opinion, though. All you're saying is that GW doesn't agree with your idea of what balance should be, not that GW isn't doing balance correctly.

Plus, you can either have a rules edition that is carefully balanced, or you can have rules edition that adds new stuff, but you can not have both, especially not at the scale GW is doing things.

I have to disagree here. balance is simple. i shouldnt be punished because i play a certain codex. Take tau in 4th. tyanids in 5th. daemons v grey knights. Even beyond that, i shouldnt be punished because i want to play a certain style of army. And sadly, GW rules sets have encouraged certain playstyles within certain codices to be predominant in each edition, leaving others underpowered and lacking. transports in 4th for example.

I know, for example that if i want to play Imperial Guard, and i ask here, i will get a few responses, but they'll all boil down to "take this build, this build, or this build". If i try that on the Privateer Press boards, and say, i want to play Khador, what should i get, the answer invariably is "red stuff" ie i am not pigeonholed into taken the one or two viable builds, because warmachine is a game, where outside of a few outliers, everything can be built into a game winning strategy. and that my friend, is the hallmark of balance. i'm not punished for taking khador. winning or losing comes down to me, and how i play, not what faction i took.

I also have issues with the statement that you can either have a carefully balanced rules set, or a rules set that adds new stuff, but not both. thats hogwash. and utterly, and completely false. Look at Warmachine/Hordes. (a) a very carefully balanced rules set. and (b) in every expansion of the game, they've added new stuff. cavalry. epic characters. character 'jacks and units. battle engines. and most recently, collossals, and gargantuans. And yet, despite how GW does it, where if you want to do well, you must buy the new shiny!, none of the new stuff in PP games have broken the game. they're new additions, and new alternatives, with new synnergies and combos. they're not replacements. Nor are they dead weight. they're options, just like every thing else.

AnomanderRake wrote:
It's actually more along the lines of "If you take their rules and tack some fan interpretations on it works pretty well". More like saying "If you take this car and replace a few parts it runs pretty well" than saying "If you take this car and ignore the parts that don't work then it runs pretty well", since ignoring things in the rules has an actual effect on them. Holes in the rules are there because of the release schedule; GW has to keep a relatively even revenue stream, which requires staggering the release of new models and rules, which requires them to adapt to a changing metagame and a changing battlefield in ways that are rather difficult to predict ahead of time. They're a consequence of the business model, which isn't likely to change; taking the parts of 40k that work well (the models, for the most part, and a large portion of the rules) and patching over the parts that don't work (vagueness and inconsistencies in the rules) makes for a quite good game.

First up, why is the name Anomander Rake so familiar to me? Its familiar, but i can't remember where i heard it from.

Secondly, i actually agree with you. 40k isnt so bad if you drop some stuff, and add some stuff, and change some stuff. that was never the issue, my good man. however, turning that on its head, i think its a crying shame that that is even necessary to be done. that is, essentially my point. the fact that players have to finish the work the developers didnt bother doing. And i get why they do it. At its heart of pushing "the hobby", GW pushes it as a sandbox- its a user-defined kitchen sink game. whatever you want 40k to be, make it that way. the downside of this is that there is no direction in it, and everything ends up being more than a bit messy. and unessecarily cluttered.

Personally, im of the view that user-defined changes should be there to allow for alternative game modes, essentially. like ignoring "caster-kill" as a win condition in warmachine, or else, the rather excellent "UFC cage-match" rules i saw created for warmachine/hordes a while back. they shouldnt be necessary/needed in order to just make the game playable in the first place.

I remember i read a thread once where a guy was saying how awesome 2nd ed 40k was- how it was such a better game, and how he and his group went back to it instead of the modern game. Which was fair enough, but they have to do all you were suggesting - dropping stuff, changing stuff, modifying stuff, and adding stuff to make i playable. But i remember thinking, surely if they had to make all those changes in the first place, how was it fair to argue that it was a good game in the first place? maybe they ended up turning it into something they enjoyed, but it wasnt that in the first place.

I would also argue that GW deliberately changes the meta game. they're not interested in *fixing whats wrong/broken* with the game. they're only interested in moving the goalposts. I've seen it since third, where GW pushes a different aspect of the game in each edition, to push a certain part of their range at a time. Personally, i'm of the view that they know how their changes are going to effect the battlefield, and they plan accordingly. each edition creates as many issues as it solves.

Rhetoric Question...

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 snooggums wrote:
My favorite example of a poorly written rule is that for multiple editions, the Assault Weapon and Rapid Fire rules state that the ability to charge is based on whether the model is carrying the weapon instead of firing that type of weapon.

Again. It's something you look at, say "That's silly", and reinterpret to mean what would make sense. Having a regular group makes it easier to codify these things and get all players to sign onto the interpretations.

Ignoring the poorly written rules means that they aren't poorly written? Yeah, I was able to do that back in high school when I played Palladium Game's Rifts as the Game Master, but even the most well meaning players may read that sentence about Rapid Fire weapons to mean that GW actually meant for the carry to matter over the fire.

Now that I know better, it is clear that either GW doesn't put any effort in or they don't know how to write clear and concise rules. They have said that it is is the former as well.

 snooggums wrote:
My favorite example of a poorly written rule is that for multiple editions, the Assault Weapon and Rapid Fire rules state that the ability to charge is based on whether the model is carrying the weapon instead of firing that type of weapon.

Not in 6th and I'm pretty sure it said "fired" in 5th as well. Can't remember other than that.

I have never played a game in which each team/army/force etc was totally balanced. Last time I did was a board game we all know... Risk.

If you want to play a stale static game where each team is identical you and your friends can get together and play chess.

I agree that some things can be irratating but as a big tournament player I find that if you cant beat something your not trying hard enough. I am sick of people complaining about prices and rules.

Just go play another game.

Everyone then says well no I love warhammer but blah blah blah. Apparently you just want to whine about it and explain what you think it should be. Thank god some of the people who complain aren't the game designers or this game would die. People want unique, powerful, GAMING models.

This is not real life. It is a hobby and those that dont like it should leave. No hard feelings...

As with all people we all wish that things could be balanced but there is no way to do it. If every army was exacly the same then it would come down to who rolls better. I dont want to just hope my d6 luck is strong today everything I set up my army.

I have yet to run into an army that was unbeatable. Of course I lose to lists all the time too, but then you figure out how to defeat them. I think its more challenging and interesting.

My only complaint is not the over power of some units/armies but the underpower of many. Some units are just so plainly terrible that they are basically unuseable (in a competitive sense). (The leman russ with the auto cannon turret haha)

Sorry for the rant, didn't mean to offend anyone in particular. I have been playing this game since 3rd edition and I have gone through many many price increases. I enjoy the hobby, and becaues of it I worry less about the cost. I am not rich and can't buy anything I want at anytime but it doesn't influence my gaming.

To me I get together with my on friday and/or saturdays and play a fun interactive social game where we can spend time hanging out, talking fluff, and battling over futuristic worlds that have been attacked by evil races of aliens. This is purely for fun. If your main concern is the impact on your wallet then you should move on now lol

So... Yet another rant about balance when the main point of this thread is poor rules quality.

And even then, the incorrect idea that balance means everyone is the same.

 Peregrine wrote:

And besides that MTG and 40k are not the same game. They have very different goals and there's no reason to believe that WOTC would suddenly impose a rotation mechanic that accomplishes a necessary goal in MTG (and it's not "make more money") on a game like 40k that doesn't have that same goal.

Rotation?

3E Rhino/Transport Rush
4E monstrous creatures
5E transports again and troops, lots of troops
6E fliers

No - there's no rotation, underselling units NEVER get buffed and the new stuff is never imbalanced.... ever... honest...

rigeld2 wrote:
So... Yet another rant about balance when the main point of this thread is poor rules quality.

And even then, the incorrect idea that balance means everyone is the same.

Which game has totally unique armies that are 100% balanced? That game should put GW out of business. Dont say warmachine/hoards cause its certainly not true.

Where they not referring to both a mix of balance and poor quality rules? Personally I think they go hand in hand as the bad rules are what effect balance. Explain to me why they are different.

 Icelord wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So... Yet another rant about balance when the main point of this thread is poor rules quality.

And even then, the incorrect idea that balance means everyone is the same.

Which game has totally unique armies that are 100% balanced? That game should put GW out of business. Dont say warmachine/hoards cause its certainly not true.

I'm not aware of one, but again - that's not the point of the thread. You can tell by reading the title. You're also missing the idea of (near) perfect imbalance. GW isn't anywhere near that.

Where they not referring to both a mix of balance and poor quality rules? Personally I think they go hand in hand as the bad rules are what effect balance. Explain to me why they are different.

What effect on balance does the FNP vs other unsaved wound confusion cause?
What effect on balance does the Night Scythe rules being horribly ambiguous have?
What effect on balance does having clear rules have? If anything a clear rules set will improve balance - or, rather it would help Codex authors to write better balanced books.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Icelord wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So... Yet another rant about balance when the main point of this thread is poor rules quality.

And even then, the incorrect idea that balance means everyone is the same.

Which game has totally unique armies that are 100% balanced? That game should put GW out of business. Dont say warmachine/hoards cause its certainly not true.

I'm not aware of one, but again - that's not the point of the thread. You can tell by reading the title. You're also missing the idea of (near) perfect imbalance. GW isn't anywhere near that.

Where they not referring to both a mix of balance and poor quality rules? Personally I think they go hand in hand as the bad rules are what effect balance. Explain to me why they are different.

What effect on balance does the FNP vs other unsaved wound confusion cause?
What effect on balance does the Night Scythe rules being horribly ambiguous have?
What effect on balance does having clear rules have? If anything a clear rules set will improve balance - or, rather it would help Codex authors to write better balanced books.

I dont really understand your point. I believe you just agreed with me

The problem the rules have caused are unbalance. You can interpret the title which referres to Poor Quality rules as either meaning the general rules of the game or the indivisual pieces of the games rules (hence armies and their balance).

I would love to see a game where people dont argue and complain about the rules. But thats just not going to happen. People who think they can post on a forum (that is obviously not sponsored or probably even read by GW) need to find a new hobby as this is causing them too much grief. The game does NOT equal the fluff. They do NOT go hand in hand. Although you may want them too they have nothing to do with the rules of the GAME. People may think I am wrong in defending GW. But its a hobby I truly love and dont care if the rules aren't always clear and/or balanced. I play this game becaues I enjoy it. Even its parts that dont always seem right. Sure GW could fix some things, produce army books and/or models faster, etc., but they don't. I can't control it and complaining on a forum isn't gonna make it happen. Write them an email. If you want results STOP SUPPORTING THEM. People complain about the cost for instance and they go buy it anyways. There are probably cheaper games you could play, but I dont know of many that are going to be as big, have as many player, or events etc.

I hope you can get the clear and concise rules you want one day. But if you want them from GW your barking up the wrong tree.

My point is that the rules (as in he rules contained in the BRB) are flawed. Playing around them (like I do) doesn't change the underlying fact that they're flawed. The rules themselves have zero effect on the balance between codexes. What a tighter rule set can do is enable the codex authors to have a consistent rules set to write against - which would result in better balance among codexes.

I play 40k as often as I can (which isn't that often). I've enjoyed literally every game (except one) since I started playing again halfway through 5th. Ill still keep playing the game through 6th more than likely.

None of that changes the fact that GW writes poor rules. And they could do better with relatively minimal effort. They just choose not to.

rigeld2 wrote:
None of that changes the fact that GW writes poor rules. And they could do better with relatively minimal effort. They just choose not to.

I may not agree with rigeld2 on everything, but I agree here. The disagreement is probably from the intent side of the equation, but that's fine.

GW could do a better job making a balanced, clear, concise ruleset. For one reason or another, they choose not to. I believe that this is due to a misunderstanding between them and the player base (ignorance of what the players want and thinking everyone plays the same game they do) whereas others believe that it is intentional (intentional imbalance to sell certain units).