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.

xruslanx wrote:


So, gw sucks and everything else is awesome? Cheers for that.
.

Nope. Never said gw sucked. Stop twisting peoples words and chucking crap back at them. In fact, I've said many times you're perfectly entitled to play gw games.

What I am saying is other games exist. And other games are worth discussing, especially in terms of rules. You don't discuss football in the context of one team, do you? Dismissing them, and dismissing their relevance is silly. Blindly insisting on only one point of view with no avenue for external input is not how you do debates.

xruslanx wrote:

I really don't see much good coming from future replies so, while you're free to reply to this (if you want), I probably won't reply back.

Well, it would have been nice if you actually listened in the first place. No loss to me - I'm gonna go watch homeland.

 Daedleh wrote:
They're not spamming. They were contributing productively and you were ignoring the facts that they were presenting to you.

xruslanx wrote:

On the contrary, 40k has an ever-changing meta; that's radically different pretty much every where you go. Even amongst a group of friends, the meta can shift and change and develop constantly as people find ways of defeating other peoples' tactics, countering certain units, discovering potent new combos. Some people find this fun, you may not.

Having read your sig, it seems pointless arguing with you. You clearly don't like casual gaming at all, so arguing with me - a casual gamer - is pointless as arguing religion.

Meta change within a group is fine and great! Meta change because of imbalances is not. The group gradually switching away from flyers because people are upping their air defences is fine. The group switching away from air because there's a Tau player and their AA is ridiculous is not.

Once again you're trying to drag the conversation off track once someone points out that you're wrong. Rather than actually defend your position, you try and change it so they have to change track. It's a classic trolling tactic.

No-one is saying that meta changes as a natural evolution of a gaming groups collections is a bad thing. Meta changes because of a poorly balanced codex is.

And to predict you, you're going to snort and say "BUT THE TAU CODEX IS BALANCED". By 40k standards, it is balanced. By the rest of the games out there (which you've stated many times over that you have absolutely no experience of), it is not.

Edit: to give you a specific example. The new Basileans army in Kings of War has a core unit of angels (Elohi) who can fly. If a group gradually evolved its meta because a couple of players picked up Basileans and people now need more options to fight flyers, that's fine. If the meta evolves because the Elohi are ridiculously cheap in points and a few WAAC players pick it up to exploit the latest unbalanced unit, that is not fine.

So a meta change is good...but meta change when it's in a gw game is bad? You're getting desperate now. A couple of badly costed units doesn't change the general trend.

And if you think that spamming OP units is what 40k is about, you probably haven't played much 40k. No one in my group would spam helldrakes or vendettas, and yet we have a constantly shifting meta, with some units falling into favour as some fall out. But wait...that book has a GW slogan on the front. Clearly that metachange is invalid now, how stupid of us.

xruslanx wrote:
So a meta change is good...but meta change when it's in a gw game is bad? You're getting desperate now. A couple of badly costed units doesn't change the general trend.

And if you think that spamming OP units is what 40k is about, you probably haven't played much 40k. No one in my group would spam helldrakes or vendettas, and yet we have a constantly shifting meta, with some units falling into favour as some fall out. But wait...that book has a GW slogan on the front. Clearly that metachange is invalid now, how stupid of us.

At what point did I say that meta change in a GW game is bad? You're a fan of putting words in peoples mouths aren't you?

 Daedleh wrote:

At what point did I say that meta change in a GW game is bad? You're a fan of putting words in peoples mouths aren't you?

I was reading between the lines:

Meta change within a group is fine and great! Meta change because of imbalances is not. The group gradually switching away from flyers because people are upping their air defences is fine. The group switching away from air because there's a Tau player and their AA is ridiculous is not... Meta changes because of a poorly balanced codex is.

Two instances of "meta changes created by gw is bad".

And I don't care about the meta of 40k right now, or ever really. I care about how poorly written the rules of 40k are. And that was what your poll originally was asking. I do not enjoy the 40k ruleset because of how it is poorly written and full of holes. I enjoy playing 40k. I do not enjoy the rules "discussions" that are made possible thanks to the gak quality rules that GW puts out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I care because of how much better a game 40k could be.

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
And I don't care about the meta of 40k right now, or ever really. I care about how poorly written the rules of 40k are. And that was what your poll originally was asking. I do not enjoy the 40k ruleset because of how it is poorly written and full of holes. I enjoy playing 40k. I do not enjoy the rules "discussions" that are made possible thanks to the gak quality rules that GW puts out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I care because of how much better a game 40k could be.

And yet, I would find your version of 40k to be tedious and static. So it's horses for courses really.

Also, if you argue that much playing 40k, find different people to play with.

xruslanx wrote:

 Daedleh wrote:

At what point did I say that meta change in a GW game is bad? You're a fan of putting words in peoples mouths aren't you?

I was reading between the lines:

Meta change within a group is fine and great! Meta change because of imbalances is not. The group gradually switching away from flyers because people are upping their air defences is fine. The group switching away from air because there's a Tau player and their AA is ridiculous is not... Meta changes because of a poorly balanced codex is.

Two instances of "meta changes created by gw is bad".

One instance of change by GW is good (natural evolution) and the counter example of where it was bad (by imbalance).

Just out of curiosity, how do you think you appear to someone impartial? You have numerous people with specific examples, backed up with facts and figures (all the numerous citations of the lack of Warmachine, MTG and KoW rule disputes), of how other games are demonstrably better than 40k. You're responding with "I don't play other games and I don't care." Who do you think an impartial person believes?

xruslanx wrote:

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
And I don't care about the meta of 40k right now, or ever really. I care about how poorly written the rules of 40k are. And that was what your poll originally was asking. I do not enjoy the 40k ruleset because of how it is poorly written and full of holes. I enjoy playing 40k. I do not enjoy the rules "discussions" that are made possible thanks to the gak quality rules that GW puts out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I care because of how much better a game 40k could be.

And yet, I would find your version of 40k to be tedious and static. So it's horses for courses really.

Also, if you argue that much playing 40k, find different people to play with.

How would "my" version of 40k be any different than yours? It would *be* the exact same game it is now, just with all the questions answered, all the rules accounted for. Nothing more, nothing less. Do you enjoy ambiguous rules in your games? I like going into a game knowing that both my opponent and I know how the rules work. What is wrong with that, or any different to the game you play? Why would that be tedious and static? It literally changes nothing and just answers the questions we have now.

Since we're arguing about something that *cannot* be resolved using data, I would imagine the common bystander would regard it as strange that you would try to use data to disprove someone's opinion.

Since literally your only point is "some 40k units are over/under costed", I think this conversation, probably this thread, is dead.

Yes I agree. Vendettas don't cost enough, ogryns cost too much. How that transmutes into a reason for me to dislike 40k, I do not know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
And I don't care about the meta of 40k right now, or ever really. I care about how poorly written the rules of 40k are. And that was what your poll originally was asking. I do not enjoy the 40k ruleset because of how it is poorly written and full of holes. I enjoy playing 40k. I do not enjoy the rules "discussions" that are made possible thanks to the gak quality rules that GW puts out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I care because of how much better a game 40k could be.

And yet, I would find your version of 40k to be tedious and static. So it's horses for courses really.

Also, if you argue that much playing 40k, find different people to play with.

How would "my" version of 40k be any different than yours? It would *be* the exact same game it is now, just with all the questions answered, all the rules accounted for. Nothing more, nothing less. Do you enjoy ambiguous rules in your games? I like going into a game knowing that both my opponent and I know how the rules work. What is wrong with that, or any different to the game you play? Why would that be tedious and static? It literally changes nothing and just answers the questions we have now.

Do you not find such certainty abhorant? Do you not find it sacrilegious? Do you not think that metric perfection is dull? Maybe I'm old fashioned. Though given the results of the poll, I am in the majority, so that's something

xruslanx wrote:
Since we're arguing about something that *cannot* be resolved using data, I would imagine the common bystander would regard it as strange that you would try to use data to disprove someone's opinion.

Since literally your only point is "some 40k units are over/under costed", I think this conversation, probably this thread, is dead.

Yes I agree. Vendettas don't cost enough, ogryns cost too much. How that transmutes into a reason for me to dislike 40k, I do not know.

I am not talking about points, under/overcosted units, or that like at all. I am talking about the rules.

xruslanx wrote:Do you not find such certainty abhorant? Do you not find it sacrilegious? Do you not think that metric perfection is dull? Maybe I'm old fashioned.

How is that abhorrent? Why are you so against having rules that work regardless of who you're playing against, whether it be friends or strangers? How is that sacrilegious? It is by no means "metric perfection" as you put it as there are still several issues within 40k, but why would not fixing the rules so that they work and make sense be a good thing? DO you and all your friends you play with think exactly alike? Do you never have rules disputes or question how said rules interact? Wouldn't it be nice to not have those issues come up at all and be able to actually enjoy playing more 40k?

Yeah that was in response to the other fella.

LET'S TRY ANOTHER ANALOGY.

You like Star Wars episode 1. It's the only Star Wars film you've seen and you enjoy it. That's fine. No-one's got a problem with. Whenever you see episode 1 discussed on a Star Wars board, you notice that people don't seem to like it very much. You start a poll on an Episode 1 discussion board asking why people don't like it.

You: "Why don't people like it?"
Others: "Well it's not as good as the originals."
You: "You're lying! It's the best film out of the lot!"
Others: "But you've not even seen it so how would you know?"
You: "I don't have to see the others to know that Episode 1 is the best!"
Others: "Ok, well the stories in the other films are much better than Episode 1. E1 is full of plot holes and doesn't make much sense when you think about it. The others hold up much better than that."
You: "Nuh-uh! Me and my friends watch E1 all the time and we can't find any plot holes. I'm blocking you."
Others: "Ok, well the acting was really wooden and poor. We don't know whether it was the script, poor direction or just poor actors. The performances given in the other films are much better. Here are some independent reviews which confirm that."
You: "I like the acting! I think it works really well with E1! I don't need to see the other films to know that their acting is much worse than E1."
Others: "Here are some clips from the other films. They show you how much better the acting is."
You: "NO! I don't have time to watch any clips from the other films. I just know that E1 is better."

Repeat on and on and on.

Do you honestly not see how you appear?

xruslanx wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Oh perfect imbalance. It's a bad idea for a tabletop wargame where building an army might take months and loads of cash.

Having read your sig, it seems pointless arguing with you. You clearly don't like casual gaming at all, so arguing with me - a casual gamer - is pointless as arguing religion.

I'm not even arguing, I'm trying to discuss. I even share your opinion that given the number of armies, various game sizes and endless terrain combinations 40K is not as badly balanced as many think. Still active FAQ work with points could do wonders but maybe you are right and they practice perfect imbalance. That would imo be horrible for this kind of game unless you are GW.

Signature, well the Calgar situation is taken straight from LOS description in BRB, also their imo needless cinematic aproach gives a bit ridiculous outcomes. Michael Bay edition, as someone here described it before, sometimes you can get too cool.

My apologies but is this debate even worth continuing? It's just going to be running around in circles. Anyways, I'm sorry but I have to say something.... "Maybe I'm old fashioned. Though given the results of the poll, I am in the majority, so that's something"

That's a TERRIBLE argument. First of all, mass opinion doesn't always = truth. Second of all, and more importantly, you posted this on a forum segment for 40k within a forum heavily inspired by 40k. That's a tad bit biased is it not? Along with that, 37% claim they don't like it to some degree which, nearing 40%, isn't a small number.

Personally.... I like the rules. That being said, I also don't like them. I suppose you could say I have mixed feelings for them. Why is it that in my codex TS are still blatantly sub par in comparison to PM and the sorts? Why is it that assaults are drastically random? Why are these rules so vague that we can fight over it? Why is this rule so meaningless that we tend to forget what it does (I'm looking at you soul blaze). The rules, to me, are cluttered, and certainly not as balanced as games such as magic, PP, and the sorts.... yet I enjoy the game nonetheless. Even if an edition change can make certain codices practically worthless, I love the fluff of this hobby. Also it helps to have friends that are willing to sit back and throw in the meh-decent-bleh units so we can have some diversity and fun.

Actually, to a bystander, we have 1 side that has played various other games and is saying that those other games have better balance AND retain their fluffiness. They, for the most part, are not crucifying the 1 guy for playing 40k. Then you have the 1 guy who, on top of being insulting, is for the most part ignoring everyone else and is utterly refusing the possibility that 40k could be better and still be a fun game.

 Daedleh wrote:
LET'S TRY ANOTHER ANALOGY.

You like Star Wars episode 1. It's the only Star Wars film you've seen and you enjoy it. That's fine. No-one's got a problem with. Whenever you see episode 1 discussed on a Star Wars board, you notice that people don't seem to like it very much. You start a poll on an Episode 1 discussion board asking why people don't like it.

You: "Why don't people like it?"
Others: "Well it's not as good as the originals."
You: "You're lying! It's the best film out of the lot!"
Others: "But you've not even seen it so how would you know?"
You: "I don't have to see the others to know that Episode 1 is the best!"
Others: "Ok, well the stories in the other films are much better than Episode 1. E1 is full of plot holes and doesn't make much sense when you think about it. The others hold up much better than that."
You: "Nuh-uh! Me and my friends watch E1 all the time and we can't find any plot holes. I'm blocking you."
Others: "Ok, well the acting was really wooden and poor. We don't know whether it was the script, poor direction or just poor actors. The performances given in the other films are much better. Here are some independent reviews which confirm that."
You: "I like the acting! I think it works really well with E1! I don't need to see the other films to know that their acting is much worse than E1."
Others: "Here are some clips from the other films. They show you how much better the acting is."
You: "NO! I don't have time to watch any clips from the other films. I just know that E1 is better."

Repeat on and on and on.

Do you honestly not see how you appear?

Why are the other movies better than Episode 1? One word: Midichlorians.

 StarTrotter wrote:
My apologies but is this debate even worth continuing? It's just going to be running around in circles. Anyways, I'm sorry but I have to say something.... "Maybe I'm old fashioned. Though given the results of the poll, I am in the majority, so that's something"

That's a TERRIBLE argument. First of all, mass opinion doesn't always = truth. Second of all, and more importantly, you posted this on a forum segment for 40k within a forum heavily inspired by 40k. That's a tad bit biased is it not? Along with that, 37% claim they don't like it to some degree which, nearing 40%, isn't a small number.

Personally.... I like the rules. That being said, I also don't like them. I suppose you could say I have mixed feelings for them. Why is it that in my codex TS are still blatantly sub par in comparison to PM and the sorts? Why is it that assaults are drastically random? Why are these rules so vague that we can fight over it? Why is this rule so meaningless that we tend to forget what it does (I'm looking at you soul blaze). The rules, to me, are cluttered, and certainly not as balanced as games such as magic, PP, and the sorts.... yet I enjoy the game nonetheless. Even if an edition change can make certain codices practically worthless, I love the fluff of this hobby. Also it helps to have friends that are willing to sit back and throw in the meh-decent-bleh units so we can have some diversity and fun.

Exalted. I like the fluff and I like playing the game, especially with friends, but sometimes I have to hide at my FLGS just so that I don't get thrown into the middle of some major rules argument (I am the judge). I will fully admit that I have fun, but at the same time I will admit that the rules (general & codex) can be written/balanced much better than they are now. Other games, which are just as (if not more) complex than 40k, get that right.

...I think I'm just going to let this thread die.

xruslanx wrote:
That sounds like a pretty poor idea. I would rather funds went into creating codexes as something other than a dispassionate list of rules, but each to their own.

Well the thing is WM Mk1 was getting old- around seven years old at that point and MK2 was an inevitable thing. It was going to happen and frankly needed to happen due to the massive amount of stuff added over those years. The only question was how they were going to best balance it. It should be noted that these playtest rules were just that. They're the end product and everyone got their 'codex' with fluff and pretty shiny pictures in the end but this way those shiny codexes were a) completely balanced with each other and b) all used the exact same terminology c) were all published within 8 months of MK2 being released.

And in case it needs to be said, when you're playtesting rules you don't need anything but rules. There was nothing new in the FT so fluff was already present.

xruslanx wrote:
I also think the notion of "balance" is directly contrary to fluff and enjoyment, but I can see the appeal of fixing loopholes in such a way.

Here I sorta have to agree with you a bit. But the the mere existence of points values defies your whole theory. In fluff, when Space Marines come for you, they don't send a relatively equal force. In fact no commander *ever* seeks a fair battle because equally matched armies will always bloody themsevles- they're equally matched after all and you always want to fight on your own terms. Now obviously no one wants to play the poor rebel guard outpost of 100 dudes and a few chimeras that finds itself the weak point in the defence line the 50 space marines work out is their best way in. It'd be a short and bloody fight but conversely that is exactly how they'd attack. They'd never look at another entry point and go 'well they're pretty well dug in, certainly our match. Let's go attack there and lose half our number.' So unless you play only 'fluff realistic' scenarios you're already conceding that balance has to trump fluff at least somewhat.

But there is a middle ground. You can make units balanced AND maintaint a goodly amount of the fluff. Look at the Tactical Marines from the conversion I listed. The system is less granular so the stats are automatically more able to be fluff accurate. They have the Fearless trait (they automatically pass morale checks), the Tough trait (on a 5+ they're knocked down but heal 1 wound and stay alive) and Dual Shot (if they stand still they can fire twice- this is a call out to the original 2nd Ed SM Rapid Fire rule). So they have (relative to other troops) more accure stats than in 40K and maintain their fluff of being fearless, hard to kill and being able to lay down a torrent of bolter fire. The unit has weapon attachments for flamer/melta/plasma (admittedly this was done before the recent grav weapons but there's no reason they couldn't be added) and unit attachments for a sergeant and various heavy weapons. Each combo provides a fluff based set of rules- the Rearguard attachment is defensive in nature while the Vanguard Attachment is more swift and offensive. Now I'll grant you that it hasn't been playtested near enough to be balanced but I can tell you this- if you play a game with these rules- and you understand Warmachine rules- you will not have a single dispute. And you'll still feel like you're playing 40k (admittedly more like 2nd Ed but that's hardly a bad thing).

Ultimate balance would be the antithesis of fluff yes, but you have to strike a middle ground. Perhaps you're rather err on the side of fluff, other would err on the side of balance and that is a valid preference either way but only one can make the claim to fairness. But this is also a slight red herring. Balance is only one part of a good rules set. Terminology is another one and GW need to lift their game here and use clear, consistent and defined terms. I might even suggest they discontinue the cross edition rules which is just terrible.

xruslanx wrote:
Though given the results of the poll, I am in the majority, so that's something

This is disingenuous. First of all, your poll is deceptive. It conflates enjoyment of the game with the quality of the rules, i.e. that one's enjoyment of the game is directly proportional to their opinion of rule quality. You yourself have stated this is not necessarily true, since your experience with rules disputes has not given you a negative opinion of the game. The poll needs to separate the statements "I enjoy the game X amount" and "I think the quality of the rules/writing is Y".

More importantly however, the majority response is "I like the game but it's not perfect." This does not contradict the majority of the posters you are arguing against. Many of them (with a few notable exceptions) have stated at one time or another that they do, in fact, enjoy playing 40k. However, they all recognize that the game is not perfect, i.e. there are areas of the game that could use improvement. For many of us, that "area" is the clarity of writing and mechanical interaction between rules. EDIT: Case in point: rigeld2's post below mine.

What is so bizarre is that you seem to deny that any improvement in that direction is even possible. Yet, many posters have continued to give you examples of how 40k rules mechanics could develop clarity and preciseness, all of which you have ignored or deemed "insignificant" because you haven't ever tried mechanics different than those already existing in 40k.

xruslanx wrote:
Do you not find such certainty abhorant? Do you not find it sacrilegious? Do you not think that metric perfection is dull? Maybe I'm old fashioned. Though given the results of the poll, I am in the majority, so that's something

No, having clear rules without sacrifice fluff or playability is not dull or sacrilegious. I would likely triple my GW spending (and support GW directly instead of seeking 3rd party sources) if the rules were better.

Note that I didn't say I don't enjoy playing - I do, but in spite of the rules instead of because of them. That's why when looking at them objectively in context with other TTG rules I can state that they're bad.

rigeld2 wrote:

No, having clear rules without sacrifice fluff or playability is not dull or sacrilegious. I would likely triple my GW spending (and support GW directly instead of seeking 3rd party sources) if the rules were better.

Note that I didn't say I don't enjoy playing - I do, but in spite of the rules instead of because of them. That's why when looking at them objectively in context with other TTG rules I can state that they're bad.

QFT

rigeld2 wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Do you not find such certainty abhorant? Do you not find it sacrilegious? Do you not think that metric perfection is dull? Maybe I'm old fashioned. Though given the results of the poll, I am in the majority, so that's something

No, having clear rules without sacrifice fluff or playability is not dull or sacrilegious. I would likely triple my GW spending (and support GW directly instead of seeking 3rd party sources) if the rules were better.

Note that I didn't say I don't enjoy playing - I do, but in spite of the rules instead of because of them. That's why when looking at them objectively in context with other TTG rules I can state that they're bad.

+1

xruslanx wrote:
...I think I'm just going to let this thread die.

You won't though. You'll be back. Your tenacity, whilst admirable is only matched by your ignorance and you're far too entertaining to walk away now. It's just getting fun.

We know you're never going to be convinced in any way, in spite of the mountains of evidence given to you. So here's another random picture to maybe convince you.

xruslanx wrote:
Since we're arguing about something that *cannot* be resolved using data, I would imagine the common bystander would regard it as strange that you would try to use data to disprove someone's opinion.
.
:

That person would probably consider it strange, that you refuse to use data to better inform yourself - this might seem like a strange concept to you, but it is entirely logical to use data, facts and analysis as an input into your opinion. Opinions are not divorced from, or independent of facts and data, despite what you seem to think.

But you know, continue to stick your head in the sand. Youre only fooling yourself after all.

xruslanx wrote:
.

Since literally your only point is "some 40k units are over/under costed", I think this conversation, probably this thread, is dead.
:

How about any of the posts listing examples of rules bloat and excessive rules, poor rules terminology, cluttered and counter intuitive game mechanics, lack of play testing, lack of community support, lack of design ethos/direction etc? They've all been pointed out, and yet you continually side step them and then suggest all we're saying is some things are over/under costed. Bizarre.

xruslanx wrote:
Do you not find such certainty abhorant? Do you not find it sacrilegious? Do you not think that metric perfection is dull? Maybe I'm old fashioned.

This is a joke, right? You can't seriously tell me that you enjoy having broken rules and never knowing how the game is going to work until you start playing.

PS: good games provide uncertainty by having clear rules and allowing player interaction to be unpredictable. For example, MTG has perfectly clear and consistent rules and yet still has plenty of room for surprises if you bring a deck your opponent didn't expect to see.

Though given the results of the poll, I am in the majority, so that's something

Only because you posted a biased poll where there's no "average" option. Obviously when you post a "love it or hate it" poll on a 40k forum a lot of people are going to vote "love it" because you didn't give them an option to vote for "it's okay". And note that in the poll I posted which does have a middle option the numbers are a lot less favorable.

Not that this should surprise anyone, since you openly admit that you posted a biased poll to "prove" that everyone loves 40k.

Yes I agree. Vendettas don't cost enough, ogryns cost too much. How that transmutes into a reason for me to dislike 40k, I do not know.

[...]

Do you not find such certainty abhorant? Do you not find it sacrilegious? Do you not think that metric perfection is dull? Maybe I'm old fashioned. Though given the results of the poll, I am in the majority, so that's something

The only certainty here is that every guard player will have maximum Vendettas but none will take Ogryns. And yes, that is abhorrent, and by god if thats not a reason to dislike 40k then I don't know what is.

xruslanx wrote:
Since we're arguing about something that *cannot* be resolved using data, I would imagine the common bystander would regard it as strange that you would try to use data to disprove someone's opinion.:

It cannot be solved using data exclusively, no. But data will get you most of the way there as far as 40k is concerned.

Given that a wargame runs off points costs (quantitative), dice rolls (quantitative), special rules adding or subtracting from dice rolls (quantitative), movement distances (quantitative), and a whole host of other quantitative factors, I'd argue that data is very important for resolving 40k's imbalances.

The key difference here is the fact that Warmachine's ruleset took data from its players into account and benefited greatly, while 40k's was made and released purely in-house, and hence blunders around in a swarm of FAQs and broken combinations.

To quote Tim Minchin's Storm, "We'd as well be ten minutes back in time, for all the chance you'll change your mind." That said, I feel obligated to try, given the entertainment your blatant disregard for any opinion that doesn't resemble your own, and the resulting hilarious responses, has given me.

 StarTrotter wrote:
My apologies but is this debate even worth continuing? It's just going to be running around in circles.

To be fair it's not even a debate. It's one side using logical arguments backed with evidence, and one side saying "lol we don't need evidence! NOTHING CAN BE OBJECTIVELY KNOWN! Also, Halle Berry's Catwoman is the best movie ever despite me not watching any other film and I'll ignore everyone's very valid points as to why it is bad." Then when someone asks him why won't he try watching other films to know why it is bad, he'll bring up having sex with stallions or something.

That's not a debate. This is just talking to the tabletop gamer version of Bill O'Reilly. Thi is him saying "But look at the tides! It goes in, and out... we can't understand that!"

Really, I consider everything the OP says as spam. You can see just on the last page how he dismissed another very valid argument because... reasons. but he assssskkkkssssss for those arguments. But when asked for his arguments, it kinda falls short because, try as he might, you can't really argue why blue is the best color if you've only seen blue.

xruslanx wrote:
Since it's obvious that the other people in this discussion simply can't understand the abstract notion I'm trying to discuss, do *you* have the ability to explain how a game system can have hundreds of special rules,all involving interaction with other special rules, without creating balls-ups? The total number of combinations of special rules is far in excess of the number that can reasonably be play-tested.

Simple answer: Proper testing and quality assurance. It is that easy. I work in the pharma industry in software development. We work on complex systems and verify and validate them in their entirety. It can and is done on a regular basis every day in industries and companies aroung the globe, but apparently not in the GW world. When dealing with complex systems if the system is too complex and massive to test and verify effectively you have two options: 1) You make the time and do it anyway. OR 2) You make changes to the system, decrease the complexity and make it possible to verify in less time. The one option you don't take is say "oh it's too big" and then just don't do much of anything and see what happens. That is why you argument is flawed to begin with. If there are TOO many special rules combinations to be reasonably playtested then they either need to unreasonably play test them all or get rid of a bunch to prune back the jungle of special rules to a verifiable and maintainable level.

Other game companies release beta versions of rules to their playerbase for even more testing of everything. They offer forums for their players to communicate more openly and clearly to them, and when major problems appear in those forums they actually address them. All of that with the goal of making the players actually happy to be playing their game and by addressing their concerns keep them as long term customers. GW has the opposite approach. It seems to be some state secret what rules GW will next release, as if the safety and security of the world rests of people being kept in the dark. They release their products with minimal testing, then pretend to not hear when their customers complain; sticking their head in the sand and acting like nothing is wrong. Eventually after people complain loudly and long enough they will update the FAQ for the book in question. Sometimes the fix is as poorly thought out and prepared as the original rule and opens up a whole new round of complaints.

I've been wargaming for 36 years. In that time I have played some amazing games and I've played some real dogs. As much as I love the 40k figs and forces and the like the ruleset has never been more than a midgrade mediocre on my list. I put up with the rules because I don't have the time to port my armies to a better system these days. It is not even remotely close to the worst game ever that I was forced to play during my tenure as a wargamer, but it has never been close to the best either. Perhaps if GW made a serious effort at balance, stability, and common sense I would move them up the list, but not today. Any game that has no ability for modern units to split fire and is full of unit specific special rules that should actually apply to every unit in the game and not just a single unit is never going to raise above Mediocre in my book.

Skriker