The End of Competitive 40k???

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.

**ClockworkZion**

@Blacksails: I don't disagree with what you're saying, just that it ommits one key fact: those other games were made to be used in competitive play. The 40k we play now is based on a different yardstick and that's where a lot of the problems of putting it in that box of "competitive" come from.

I agree, this game can, and should be better. But as it is right now with the way the stats work, to how the weapons are defined needs to be redone from scratch to make that happen. 6th edition will never be that because of that. 7th might, but only if they stop using old systems because that's what they've been using, and start using new ones instead.

40k as it is can't be competitive because of those archaic systems that are in place, and that's why I don't see any reason to push it to be so. We need a game that is built to handle competitive play, not just shoehorned into it to make it work.

Right now, 40k isn't suited to meet any kind of level of "competitive", it's suited to tell stories, to build on with your own rules and generally have an experience that is best done with friends for fun, not against strangers for prizes.

**da001**

ClockworkZion wrote:
@Blacksails: I don't disagree with what you're saying, just that it ommits one key fact: those other games were made to be used in competitive play. The 40k we play now is based on a different yardstick and that's where a lot of the problems of putting it in that box of "competitive" come from.

I agree, this game can, and should be better. But as it is right now with the way the stats work, to how the weapons are defined needs to be redone from scratch to make that happen. 6th edition will never be that because of that. 7th might, but only if they stop using old systems because that's what they've been using, and start using new ones instead.

40k as it is can't be competitive because of those archaic systems that are in place, and that's why I don't see any reason to push it to be so. We need a game that is built to handle competitive play, not just shoehorned into it to make it work.

Right now, 40k isn't suited to meet any kind of level of "competitive", it's suited to tell stories, to build on with your own rules and generally have an experience that is best done with friends for fun, not against strangers for prizes.

Exalted.

I like competitive games. A lot. But w40k it is not a competitive game, at all. It could be, if GW started working in this regard. It would take many years, many simplifications, many hard decisions. I don´t think they are interested.

**Matt1785**

The sky isn't falling, and 40K competition will live on.

The narrative players make tweaks and house rules for the game, we know things that don't work and we make fixes based upon observations. We know the game is meant for fun, so we keep in mind things that need fixing to make it fun, we talk about things that are broken, things that are cheese and we make adjustments to be sure that we're not

The funny part is that TOs have this idea that they don't have to comp things in tournaments. They also seem to have this idea that comp will make it so that people don't want to come to their events. I don't know where this idea comes from. How do you take a game that's not meant to be competitive, and then just throw it into a tournament setting all willy-nilly? I suppose tournaments are more fun when the army changes based upon the newest release. You want balance for tournaments, then balance... stop crying wolf and expecting GW to change their mind about how they want their game played.

I understand some things aren't balanced, and the things that aren't are blatantly obvious.. so why not just fix them for your competitive play?? Why moan about it on and on like GW making something that can break the game is new?

**Blacksails**

ClockworkZion wrote:
@Blacksails: I don't disagree with what you're saying, just that it ommits one key fact: those other games were made to be used in competitive play. The 40k we play now is based on a different yardstick and that's where a lot of the problems of putting it in that box of "competitive" come from.

I agree, this game can, and should be better. But as it is right now with the way the stats work, to how the weapons are defined needs to be redone from scratch to make that happen. 6th edition will never be that because of that. 7th might, but only if they stop using old systems because that's what they've been using, and start using new ones instead.

40k as it is can't be competitive because of those archaic systems that are in place, and that's why I don't see any reason to push it to be so. We need a game that is built to handle competitive play, not just shoehorned into it to make it work.

Right now, 40k isn't suited to meet any kind of level of "competitive", it's suited to tell stories, to build on with your own rules and generally have an experience that is best done with friends for fun, not against strangers for prizes.

Okay, well lets throw aside the word 'competitive' then. I expect 40k to be a game that is balanced and well written, using two broad statements for brevity. Currently, 40k is neither of these things. Using any sort of different yardstick (casual is a poor one to use as well as its so incredibly subjective) 40k still comes up a lesser game when the price and competitors are thrown in. This makes it a poor game by nearly any sort of yardstick. I honestly have a hard time thinking of some sort of scale, or factor, or general comparison scale that 40k excels in.

Right, so we agree it could and should be a better game. As it is, its a mess, and I agree. Its a confused game with many issues down to the very core. But why not even imagine a future edition that is heavily revamped to be that game 40k could be. Furthermore, why not even demand that 40k be more balanced than it currently is in its framework. Its not some herculean task, just takes time and effort that GW has no desire to invest in. So we're left with shoddy FAQs that miss over the important things, issues that aren't covered by the rules, and blatant imbalances that need to be worked out amongst the players.

Again, you're right, 40k isn't suited to be competitive, which I think most people will agree with. But a better 40k would not only be better to tell stories or add your own rules, it would also work better for the players looking for some tournament style gaming.

So here's my point; a better wargame is not only better suited for any sort of casual type play, but also works better for any sort of competitive type play. Most games nowadays probably aren't designed to be competitive tourney games, but a properly balanced and clearly written rule set works incredibly for everyone. I'm sure you could agree to that.

I understand 40k currently isn't any of these things, but it won't stop a lot of us from expecting even better balance or clearer rules. Not even with competition in mind, just making it so that I can field my old horde Guard, and my friend can field his Thousand Sons against armies like mechanized Eldar without gimping one side or having a lop sided battle. That's all really, and I hope you can see how that would be better for everyone with no drawbacks.

**mk2**

Savageconvoy wrote:
Can someone please explain this "Forging the Narrative" thing to me? Cause I think I've been doing this wrong. I've been using the little models as part of a table top game using dice. Am I supposed to be putting on a play or something? If so then how many, if any, musical numbers am I supposed to perform?

Best post ever on dakka dakka , bravo sir.... bravo .....( clap,clap,clap,clap...)

**ClockworkZion**

@Blacksails, you're right, 40k should be better, and we should be pushing for a new edition that does just that, but we should also not be taking it out on the current edition either. It was made the way it was made and won't be better than it is. It can't help that, it just has really bad genes (or memes, to steal one from MGS2) that limit it's potential.

Can and should the game be better? Yes. A billion time yes. But can 6th Edition be what people keep demanding of it? I really don't think it can. It's not because it isn't trying to be more, to be better, to give up more of what we want in the game, but it can't meet expectations.

Expectations that honestly it will meet.

All we can hope is that 7th suceeds its parent in all the ways we want it too. But until then, trying to make 6th something it can't truly be doesn't help the game. So while we hope for the future we need to work around the restrictions of the present.

**Blacksails**

Well, it looks we generally agree on all counts really.

The realistic expectations part is where I have a hard time believing, well, anything. I expected Escalation to have some sort of limitation, like the HH Lord of War slot has. Even that, that one single rule, would have made Escalation so much more readily accepted.

Of course 6th can't be truly fixed or changed now, sorry, should have made that clearer. I'm just commenting on the general apologetic tones people have of GW at large and 40k specifically. Well, for GW's sake of my business, I certainly hope they make some serious fixes across the board to power levels and clarity of rules. I don't have my hopes up, as Escalation has most recently showed me, so now I'm just invested in the fluff, models, and the HH legion stuff currently.

Shame really. Oh well, Firestorm Armada recently dropped version 2.0, so I have that to look forward to.

**ClockworkZion**

Blacksails wrote:
Well, it looks we generally agree on all counts really.

See? Despite claims to the contrary, I'm not unreasonable!

Blacksails wrote:
The realistic expectations part is where I have a hard time believing, well, anything. I expected Escalation to have some sort of limitation, like the HH Lord of War slot has. Even that, that one single rule, would have made Escalation so much more readily accepted.

I agree. Honestly I think if enough people wrote in about it that they might change it.

Then again, I'm just as willing to bet the reason we'd get back is that it'd be unfair for some armies to get their Lords of War at lower points levels than others. "Balance" as it stands, is all a matter of perspective. They try to balance based on choices, we try to balance based on power.

Blacksails wrote:
Of course 6th can't be truly fixed or changed now, sorry, should have made that clearer. I'm just commenting on the general apologetic tones people have of GW at large and 40k specifically. Well, for GW's sake of my business, I certainly hope they make some serious fixes across the board to power levels and clarity of rules. I don't have my hopes up, as Escalation has most recently showed me, so now I'm just invested in the fluff, models, and the HH legion stuff currently.

Shame really. Oh well, Firestorm Armada recently dropped version 2.0, so I have that to look forward to.

40k is all I play. It's all I want to play, and honesty I don't have the money to play anything else right now if I was interested in anything else. I've looked, I really have, but they've all lacked something that really just sucked me in and made me want to play the game like 40k did. It's a bit of a bummer, but I'm only sad that nothing else has grabbed my attention like this has more than anything.

That said, my time in the Army definitely taught me to dig a hole, bury my expectations in it and because they're set so low, everything will so much better by comparison to what I was expecting.

Then again I worked with some down right daft people who taught me that there is always someone dumber than you expect.

**da001**

Blacksails wrote:
I expect 40k to be a game that is balanced and well written, (...)
I understand 40k currently isn't any of these things, but it won't stop a lot of us from expecting even better balance or clearer rules. Not even with competition in mind, just making it so that I can field my old horde Guard, and my friend can field his Thousand Sons against armies like mechanized Eldar without gimping one side or having a lop sided battle. That's all really, and I hope you can see how that would be better for everyone with no drawbacks.

I think there is no hope in this regard. It has gone too far and it is going farther by the moment. And accelerating with every release.

I can only think of two possible ways for you to get what you expect:
1) GW goes bankrupt and, after a while, another company gets the copyrights for the game and fixes it.
2) The players fix the problem and create a far better game, accepted by the community.

We cannot make the first thing happen, I think. Some people have proposed different ways to "push" GW one way or another. It hasn´t worked at all. However, 3D printers are coming. The company will evolve or die.

The second is up to us, and it happens all the time locally: everyone fix this or that rule, as soon as they gain confidence with the other player. Globally, we would be able to achieve it only if we unite and set aside our countless differences, working together for the greater good. I would like to see it, but I am doubtful. Actually, I expect your hope of everyone seeing that "a more balanced and better written game will be good for everyone" crushed by some competitive player within two pages. I wish I am wrong.

So we fix the game ourselves game by game using house rules created on the spot or we assume that it is awfully balanced and only fit for "crazy" games, where stuff just blows up and the players just push units around.

**Blacksails**

ClockworkZion wrote:

See? Despite claims to the contrary, I'm not unreasonable!

I think we already had this discussion. You thought we had come to some sort of disagreement in the past where I thought you were unreasonable and hated everything you said, but I cleared it up. Never thought you were unreasonable.

I agree. Honestly I think if enough people wrote in about it that they might change it.

Then again, I'm just as willing to bet the reason we'd get back is that it'd be unfair for some armies to get their Lords of War at lower points levels than others. "Balance" as it stands, is all a matter of perspective. They try to balance based on choices, we try to balance based on power.

Well, yeah, the big problem being that Imperial forces are among the few who access to numerous 'cheap' LoW vehicles, like Malcadors and Crassus chassis vehicles. Then again, those vehicles are actually pretty underwhelming and I see them as a handicap in an Escalation list.

40k is all I play. It's all I want to play, and honesty I don't have the money to play anything else right now if I was interested in anything else. I've looked, I really have, but they've all lacked something that really just sucked me in and made me want to play the game like 40k did. It's a bit of a bummer, but I'm only sad that nothing else has grabbed my attention like this has more than anything.

That is a shame, but understandable. At least you looked. Have you played any of them? Like demo and games and such? Sometimes playing something a few times with an eager opponent might suck you in more than you'd expect, but I can't fault you for at least trying.

That said, my time in the Army definitely taught me to dig a hole, bury my expectations in it and because they're set so low, everything will so much better by comparison to what I was expecting.

Then again I worked with some down right daft people who taught me that there is always someone dumber than you expect.

See, and this is why you should have joined the Air Force!

**ClockworkZion**

Blacksails wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:

See? Despite claims to the contrary, I'm not unreasonable!

I think we already had this discussion. You thought we had come to some sort of disagreement in the past where I thought you were unreasonable and hated everything you said, but I cleared it up. Never thought you were unreasonable.

I never said that those were your claims did I?

Blacksails wrote:
I agree. Honestly I think if enough people wrote in about it that they might change it.

Then again, I'm just as willing to bet the reason we'd get back is that it'd be unfair for some armies to get their Lords of War at lower points levels than others. "Balance" as it stands, is all a matter of perspective. They try to balance based on choices, we try to balance based on power.

Well, yeah, the big problem being that Imperial forces are among the few who access to numerous 'cheap' LoW vehicles, like Malcadors and Crassus chassis vehicles. Then again, those vehicles are actually pretty underwhelming and I see them as a handicap in an Escalation list.

They're cheap D-Weapon platforms is the issue though if only they get them and cheap models at points levels lower than everyone else.

Blacksails wrote:
40k is all I play. It's all I want to play, and honesty I don't have the money to play anything else right now if I was interested in anything else. I've looked, I really have, but they've all lacked something that really just sucked me in and made me want to play the game like 40k did. It's a bit of a bummer, but I'm only sad that nothing else has grabbed my attention like this has more than anything.

That is a shame, but understandable. At least you looked. Have you played any of them? Like demo and games and such? Sometimes playing something a few times with an eager opponent might suck you in more than you'd expect, but I can't fault you for at least trying.

Warmachine is the only other one played here. In New York I played a historical wargame once. Some serious imbalances there in how it played, and how easilly one side could get the upperhand then just basically win the game through one good roll.

Blacksails wrote:
That said, my time in the Army definitely taught me to dig a hole, bury my expectations in it and because they're set so low, everything will so much better by comparison to what I was expecting.

Then again I worked with some down right daft people who taught me that there is always someone dumber than you expect.

See, and this is why you should have joined the Air Force!

But then I wouldn't have had the benefit of setting more realistic expectations of things!

**knas ser**

Okay, first, let me preface my reply by saying I appreciate a more nuanced reply than the "laugh at people" one, which did annoy me. So in the same spirit, let me try and address your points in a calm way.

ClockworkZion wrote:
knas ser wrote:
How lovely to be laughed at.

I apologize, I should have been clearer: I'm not laughing at the person, but rather this idea that the game needs to be some kind of perfect bastion of balance to be enjoyable or fun. I see a lot of comparisons to MtG but why not reference the real thing that 40k has more in common with: D&D. Both are narrative games meant for the enjoyment of the players involved, are not balanced to the fine edge that I see demanded of 40k (but never seems to be demanded of any other wargame), and they're still fun games if you go into it with everyone wanting the same thing out of the game.

Really, MtG (though I've never played it and don't know much about it), is likely a much better comparison than D&D because the former is a game played by people against each other, and D&D is a co-operative team-based game against an adventure that a (traditionally) neutral arbitrator creates and attempts to pitch at the right level. Of course you can play WH40K as a co-operative story-telling tool, but even you must admit that the set up two players fighting a battle against each other to determine a winner lends a need for "balance" in a way that D&D does not. Also, if we're talking about 4th, D&D actually does a very, very good job of achieving its design goals. I'm not sure about later supplements but the early stuff - very well thought out and structured. Never liked it on account of the lack of non-combat rules and the very game-y feel to it, but I respect the thought and play-testing that went into it. Anyway, I respectfully say that your "better comparison" is seriously misplaced for the reasons given.

Furthermore, you exaggerate what others are saying for the sake of making it easier to denounce. You say "the idea that the games needs to be some kind of perfect bastion of balance". I don't think anyone has used the term "perfect bastion of balance" other than you. Nor is anyone expecting it to be better. What we expect, is for a company like this to produce something without huge and very obvious flaws. There's a marked difference between what we are saying: "D-weapons marginalize other aspects of the game" (what I wrote) and your "perfect bastion of balance" that you make out our arguments to be so that you can highlight them as absurd pipe-dreams. One could even reasonably call that a strawman in that you are saying our demands are far more than they actually are.

ClockworkZion wrote:
Can they be better? I will never not say something can't be "better" but it's a very subjective term that means something to everyone, even when you start adding in quantifiers like "balance" in there. But does the game have to be designed to please a competitive side of the hobby? Not a chance. I get that some people like to rank themselves against others and see who is the best, but the game doesn't have to do that to be good or fun. Skyrim is a buggy mess with no multi-player but it's still fun. Competition doesn't make a game better, it just gives people some kind of imaginary stand to put themselves or others on and judge "skill" and "tactics" in games that still largely involve luck.

And that is just insulting, quite frankly. You may not mean it to be (conceivably), you may even believe it. But what you are saying is that anyone playing a competitive game is doing so to make themselves look better than other people. I don't know if you play any sports at all, but I do and I can assure you when I'm on the field or a court, I'm enjoying trying my hardest and competing with someone. And when I lose, which happens plenty, I don't suddenly find I've wasted my time. I shake hands with members of the other team or my opponent and congratulate them on a good game and you know what? I mean it. I have had fun. We have tried hard to beat each other and enjoyed the attempt. That simple fact that it's still fun to have tried my hardest and lost disproves your idea that we're all about feeling superior to other people. No, don't start replying that we're actually enjoying other aspects of the game because that doesn't fit the facts - if we were just doing exactly the same things but it wasn't competitive, we were just passing the ball to each other in a friendly fashion, it would not be anywhere near as much fun. We enjoy the act of competition in itself. It engages us. Do not call me a liar. This is how I feel. This is how most sportspeople feel most of the time.

Furthermore your argument contradicts itself. If you're denigrating people being happy about winning "in games that still largely involve luck" then you should be applauding those of us that want to make it more tactical rather than running us down and insulting us. Instead of taking multiple opportunities in this thread to tell us how what we enjoy is less important because of some preconceived idea you have that we're just trying to make ourselves on "some kind of imaginary stand". If you're starting from such a prejudiced place, no wonder you are being so offensive in this thread. You are presuming we are inherently wrong to enjoy this aspect because you see it stemming from some sort of character flaw. From this point on in the thread, try and put that idea aside because whilst it might be true of some (typically the youngest players, but not exclusively), it isn't true for all and, I like to think, not true for most. Certainly not in my experience.

ClockworkZion wrote:
Can 40k have a competetive scene anyways? Sure. But it's not the actual game. Try as you might to say otherwise, competitive play isn't what this game is made for. And I don't mean the balance either.

Again, there is nothing incompatible about fluff and game balance. Us asking for GW to actually balance things does not in anyway detract from the fluff. Most of us love both. So again, it's profitless for you to keep leaping in here and say we're missing the point and we should pay attention to the fluff. We're not missing the point and we pay plenty of attention to the fluff - it's probably the main reason many of us haven't moved on to more balanced game systems. You are missing the point that whilst you are happy with X, we want X and Y. We KNOW that you are just happy with X, and we're happy for you that you are. What we don't get is why you keep insisting that it is and should only be about X. If X and Y were in conflict, by all means complain. But they're not. They complement each other because people who love X and people who love Y will both get drawn in. You do a disservice when you argue against those of us trying to build up Y because all you're going to be left with when we leave (which we do as we get fed up), is those who only care about X. Such as yourself. And X is a smaller group than X+Y. So if you care about your hobby, care about what other people like too, not just yourself.

ClockworkZion wrote:
knas ser wrote:
Why you think that good background makes game balance unnecessary I neither know nor care, but different people have different leanings and as there is zero reason why game design and fluff need to be mutually exclusive things, it's pretty tiresome when every complaint about one is followed by you saying we should only care about the other.

Unnecessary? I wouldn't go that far. Better balance is always good. As for the game design/fluff being different I'd like to introduce you to Gameplay and Story Segregation. It's a common thing in games where the story says, or shows one thing, but the mechanics work differently. It happens all the time.

Yes it does happen. And it's one of the most common criticisms of any wargame or role-playing game that "this doesn't make sense". Whenever the rules do not reflect what people believe they are supposed to represent, people complain. Universally. It was one of my objections with D&D 4th edition (seeing as you brought that up as your example). I could have a six stone Halfling with a Strength score very much higher than an eighteen stone minotaur. And I was very far from alone in that objection. Your link really doesn't prove anything. It just shows that something exists. We know that. But it's really irrelevant to our argument. What does it matter to the question of balance? That's not an issue of fluff.

ClockworkZion wrote:
Now in a perfect world we'd have a system that's set up in such a way the mechanics and the fluff would skip merrily hand in hand into the sunset. The problem is that the game needs to be redone from the ground up. You're not going to get that in the system we have now and complaining that you don't have that in this current game is a bit silly because the mechanics are so abstracted they don't make for a good means of actually showing the fluff completely.

There is such a thing as a matter of degree. Again, you are taking the position of 'it's not perfect, so accept its faults'. Nothing is ever perfect, but you can still make it better or avoid obvious flaws. Again, if you don't care about the flaws, that's fine and we're happy for you. Just stop pronouncing on people when they try to head such flaws off by highlighting them.

ClockworkZion wrote:
So with what we have, it's enough. It's as good as it can be with what we have and the fact that people can't see the fact that the game needs a rework to be any more than that is a bit distressing.

Then you're going to have to be distressed because I think only a madman could think that WH40K can't be improved somewhat in terms of balance in many ways, even without "a complete re-work from the ground up". Sure, the latter would help, but it's absurd to say that you can't improve things in dozens of small ways. You could easily amend how 2+ re-rollables and D-weapons worked without such a "ground-up" revision, obviously. I surely hope you don't need anyone to point out how that could be done. But if you don't, then you must admit you're wrong to say "it's as good as it can be".

**ClockworkZion**

knas ser wrote:
Okay, first, let me preface my reply by saying I appreciate a more nuanced reply than the "laugh at people" one, which did annoy me. So in the same spirit, let me try and address your points in a calm way.

ClockworkZion wrote:
knas ser wrote:
How lovely to be laughed at.

I apologize, I should have been clearer: I'm not laughing at the person, but rather this idea that the game needs to be some kind of perfect bastion of balance to be enjoyable or fun. I see a lot of comparisons to MtG but why not reference the real thing that 40k has more in common with: D&D. Both are narrative games meant for the enjoyment of the players involved, are not balanced to the fine edge that I see demanded of 40k (but never seems to be demanded of any other wargame), and they're still fun games if you go into it with everyone wanting the same thing out of the game.

Really, MtG (though I've never played it and don't know much about it), is likely a much better comparison than D&D because the former is a game played by people against each other, and D&D is a co-operative team-based game against an adventure that a (traditionally) neutral arbitrator creates and attempts to pitch at the right level. Of course you can play WH40K as a co-operative story-telling tool, but even you must admit that the set up two players fighting a battle against each other to determine a winner lends a need for "balance" in a way that D&D does not. Also, if we're talking about 4th, D&D actually does a very, very good job of achieving its design goals. I'm not sure about later supplements but the early stuff - very well thought out and structured. Never liked it on account of the lack of non-combat rules and the very game-y feel to it, but I respect the thought and play-testing that went into it. Anyway, I respectfully say that your "better comparison" is seriously misplaced for the reasons given.

MtG was made to be a competetive game while 40k started as a game that required a GM (go Rogue Trader) to keep things "fair". 40k started much closer to being a RPG than a wargame, and that lineage carries through today which is a large part of the problems we have. It's not designed in the same kind of mindset as MtG or Warmachine and that's the large issue with the game: it's archaic junk that no dev seems to want to replace with a better system.

knas ser wrote:
Furthermore, you exaggerate what others are saying for the sake of making it easier to denounce. You say "the idea that the games needs to be some kind of perfect bastion of balance". I don't think anyone has used the term "perfect bastion of balance" other than you. Nor is anyone expecting it to be better. What we expect, is for a company like this to produce something without huge and very obvious flaws. There's a marked difference between what we are saying: "D-weapons marginalize other aspects of the game" (what I wrote) and your "perfect bastion of balance" that you make out our arguments to be so that you can highlight them as absurd pipe-dreams. One could even reasonably call that a strawman in that you are saying our demands are far more than they actually are.

Term? No. Attitude that if 40k isn't perfectly balanced (and the claims that because it's not perfectly balanced) it sucks, yes. Can some of that be hyperbole? Perhaps. This is the internet after all and it's hard to remove the hyperbole to make a point from the people who firmly believe such things easilly when it comes to the internet.

I'm not exaggerating claims, I'm just going to the furthest extremes ones I've heard, much like how some people who cry for balance point to the arguments that "balance = boring" from the other side of the fence. Is it the far end of the spectrum and farther than most want to go? Sure, but it's also a milemarker that let's everyone else see each end of the spectrum and judge where they stand in relation to it.

Am I trying to whitewash everyone's claims and arguments? No, not really. I just can't argue against 12 different sides of the same thing who all have 12 different viewpoints about things and claim 12 different things about the game, so I go for the most extreme and let everyone else measure their stance from their.

knas ser wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Can they be better? I will never not say something can't be "better" but it's a very subjective term that means something to everyone, even when you start adding in quantifiers like "balance" in there. But does the game have to be designed to please a competitive side of the hobby? Not a chance. I get that some people like to rank themselves against others and see who is the best, but the game doesn't have to do that to be good or fun. Skyrim is a buggy mess with no multi-player but it's still fun. Competition doesn't make a game better, it just gives people some kind of imaginary stand to put themselves or others on and judge "skill" and "tactics" in games that still largely involve luck.

And that is just insulting, quite frankly. You may not mean it to be (conceivably), you may even believe it. But what you are saying is that anyone playing a competitive game is doing so to make themselves look better than other people. I don't know if you play any sports at all, but I do and I can assure you when I'm on the field or a court, I'm enjoying trying my hardest and competing with someone. And when I lose, which happens plenty, I don't suddenly find I've wasted my time. I shake hands with members of the other team or my opponent and congratulate them on a good game and you know what? I mean it. I have had fun. We have tried hard to beat each other and enjoyed the attempt. That simple fact that it's still fun to have tried my hardest and lost disproves your idea that we're all about feeling superior to other people. No, don't start replying that we're actually enjoying other aspects of the game because that doesn't fit the facts - if we were just doing exactly the same things but it wasn't competitive, we were just passing the ball to each other in a friendly fashion, it would not be anywhere near as much fun. We enjoy the act of competition in itself. It engages us. Do not call me a liar. This is how I feel. This is how most sportspeople feel most of the time.

Wargames are not sports for one. And two, competition doesn't always make things "better". Competition ruins cooperative play for instance (ever play a table top RPG where the whole team is competing against each other for something? It tears the party apart), and as I've said, 40k has more roots in a RPG system than it does a traditional competitive one.

It doesn't mean you can't compete, but it's like running track in tap shoes: it's nowhere near as effective as you'd like.

And yes, I've seen plenty of people who behave the way I've described. It's why I washed my hands of tournaments: I have no desire to end up getting so wrapped up in my ability to win that it consumes my ability to enjoy the game's other offerings.

Does it do that to everyone? No. But we have to remember that there are always Lance Armstrongs in every group, people who care more about winning than anything else. I'm not saying that they're all cheats, but they do let the idea consume them to the point it's detrimental to everything else.

knas ser wrote:
Furthermore your argument contradicts itself. If you're denigrating people being happy about winning "in games that still largely involve luck" then you should be applauding those of us that want to make it more tactical rather than running us down and insulting us. Instead of taking multiple opportunities in this thread to tell us how what we enjoy is less important because of some preconceived idea you have that we're just trying to make ourselves on "some kind of imaginary stand". If you're starting from such a prejudiced place, no wonder you are being so offensive in this thread. You are presuming we are inherently wrong to enjoy this aspect because you see it stemming from some sort of character flaw. From this point on in the thread, try and put that idea aside because whilst it might be true of some (typically the youngest players, but not exclusively), it isn't true for all and, I like to think, not true for most. Certainly not in my experience.

No it doesn't. If you read my posts you'll see I do agree that 40k, can and should be better, but not this 40k. 6th edition is not the system you can make into what you're trying to make it into. It's got too much legacy crammed into it's veins, too much bloat, too much necrotic flesh wrapped around it's frame, to be the game you want it to be. It can't be competitive because it needs to be taken out back, shot and replaced completely to really do what you're asking.

No one is wrong for wanting a better game in general, they're wrong for trying to do it with one that's so blatantly unsalvagable instead of either pushing to a new game built for it, or pushing GW to make it better with a new edition. The only character flaw I've seen is an inability to recognize when they're kicking a maggot-ridden dead horse when they rally on and on about making 6th edition "more competitive" and "better balanced" instead of pushing GW to recognize what the customer base wants and demands from them. People want a better balanced game where the fluff, mechanics, options and competitive game all mesh smoothly? Push them to make 7th edition that game, otherwise get off the soapbox because it's getting old.

Everyone bitches that GW doesn't listen, but all I ever hear about is a bunch of complaints on the internet. I never see any massive letter writing campaigns, or petitions, or even people trying to visit GW and talk to the people there. No, instead I see people kicking that same dead horse. Why? Because it's easier than actually being proactive and trying to get what you want instead of just complain about what you want.

Mean of me to say? Perhaps. But I've been reading post after post after post after post since I got back into this game in 2008 on multiple forums about how GW is always doing everything wrong, but then no one ever does anything, so maybe I'm just tired of the pity parties about how everyone cries the game is ruined, when no one wants to actually do anything about it.

knas ser wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Can 40k have a competetive scene anyways? Sure. But it's not the actual game. Try as you might to say otherwise, competitive play isn't what this game is made for. And I don't mean the balance either.

Again, there is nothing incompatible about fluff and game balance. Us asking for GW to actually balance things does not in anyway detract from the fluff. Most of us love both. So again, it's profitless for you to keep leaping in here and say we're missing the point and we should pay attention to the fluff. We're not missing the point and we pay plenty of attention to the fluff - it's probably the main reason many of us haven't moved on to more balanced game systems. You are missing the point that whilst you are happy with X, we want X and Y. We KNOW that you are just happy with X, and we're happy for you that you are. What we don't get is why you keep insisting that it is and should only be about X. If X and Y were in conflict, by all means complain. But they're not. They complement each other because people who love X and people who love Y will both get drawn in. You do a disservice when you argue against those of us trying to build up Y because all you're going to be left with when we leave (which we do as we get fed up), is those who only care about X. Such as yourself. And X is a smaller group than X+Y. So if you care about your hobby, care about what other people like too, not just yourself.

Go read Rogue Trader, then read 2nd and 3rd Edition and get back to me. This game is carrying 6 editions of luggage with it. Some good, but a lot bad. Until it gets rid of that it can't get better.

And honestly, it really doesn't matter what people say they want, because all they do is tell the internet what they want then just play whatever GW gives you anyways. I've spent 5 years now reading posts about how "I want X" and "I want Y" and "I want GW to tuck me in with warm milk and a story" but no one ever does anything with it. You want it so bad, stop telling me you want it and tell GW you want it.

Don't take no for an answer. Use "no" as a springboard to refine your points, make them better and work towards a "yes". You want X & Y then work for X & Y instead of telling the internet about how the game will only get better if GW would somehow read your mind and do X & Y.

It won't change that this edition is all about X, and ignores Y, sure. But it would make the future editions a lot better.

knas ser wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Now in a perfect world we'd have a system that's set up in such a way the mechanics and the fluff would skip merrily hand in hand into the sunset. The problem is that the game needs to be redone from the ground up. You're not going to get that in the system we have now and complaining that you don't have that in this current game is a bit silly because the mechanics are so abstracted they don't make for a good means of actually showing the fluff completely.

There is such a thing as a matter of degree. Again, you are taking the position of 'it's not perfect, so accept its faults'. Nothing is ever perfect, but you can still make it better or avoid obvious flaws. Again, if you don't care about the flaws, that's fine and we're happy for you. Just stop pronouncing on people when they try to head such flaws off by highlighting them.

No, my position is "it's not perfect, the way it is can't be perfect so stop beating a dead horse and do something about it if you want it so bad". This game is where it is because of the failures of the past and it needs to exorcise those so it can get better. Even if it's only in matters of degrees.

5th edition was likely the best competetive ruleset you can get out of the game as it exists now. And how great was that with Razorback spam, and the nonsense of the time? The issues are deeper than you're admitting here and need more than just a little touch up work to get right.

A few issues that keep this game from being able to be better: the stat mechanic is currently a mess (Marines, who are super soldiers are only a single degree away from a human on a number of stats), points costing makes no sense, there isn't a system in place to make sensible points costing occur on any scale, there isn't a set standard that the game is built towards, and if it does exist it's too lower when compared to what people are playing at, there are no alternate rulesets to make tournament play streamlined and possible, and you roll for Mysterious Terrain after you run into it, not when you deploy. Need I keep going on, or can we agree that there is more than a few changes that need to be made already?

knas ser wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
So with what we have, it's enough. It's as good as it can be with what we have and the fact that people can't see the fact that the game needs a rework to be any more than that is a bit distressing.

Then you're going to have to be distressed because I think only a madman could think that WH40K can't be improved somewhat in terms of balance in many ways, even without "a complete re-work from the ground up". Sure, the latter would help, but it's absurd to say that you can't improve things in dozens of small ways. You could easily amend how 2+ re-rollables and D-weapons worked without such a "ground-up" revision, obviously. I surely hope you don't need anyone to point out how that could be done. But if you don't, then you must admit you're wrong to say "it's as good as it can be".

**insaniak**

ClockworkZion wrote:
But does the game have to be designed to please a competitive side of the hobby?

'Have to be'...? No.

But when your company is steadily losing market share, pointing the game in a direction that excludes a chunk of your potential customer base, when writing a more competitive-friendly ruleset would instead benefit the entire customer base, just seems a little bit crazy.

I get that some people like to rank themselves against others and see who is the best, but the game doesn't have to do that to be good or fun.

I suspect that you also don't fully get why people play in tournaments.

Yes, there are some who enter events to measure themselves against others. There are also some of us who enter with no expectation of winning, who do so simply because it's a handy way of getting in a full weekend of gaming in an area where casual opponents are a little hard to find, or where time constraints don't allow for regular gaming otherwise.

Remove the ability of the game to function in a competitive setting, and at least in some cases you remove the opportunity for those players to play at all.

**kronk**

insaniak wrote:

Yes, there are some who enter events to measure themselves against others. There are also some of us who enter with no expectation of winning, who do so simply because it's a handy way of getting in a full weekend of gaming in an area where casual opponents are a little hard to find, or where time constraints don't allow for regular gaming otherwise.
.

That's the only way I'd want to play in a tournament. Just to get in some freaking games. I have no delusions about my generalship.

**Linkdead**

The problem is GW writes rules to sell models. According to the Chapterhouse lawsuit GW is a hobby company not a publisher.

Therefore the answer is simple. The community takes over writing the rules. Creating a living rule book similar to how Blood Bowl is now organized and managed.

**PrinceRaven**

I don't think anyone is asking for 40k to be perfectly balanced. I'm not even asking for it to have the same level of balance as other wargames. I'd be happy if it became as balanced as Super Smash Bros. It's the least balanced versus video game I've ever played, but even achieving that level of balance would be a huge leap forward for 40k. Very imbalanced is better than "balance? I don't know that word".

**TheCustomLime**

You know what would make me happy about Warhammer 40k? If it wasn't so damned predictable. For all the talk of "Oh, 40k is now random chaos" it's very easy to determine who will win a game before they even deploy the armies. In some cases you can tell who won just by the title alone. Ex: "QuadRiptide v. DoA 1850 pts". I'll give you three guesses as to the victor. Hint, it's not the power armored boy scouts.

I honestly wouldn't care if we had broken units. I love a good challenge every now and again but at this point it's getting ridiculous. FOTM armies are probably the most obvious symptom of just how plain broken this game is. While I'll agree that list writing is an important skill it shouldn't be the overall determinant of who will win the game and in some cases tournaments. And I'll also agree that every list needs a hard counter but it shouldn't be that you'll lose just by buying that codex in the first place.

Tournaments should be a test of skill and a good time shared by dedicated gamers not a "Who can bring the most broken lists and who rolls the dice the best"-fest. As for casual play I think it is even worse for them as a system that inherently favors one style of play isn't very conducive to a game between close friends. I don't think a player who really likes the idea of jump pack equipped marines fighting for their lives isn't going to have much fun when half is army is gunned down before he can roll his first die against someone who enjoyed the idea of Riptides and Commander Farsight.

As for forging a narrative... who writes a story by rolling the dice to see what happens? Say I want to forge a depressing narrative about my IG army being destroyed slowly in an insane war (Like the movie Stalingrad) but, thanks to the imbalance of the system, I end up stomping everyone. Do I just write a story about my IG army stomping everyone? Do I just lie about it all? Then what was the point of the system at all? Plus, who wants to a read a story where the people who you expected to win win? It's boring.

Then there is Escalation. I don't think it's the doom of competitive 40k. I think it's just a continuation of the long, dubiously proud tradition of "Buy this list to win!" style balance that Games Workshop seems to love or is too incompetent to get rid of. In other words, the answer to the thread is "That ship sailed a loooong time ago".

**Asmodai Asmodean**

Like TheCustomLime said, 40k is pretty damn predictable. What I enjoy most is looking at new armies from different players and their conversions/paintjobs; destroying them is a secondary objective.

Coming up with new lists is fun as well.

**Crablezworth**

Remember when you'd ask someone you just met what army they played and they answered with one to two words and without using with or and? Those were the days.

**Peregrine**

Crablezworth wrote:
Remember when you'd ask someone you just met what army they played and they answered with one to two words and without using with or and? Those were the days.

Nah, that's how it is now. You can answer "Revenant", "anti-Revenant", or "I like losing".

**Ian Sturrock**

kronk wrote:

That's the only way I'd want to play in a tournament. Just to get in some freaking games. I have no delusions about my generalship.

Yep. I'd love to win tournaments, but I'm much more interested in getting in a bunch of games. I've never actually met one of those hardcore competitive players who live only to ROFLstomp noob armies by questionable rules interpretations.

Lots of very friendly, pleasant opponents, though. In fact, on balance, the tournaments I've been to have mostly been quite beer-and-pretzelly, in that there is beer available and I have consumed it, while having a fun, social game with some new friends.

**knas ser**

ClockworkZion wrote:
knas ser wrote:
Okay, first, let me preface my reply by saying I appreciate a more nuanced reply than the "laugh at people" one, which did annoy me. So in the same spirit, let me try and address your points in a calm way.

ClockworkZion wrote:
knas ser wrote:
How lovely to be laughed at.

I apologize, I should have been clearer: I'm not laughing at the person, but rather this idea that the game needs to be some kind of perfect bastion of balance to be enjoyable or fun. I see a lot of comparisons to MtG but why not reference the real thing that 40k has more in common with: D&D. Both are narrative games meant for the enjoyment of the players involved, are not balanced to the fine edge that I see demanded of 40k (but never seems to be demanded of any other wargame), and they're still fun games if you go into it with everyone wanting the same thing out of the game.

Really, MtG (though I've never played it and don't know much about it), is likely a much better comparison than D&D because the former is a game played by people against each other, and D&D is a co-operative team-based game against an adventure that a (traditionally) neutral arbitrator creates and attempts to pitch at the right level. Of course you can play WH40K as a co-operative story-telling tool, but even you must admit that the set up two players fighting a battle against each other to determine a winner lends a need for "balance" in a way that D&D does not. Also, if we're talking about 4th, D&D actually does a very, very good job of achieving its design goals. I'm not sure about later supplements but the early stuff - very well thought out and structured. Never liked it on account of the lack of non-combat rules and the very game-y feel to it, but I respect the thought and play-testing that went into it. Anyway, I respectfully say that your "better comparison" is seriously misplaced for the reasons given.

MtG was made to be a competetive game while 40k started as a game that required a GM (go Rogue Trader) to keep things "fair". 40k started much closer to being a RPG than a wargame, and that lineage carries through today which is a large part of the problems we have. It's not designed in the same kind of mindset as MtG or Warmachine and that's the large issue with the game: it's archaic junk that no dev seems to want to replace with a better system.

knas ser wrote:
Furthermore, you exaggerate what others are saying for the sake of making it easier to denounce. You say "the idea that the games needs to be some kind of perfect bastion of balance". I don't think anyone has used the term "perfect bastion of balance" other than you. Nor is anyone expecting it to be better. What we expect, is for a company like this to produce something without huge and very obvious flaws. There's a marked difference between what we are saying: "D-weapons marginalize other aspects of the game" (what I wrote) and your "perfect bastion of balance" that you make out our arguments to be so that you can highlight them as absurd pipe-dreams. One could even reasonably call that a strawman in that you are saying our demands are far more than they actually are.

Term? No. Attitude that if 40k isn't perfectly balanced (and the claims that because it's not perfectly balanced) it sucks, yes. Can some of that be hyperbole? Perhaps. This is the internet after all and it's hard to remove the hyperbole to make a point from the people who firmly believe such things easilly when it comes to the internet.

I'm not exaggerating claims, I'm just going to the furthest extremes ones I've heard, much like how some people who cry for balance point to the arguments that "balance = boring" from the other side of the fence. Is it the far end of the spectrum and farther than most want to go? Sure, but it's also a milemarker that let's everyone else see each end of the spectrum and judge where they stand in relation to it.

Am I trying to whitewash everyone's claims and arguments? No, not really. I just can't argue against 12 different sides of the same thing who all have 12 different viewpoints about things and claim 12 different things about the game, so I go for the most extreme and let everyone else measure their stance from their.

knas ser wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Can they be better? I will never not say something can't be "better" but it's a very subjective term that means something to everyone, even when you start adding in quantifiers like "balance" in there. But does the game have to be designed to please a competitive side of the hobby? Not a chance. I get that some people like to rank themselves against others and see who is the best, but the game doesn't have to do that to be good or fun. Skyrim is a buggy mess with no multi-player but it's still fun. Competition doesn't make a game better, it just gives people some kind of imaginary stand to put themselves or others on and judge "skill" and "tactics" in games that still largely involve luck.

And that is just insulting, quite frankly. You may not mean it to be (conceivably), you may even believe it. But what you are saying is that anyone playing a competitive game is doing so to make themselves look better than other people. I don't know if you play any sports at all, but I do and I can assure you when I'm on the field or a court, I'm enjoying trying my hardest and competing with someone. And when I lose, which happens plenty, I don't suddenly find I've wasted my time. I shake hands with members of the other team or my opponent and congratulate them on a good game and you know what? I mean it. I have had fun. We have tried hard to beat each other and enjoyed the attempt. That simple fact that it's still fun to have tried my hardest and lost disproves your idea that we're all about feeling superior to other people. No, don't start replying that we're actually enjoying other aspects of the game because that doesn't fit the facts - if we were just doing exactly the same things but it wasn't competitive, we were just passing the ball to each other in a friendly fashion, it would not be anywhere near as much fun. We enjoy the act of competition in itself. It engages us. Do not call me a liar. This is how I feel. This is how most sportspeople feel most of the time.

Wargames are not sports for one. And two, competition doesn't always make things "better". Competition ruins cooperative play for instance (ever play a table top RPG where the whole team is competing against each other for something? It tears the party apart), and as I've said, 40k has more roots in a RPG system than it does a traditional competitive one.

It doesn't mean you can't compete, but it's like running track in tap shoes: it's nowhere near as effective as you'd like.

And yes, I've seen plenty of people who behave the way I've described. It's why I washed my hands of tournaments: I have no desire to end up getting so wrapped up in my ability to win that it consumes my ability to enjoy the game's other offerings.

Does it do that to everyone? No. But we have to remember that there are always Lance Armstrongs in every group, people who care more about winning than anything else. I'm not saying that they're all cheats, but they do let the idea consume them to the point it's detrimental to everything else.

knas ser wrote:
Furthermore your argument contradicts itself. If you're denigrating people being happy about winning "in games that still largely involve luck" then you should be applauding those of us that want to make it more tactical rather than running us down and insulting us. Instead of taking multiple opportunities in this thread to tell us how what we enjoy is less important because of some preconceived idea you have that we're just trying to make ourselves on "some kind of imaginary stand". If you're starting from such a prejudiced place, no wonder you are being so offensive in this thread. You are presuming we are inherently wrong to enjoy this aspect because you see it stemming from some sort of character flaw. From this point on in the thread, try and put that idea aside because whilst it might be true of some (typically the youngest players, but not exclusively), it isn't true for all and, I like to think, not true for most. Certainly not in my experience.

No it doesn't. If you read my posts you'll see I do agree that 40k, can and should be better, but not this 40k. 6th edition is not the system you can make into what you're trying to make it into. It's got too much legacy crammed into it's veins, too much bloat, too much necrotic flesh wrapped around it's frame, to be the game you want it to be. It can't be competitive because it needs to be taken out back, shot and replaced completely to really do what you're asking.

No one is wrong for wanting a better game in general, they're wrong for trying to do it with one that's so blatantly unsalvagable instead of either pushing to a new game built for it, or pushing GW to make it better with a new edition. The only character flaw I've seen is an inability to recognize when they're kicking a maggot-ridden dead horse when they rally on and on about making 6th edition "more competitive" and "better balanced" instead of pushing GW to recognize what the customer base wants and demands from them. People want a better balanced game where the fluff, mechanics, options and competitive game all mesh smoothly? Push them to make 7th edition that game, otherwise get off the soapbox because it's getting old.

Everyone bitches that GW doesn't listen, but all I ever hear about is a bunch of complaints on the internet. I never see any massive letter writing campaigns, or petitions, or even people trying to visit GW and talk to the people there. No, instead I see people kicking that same dead horse. Why? Because it's easier than actually being proactive and trying to get what you want instead of just complain about what you want.

Mean of me to say? Perhaps. But I've been reading post after post after post after post since I got back into this game in 2008 on multiple forums about how GW is always doing everything wrong, but then no one ever does anything, so maybe I'm just tired of the pity parties about how everyone cries the game is ruined, when no one wants to actually do anything about it.

knas ser wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Can 40k have a competetive scene anyways? Sure. But it's not the actual game. Try as you might to say otherwise, competitive play isn't what this game is made for. And I don't mean the balance either.

Again, there is nothing incompatible about fluff and game balance. Us asking for GW to actually balance things does not in anyway detract from the fluff. Most of us love both. So again, it's profitless for you to keep leaping in here and say we're missing the point and we should pay attention to the fluff. We're not missing the point and we pay plenty of attention to the fluff - it's probably the main reason many of us haven't moved on to more balanced game systems. You are missing the point that whilst you are happy with X, we want X and Y. We KNOW that you are just happy with X, and we're happy for you that you are. What we don't get is why you keep insisting that it is and should only be about X. If X and Y were in conflict, by all means complain. But they're not. They complement each other because people who love X and people who love Y will both get drawn in. You do a disservice when you argue against those of us trying to build up Y because all you're going to be left with when we leave (which we do as we get fed up), is those who only care about X. Such as yourself. And X is a smaller group than X+Y. So if you care about your hobby, care about what other people like too, not just yourself.

Go read Rogue Trader, then read 2nd and 3rd Edition and get back to me. This game is carrying 6 editions of luggage with it. Some good, but a lot bad. Until it gets rid of that it can't get better.

And honestly, it really doesn't matter what people say they want, because all they do is tell the internet what they want then just play whatever GW gives you anyways. I've spent 5 years now reading posts about how "I want X" and "I want Y" and "I want GW to tuck me in with warm milk and a story" but no one ever does anything with it. You want it so bad, stop telling me you want it and tell GW you want it.

Don't take no for an answer. Use "no" as a springboard to refine your points, make them better and work towards a "yes". You want X & Y then work for X & Y instead of telling the internet about how the game will only get better if GW would somehow read your mind and do X & Y.

It won't change that this edition is all about X, and ignores Y, sure. But it would make the future editions a lot better.

knas ser wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Now in a perfect world we'd have a system that's set up in such a way the mechanics and the fluff would skip merrily hand in hand into the sunset. The problem is that the game needs to be redone from the ground up. You're not going to get that in the system we have now and complaining that you don't have that in this current game is a bit silly because the mechanics are so abstracted they don't make for a good means of actually showing the fluff completely.

There is such a thing as a matter of degree. Again, you are taking the position of 'it's not perfect, so accept its faults'. Nothing is ever perfect, but you can still make it better or avoid obvious flaws. Again, if you don't care about the flaws, that's fine and we're happy for you. Just stop pronouncing on people when they try to head such flaws off by highlighting them.

No, my position is "it's not perfect, the way it is can't be perfect so stop beating a dead horse and do something about it if you want it so bad". This game is where it is because of the failures of the past and it needs to exorcise those so it can get better. Even if it's only in matters of degrees.

5th edition was likely the best competetive ruleset you can get out of the game as it exists now. And how great was that with Razorback spam, and the nonsense of the time? The issues are deeper than you're admitting here and need more than just a little touch up work to get right.

A few issues that keep this game from being able to be better: the stat mechanic is currently a mess (Marines, who are super soldiers are only a single degree away from a human on a number of stats), points costing makes no sense, there isn't a system in place to make sensible points costing occur on any scale, there isn't a set standard that the game is built towards, and if it does exist it's too lower when compared to what people are playing at, there are no alternate rulesets to make tournament play streamlined and possible, and you roll for Mysterious Terrain after you run into it, not when you deploy. Need I keep going on, or can we agree that there is more than a few changes that need to be made already?

knas ser wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
So with what we have, it's enough. It's as good as it can be with what we have and the fact that people can't see the fact that the game needs a rework to be any more than that is a bit distressing.

Then you're going to have to be distressed because I think only a madman could think that WH40K can't be improved somewhat in terms of balance in many ways, even without "a complete re-work from the ground up". Sure, the latter would help, but it's absurd to say that you can't improve things in dozens of small ways. You could easily amend how 2+ re-rollables and D-weapons worked without such a "ground-up" revision, obviously. I surely hope you don't need anyone to point out how that could be done. But if you don't, then you must admit you're wrong to say "it's as good as it can be".

Saves need to be chucked out in favor of a system that Warmachine has where they are counted into a sort of toughness value, or moved to before wounding rolls are made for one.

I can have fun with the game as it is because I'm not trying to contort it into something it can't do (fat kid who can't play dodgeball again). I play to it's strengths and minimize the weaknesses.

Does it mean I fail to recognize weaknesses, or don't understand how this game could be improved? Not at all. I think about it a lot because it poses a lot of interesting design questions. But I realized a long while ago that because this game clings to the past so hard and spends so much time trying to continue these legacy rules into the game as it is now that most of it's problems can't really be fixed without working that delete key and starting completely anew.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
To steal a quote: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Which is what people keep doing everytime they expect GW to hear their cries and change the game when they post their grievances on a message board again, and again, and again.

So who really is the madman? The person who believes change will come because they keep complaining about something on Dakka, or the person who accepts the faults of the game, plays to it's strengths?

**Peregrine**

knas ser wrote:
Fine. Maybe I wont get back into 40K.

Honestly, this is probably the best outcome. If you aren't already committed to the game because you love the fluff/models then play a better game (or don't play a game at all). 40k played purely as a game is an activity for masochists that get bored with the usual whips and chains. The rules suck, balance and playtesting are nonexistent, and with every new release GW somehow manages to display new levels of spectacular incompetence at game design.

Fortunately though other miniatures games have good competitive communities and don't seem to have the same kind of white knights and self-declared "casual" players who obsess over how much they don't care about winning and how anyone who does is a WAAC TFG.

**Hivefleet Oblivion**

knas ser wrote:

Okay, you know what? feth it. I...
Fine. Maybe I wont get back into 40K. I'll stick to sports seeing as that's where you think competitive people who "just want to place themselves on an imaginary pedestal" belong. ...
Well feth it. Y... so feth it, I'll find a different hobby....So thanks. You did me a favour in bringing me to my senses before I started buying models again. I'm sure the hobby will be better off with me.

Gentle suggestion: Don't base your enjoyment or return to a game on a couple of internet comments.

The game is the thing you do at the table, with the figures and rulebooks. All of this is something else.

**Zweischneid**

Peregrine wrote:

Fortunately though other miniatures games have good competitive communities and don't seem to have the same kind of white knights and self-declared "casual" players who obsess over how much they don't care about winning and how anyone who does is a WAAC TFG.

If only Warhammer 40K has these "white knights" and other games do not, maybe it is because Warhammer 40K serves this particular type of gamer far better than anyone else.

And if Warhammer 40K is the only one doing it, while everyone else is doing it differently, why on earth would you want to change the only (!) game not doing it like everyone else to become like everyone else?

**Peregrine**

Zweischneid wrote:
If only Warhammer 40K has these "white knights" and other games do not, maybe it is because Warhammer 40K serves this particular type of gamer far better than anyone else.

What, you mean the kind of masochist gamer that likes to play awful games and make themselves love it?

And if Warhammer 40K is the only one doing it, while everyone else is doing it differently, why on earth would you want to change the only (!) game not doing it like everyone else to become like everyone else?

Because the way GW is doing it sucks. It sucks if you're a competitive player, it sucks if you're a casual player, it sucks if you love the fluff, it sucks if you love the models. There is absolutely nothing about the way GW is doing it differently that is good for the game, no matter what you want to get out of it.

**Zweischneid**

Peregrine wrote:

What, you mean the kind of masochist gamer that likes to play awful games and make themselves love it?

It doesn't take near as much "masochism" as trying to get to any appreciable level in a highly-balanced game such as Chess or Go, precisely, because these games take years and years to get anywhere. Go enter the next national Chess Championship and tell me how much fun you had.

Warhammer 40K involves no masochism, unless you try to make it into something it isn't and doesn't want to be.

Because the way GW is doing it sucks. It sucks if you're a competitive player, it sucks if you're a casual player, it sucks if you love the fluff, it sucks if you love the models. There is absolutely nothing about the way GW is doing it differently that is good for the game, no matter what you want to get out of it.

I love it.

Don't assume that your opinion is shared by everyone else.

Besides, what does it matter. You already said that there are lots of other games out there that do it more like you'd want 40K to be. If 40K became like other games, the gaming-world would only become that much smaller, as 40K would simply be "like the others".

As long as 40K remains different, and the others are around as well, everyone can play what they enjoy.

I don't ask fans of .. dunno .. Malifaux or Warmachine to lobby their game "more like 40K" because I think their games suck. They probably think they are quite good. Good for them. More variety for everyone.

**Peregrine**

Zweischneid wrote:
It doesn't take near as much "masochism" as trying to get to any appreciable level in a highly-balanced game such as Chess or Go, precisely, because these games take years and years to get anywhere. Go enter the next national Chess Championship and tell me how much fun you had.

So what? Those games are also good when played casually. 40k isn't a good casual game OR a good competitive game. It just has nice enough fluff and models that sometimes it's worth putting up with the bad rules to play a game.

Warhammer 40K involves no masochism, unless you try to make it into something it isn't and doesn't want to be.

Wait, are we talking about the same 40k where rule arguments are constant (and often impossible to answer), fluff and story are trampled over and over again by random tables that GW calls "forging the narrative", the rules are a bloated mess that somehow manages to be both absurdly complex and incredibly unrealistic/unfluffy at the same time, and the idiotic IGOUGO turn structure means that if you let your opponent roll your saves you can go take your lunch break during your opponent's turn and not miss anything? Even ignoring 40k's laughably bad balance problems the rest of the game is still awful.

If 40K became like other games, the gaming-world would only become that much smaller, as 40K would simply be "like the others".

The gaming world would be smaller, but better. We don't need bad games, just like the restaurant world doesn't need restaurants that serve rotting meat mixed with shards of broken glass. Nothing 40k does "differently" is worth keeping in the gaming world, unless you're a masochist.

As long as 40K remains different, and the others are around as well, everyone can play what they enjoy.

Unless you like the fluff and models in 40k and want to enjoy playing the game as well.

I don't ask fans of .. dunno .. Malifaux or Warmachine to lobby their game "more like 40K" because I think their games suck. They probably think they are quite good. Good for them. More variety for everyone.

The difference is that 40k is a bad game, not just a game that does something that some of us don't like. Its flaws aren't personal preference things, they're just terrible game design by a company that doesn't give a

about the quality of its products because 90% of the kids who buy a box of space marines never play the game.

**Zweischneid**

Peregrine wrote:

So what? Those games are also good when played casually.

No. They are not. In between absolute utter newb and Grand Master, the stretch is dry, boring and utterly joyless. As it is for all balanced games.

Peregrine wrote:

Wait, are we talking about the same 40k where rule arguments are constant (and often impossible to answer),

40K gives very precise instructions for solving rule disputes. You'll find it under "the Golden Rule". It hasn't failed me yet.

Peregrine wrote:

Nothing 40k does "differently" is worth keeping in the gaming world, unless you're a masochist.

Millions of people disagree. The only thing I see as masochistic is sticking with (and/or ranting about) a game you don't enjoy. Seriously. You don't like it? Move on? Stick to it despite the discomfort it causes you? Who's the masochist.

Peregrine wrote:

The difference is that 40k is a bad game, not just a game that does something that some of us don't like. Its flaws aren't personal preference things, they're just terrible game design by a company that doesn't give a about the quality of its products because 90% of the kids who buy a box of space marines never play the game.

Sure it is. Personally, I enjoy playing 40K more than I enjoy playing Warmachine, to name one example. So they've got to be making something right, at least as far as my personal preference goes.

That whole

a) 40K is "objectively" bad and
b) everyone who disagrees is a "masochist"

seems an oddly self-centered position (even neglecting the odd masochistic tendency to keep playing and ranting about something you don't enjoy).

Just take a deep breath and step back from this misguided Hubris of assuming you speak for everyone, when you clearly don't.