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.

Deadnight wrote:
I sometimes wonder if it's the players collective histories that cause this. Face it, a lot of us are nerds. A lot will be, or were on the bottom of the social ladder (as distinct from 'those' players, who rate lower!) and how many of us got bullied at school? I know I did, back in the day (happy to laugh it off now though). And sometimes I wonder if we all carry a collective sense of 'baggage' with regard to this stuff, and we carry it over to our hobby - one some level, I feel there is an implied attitude amongst the players of 'if no one wins, no one loses, and I'm tired of being a loser'. it's interesting. Since I've gotten into more competitive, and far more physical pursuits since school, my outlook towards 'doing my best' and 'pushing' things has changed completely from my attitudes in school, back in the day. Far less of the 'stop playing so hard against me' and far more 'I'm taking you down punk, bring it on.' (Punk being tongue in cheek, obviously)

I think it has more to do with the quality of the game.

In X-Wing balance is pretty good, there are few "never take if you want to win" options, and as long as you put a little thought into making a coherent strategy for your ships you're going to have a fair chance of winning. So there's much less of a division between "casual" and "competitive", you just put your ships on the table and play the game. And if you win or lose consistently it has to do with your own skill, not how seriously you take the game.

In 40k, on the other hand, balance is pretty much nonexistent and GW doesn't help you at all. So if you like a certain kind of 40k game the only way to get it and not be crushed by someone with a better list is to add a layer of social pressure to avoid making too many good decisions and winning too easily. And since the game itself is constantly trying to overcome that pressure and bring back auto-win strategies you feel like you're under siege and the pressure gets stronger in reaction. And of course you don't want to admit that you're just bad at the game or playing a special variant, so it has to be that everyone else is doing it wrong. And so you yell really loudly about how you're "just having fun" and "beer and pretzels" and are very serious about telling the world how casual you are, while simultaneously refusing to consider the possibility that more competitive players are also having a lot of fun. The two options become polarized opposites to the point that every bad strategy/list/etc automatically becomes "fun" or "fluffy" just because it isn't competitive, and fluffy lists that are good at winning are automatically "TFG behavior" regardless of how well they follow the background fiction.

And then with 40k you have the additional factor of GW encouraging that kind of "casual at all costs" attitude because it means they can save money by cutting playtesting and design time. Making a good competitive game isn't easy, and if you can convince everyone to 4+ all the rule disputes and shun anyone who brings overpowered lists then you don't have to waste all of that effort and money on something that doesn't really help with the main target market (young kids who rarely ever play the game). And it's even better when you get people white knighting GW by proudly bragging about how little they care about the rules and how anyone who dares to question GW's sacred wisdom is TFG.

Peregrine just hit the nail on the head with that post IMO. I do not understand people who go "oh, the rules are a total mess but it's okay because I'm having fun". You know, because well written rules would suck all the fun out of the game, right? My friend who's played mechdar for as long as I've known him now can't go to other clubs in the area because his 7 year old army is now "cheese". If you buy Forge World, who knows where or when you'll be able to use it, because the play testing seems to be totally non-existent (just look at the R'Varna for crying out loud) and people are iffy about accepting to play it. With Escalation and Stronghold Assault, who knows what you'll play with a random person or what they want to play.

The rules for the core game are badly worded and regularly make no sense - cover doesn't help you AT ALL from small arms unless you're guard; toughness just makes no sense generally, where things made of metal are as tough as an Ork wearing a t-shirt, or alternatively a pyrovore yet similar models like tyrant guard are far tougher for some reason; assaults are ridiculously stupid, from challenges by Abaddon only killing IG sergeants, to models deciding that having killed a unit they'll just stare at the scenery for a bit before charging someone else; entire armies will just watch all their guns explode before thinking about moving thanks to the UGOIGO system; the "most elite" units in the game are regularly garbage; lists in no way have to resemble the background and are often better not doing so... the list goes on. How would fixing that make it less fun? Just because you CAN make the wonky rules work doesn't mean it wouldn't be far better for everyone if they just worked anyway. Imagine this alternate scenario, if GW fixed their game: if an army is unfluffy, you cannot field it; the rules are concise and everything has a use; you can pick up any model you like the look of and make a good list around it; units alternated in goes, so the battlefield dynamically shifted rather than block movement; assaults were more of a huge morale shock which can just break units; morale is actually meaningful and you need to carefully consider positioning to avoid losses. Is that not the game you'd rather play? The one where there is no divide whatsoever in the community, because all units could function and no-one could make ridiculous armies? I think it would be. I can't see why tat wouldn't be way more fun than what we have currently. I'm not asking everyone to throw away those fun games, I just want to be able to use the models I want everywhere rather than having to build multiple lists in case my opponent has different house rules, preferences, the stars align with Jupiter, etc. Is that so bad? Does that really make me TFG, wanting a fair game where everyone has a chance?

What I wonder though is this:
We don't need to use GW models.
We don't need to use GW stores.
GW doesn't support tournaments.
GW doesn't care what you do with your models.
So... what happens when the community decides it can make better rules as a community? What does GW have left? This is why, IMO, their business plan is far too short sighted. It will take a long time for the community to do that, but if the game keeps going this way either the player base will shrink massively or GW will go out of business as the community takes over. Not a bright future.

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
The GW community is too fractured to agree on the unified system it desperately needs. The top TOs have gotten together and tried, but apparently they could not reach a consensus with one another.. Even right now, we don't even use GW's unified system, but use custom tournament house rules and scenarios, with each tournament being completely different.

40K definitely needs a Smogon equivalent.

I absolutely agree, I go to smogon often (yes, I love me some pokemon and proud of it) and I applaud the fact that their community and admins put real effort into the making the game as enjoyable and fair as possible. Yet they also don't sugar-coat things, for example with the tier system you can obviously see whats viable and what isn't, and why, there is no two ways about it. Though, saying the obvious here, the pokemon community and the 40k community are more than likely much different beasts. Just from reading what people post on Dakka were a pretty jaded bunch. Might be rather difficult to put together a smogon-esque standard for competitive play, but as far as tournies go Reecius and others have begun making formats, which a lot of people including myself have stolen for use in our own FLGS. Hopefully, a similar thing can happen with the base rules when the community takes things into their own hands and realizes that GW could give two gaks about the rules or the game.

I'd like to see the armour system dropped in favour of all units having a toughness/wounds/save characteristic.
Vehicles could lose offensive power as they lose wounds, say a gun every three wounds or something like that starting with their most powerful gun.
The same rule would apply to things like riptides, which should have been vehicles.

 WarOne wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Some people play the game for other reasons than for the game itself. Like me. I play because I love the idea of the Imperial Guard and I like using my tanks.

The game is utterly stupid and the fact that people have to 4+ rules in the first place is just a damning example of it's stupidity. It's weird how people use the "If you don't play it seriously, it's good" defense. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion since it only shows how you enjoy the game not how good the rules are.

There can be fixes for these problems but it has to come from GW to make the rules better than they are now.

Fixes by players unfortunately do not count. We have a rule set that can be enjoyed but we need participation from GW. Balance between codices, fixing loop hopes and the like and delineating which parts of rules for playing expansions or certain armies would make a semi decent rules et become better.

If the 40k rule set was complete and utter garbage, it would be abandoned and left behind for a newer edition or other game systems. Such as it is, it does need fixing and it does need GW to step up to the plate to make it better. Taking a page from WoTC, use player feedback to fix it like from DnD 3.0 to 3.5 and 4.0 to 5.0.

I completely agree. The problem though is that while most professional companies that sell a product that requires constant interaction with the customers listens to feedback since superior products drive sales, Games Workshop is content to stick their fingers into their ears and say "LALALALALA WE CAN'T HEAR YOU FORGE A NARRATIVE CINEMATIC!". I think they honestly believe that their way of producing rules is superior due to their market dominance. A classic blunder of correlation/causation if you will.

If you complain about the rules set so much why do you play the game? When you can take a few steps to the side and joint the lord of the rings land.

Because less players, not grimdark, I don't get bad voice actors for chaos


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:

 Selym wrote:

I agree that there shouldn't be anything wrong with going for the win, but the 40k ruleset does not take kindly to it. It has been written with the mindset of "beer and pretzels storytime" by some pretty biased rulemakers, who have a penchant for making totally disorganised and self-contradicting rules.

It's a quirk of gw games where winning is sinning, and is actively frowned upon. I feel that it's almost implied and heavily guilt tripped by some folks that I nearly have to apologise for winning a game, and the win should come about by accident, as it were. Gw games are the only games I know where 'casual' and 'competitive' enjoy such mutually exclusive connotations amongst larger segments of the player base - in other games, you just rock up, put your bits on the board and have at 'em.

I sometimes wonder if it's the players collective histories that cause this. Face it, a lot of us are nerds. A lot will be, or were on the bottom of the social ladder (as distinct from 'those' players, who rate lower!) and how many of us got bullied at school? I know I did, back in the day (happy to laugh it off now though). And sometimes I wonder if we all carry a collective sense of 'baggage' with regard to this stuff, and we carry it over to our hobby - one some level, I feel there is an implied attitude amongst the players of 'if no one wins, no one loses, and I'm tired of being a loser'. it's interesting. Since I've gotten into more competitive, and far more physical pursuits since school, my outlook towards 'doing my best' and 'pushing' things has changed completely from my attitudes in school, back in the day. Far less of the 'stop playing so hard against me' and far more 'I'm taking you down punk, bring it on.' (Punk being tongue in cheek, obviously)

I think the problem is, as mentioned. The rules are just that bad, so imbalanced, so messy and clunky they don't work right. When you open the codex, count the good things, count the mediocre things, and look for how many trap units there are. Awesome looking models and or cool fluffy units... that just aren't worth their price and you know full well that they aren't as good. Why take ____ when ____ does its job 10 times better? I can't blame others for bringing heldrakes. At the same time though, I've shelfed mine because only one person in our group had a real way to counter it and it wasn't entertaining to watch my friend just take models off every turn helplessly. Seerstars, screamerstar, etc all of these things are competitive lists yet they aren't necessarily fun to play against simply because the internal balance and external balance of the game is so horrifically messed up that you can get a re-rollable 2+ invuln save.

 Peregrine wrote:


I think it has more to do with the quality of the game.

In X-Wing balance is pretty good, there are few "never take if you want to win" options, and as long as you put a little thought into making a coherent strategy for your ships you're going to have a fair chance of winning. So there's much less of a division between "casual" and "competitive", you just put your ships on the table and play the game. And if you win or lose consistently it has to do with your own skill, not how seriously you take the game.

In 40k, on the other hand, balance is pretty much nonexistent and GW doesn't help you at all. So if you like a certain kind of 40k game the only way to get it and not be crushed by someone with a better list is to add a layer of social pressure to avoid making too many good decisions and winning too easily. And since the game itself is constantly trying to overcome that pressure and bring back auto-win strategies you feel like you're under siege and the pressure gets stronger in reaction. And of course you don't want to admit that you're just bad at the game or playing a special variant, so it has to be that everyone else is doing it wrong. And so you yell really loudly about how you're "just having fun" and "beer and pretzels" and are very serious about telling the world how casual you are, while simultaneously refusing to consider the possibility that more competitive players are also having a lot of fun. The two options become polarized opposites to the point that every bad strategy/list/etc automatically becomes "fun" or "fluffy" just because it isn't competitive, and fluffy lists that are good at winning are automatically "TFG behavior" regardless of how well they follow the background fiction.

And then with 40k you have the additional factor of GW encouraging that kind of "casual at all costs" attitude because it means they can save money by cutting playtesting and design time. Making a good competitive game isn't easy, and if you can convince everyone to 4+ all the rule disputes and shun anyone who brings overpowered lists then you don't have to waste all of that effort and money on something that doesn't really help with the main target market (young kids who rarely ever play the game). And it's even better when you get people white knighting GW by proudly bragging about how little they care about the rules and how anyone who dares to question GW's sacred wisdom is TFG.

 StarTrotter wrote:

I think the problem is, as mentioned. The rules are just that bad, so imbalanced, so messy and clunky they don't work right. When you open the codex, count the good things, count the mediocre things, and look for how many trap units there are. Awesome looking models and or cool fluffy units... that just aren't worth their price and you know full well that they aren't as good. Why take ____ when ____ does its job 10 times better? I can't blame others for bringing heldrakes. At the same time though, I've shelfed mine because only one person in our group had a real way to counter it and it wasn't entertaining to watch my friend just take models off every turn helplessly. Seerstars, screamerstar, etc all of these things are competitive lists yet they aren't necessarily fun to play against simply because the internal balance and external balance of the game is so horrifically messed up that you can get a re-rollable 2+ invuln save.

Startrotter, I fully agree - however whilst what you and peregrine say demonstrates the fundamental flaws of the game of 40k, I don't think it fully captures the hostility in the mentality towards 'winning' that I see in the community. Personally, I think that that's something that goes deeper.

Regardless, to both of you, I'm Agreed on all counts. I like the term 'casual at all costs' - it's quite apt. Reinforce that with a bit of dogma, and a lot of social pressure, back it up with sneering at 'those' other people who are wrong for liking different the game played in a different way, offer the dream and reward of a perfect game after all this struggle, and you've got the cult of 40k. Or a religion.

I'll be honest though - I was referring mainly the mentality behind the disgust/dislike I see towards 'winning' on these, and other boards, which is a slightly different issue to what you've posted, but regardless , yours is entirely on the mark.

 Peregrine wrote:


In X-Wing balance is pretty good, there are few "never take if you want to win" options,

Wrong


X-Wing balance is piss-poor. Tie-Swarms (maximum Hull-Points per points) or Double-Falcon (Maximum-Shield-Points per points) are easily (and easily identifiable) the best X-Wing lists.

The X-Wing miniatures game is, by and large, pretty bad. But it's fun. And it's Star Wars.

 Zweischneid wrote:
X-Wing balance is piss-poor. Tie-Swarms (maximum Hull-Points per points) or Double-Falcon (Maximum-Shield-Points per points) are easily (and easily identifiable) the best X-Wing lists.

Yeah, those lists are just unbeatable, which is why a five-ship rebel list with no upgrades won the most recent world championships...

Plus, even if you feel that those lists are overpowered that's two lists out of the whole game. X-Wing's balance overall is MUCH better than anything in 40k. The power level of average lists is a lot more even, a much higher percentage of the ships and upgrade cards are viable choices, and there are just a lot fewer situations where you set up the game and realize that the outcome has already been decided.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
X-Wing balance is piss-poor. Tie-Swarms (maximum Hull-Points per points) or Double-Falcon (Maximum-Shield-Points per points) are easily (and easily identifiable) the best X-Wing lists.

Yeah, those lists are just unbeatable, which is why a five-ship rebel list with no upgrades won the most recent world championships...

Plus, even if you feel that those lists are overpowered that's two lists out of the whole game. X-Wing's balance overall is MUCH better than anything in 40k.

There is no list in Warhammer 40K that is unbeatable either.

You need to get the difference between "unbalanced" and "unbeatable" right.

Unbalanced = Will win > 50% of the games, assuming equal player skill, etc...
Unbeatable = Will win 100% of games, no matter what.

There's a world of difference between the two.

And no, given that there are only what? 10 or 12 models in the entire game of X-Wing, balance is far, far, far, far worse than 40K if you account for the infinitely greater number of units in the mix.

 Zweischneid wrote:
There is no list in Warhammer 40K that is unbeatable either.

Yeah, let's get out the dictionary and assume that "unbeatable" means "literally 100% impossible to beat it" rather than the more common definition in this context: a list that has such an overwhelming advantage that it would be extremely surprising if it lost without a huge difference in luck or player skill to explain it.

And no, given that there are only what? 10 or 12 models in the entire game of X-Wing, balance is far, far, far, far worse than 40K if you account for the infinitely greater number of units in the mix.

No. There are only 12 models, but each of those models has at least 4-5 pilots and there are a lot of upgrades. And a much higher percentage of them are balanced choices that are neither so powerful that you always want to take them or so weak that you can hardly imagine a situation where you want them. Compare that to 40k where most units and upgrade choices are either blatantly overpowered or so weak that they might as well not exist.

 Peregrine wrote:

No. There are only 12 models, but each of those models has at least 4-5 pilots and there are a lot of upgrades. And a much higher percentage of them are balanced choices that are neither so powerful that you always want to take them or so weak that you can hardly imagine a situation where you want them. Compare that to 40k where most units and upgrade choices are either blatantly overpowered or so weak that they might as well not exist.

Still, the complexity is far less than in even a single 40K Codex.

X-Wing isn't really a better game, it's only a far more simple one. If balance means that much to you, that you are willing to bring down 40K to X-Wing levels of complexity, you shouldn't have a problem.

For your next 40K Tournament

- Only allow two Codexes (Imperial vs. Rebels), say Space Marines vs. Chaos Space Marines.
- Only allow 6 entries from each Codex.
- Use low point values that result in fewer than a dozend, usually fewer than half-a-dozend models on the table. Probably around 150 or 200 pts, possibly the new Kill-Team rules (specialist rules should stand in for pilot-abilities fairly nicely)..
- Simplify all "basic shooting" (Bolters, Lasguns, whathhaveyou) into a single standardized BS 4, Str. 4 AP 4 "standard-shooting" that is the same for all units in the game.
- Allow no more than 5 or 6 different missiles/"upgrade-weapons" (say Plasmagun, Heavy Bolter, Meltagun, Missile Launcher, Autocannon).
- Remove Close Combat completely from the game.
- Remove LD-tests and all morality rules completely from the game.
- Play on perfectly flat tables with only one type of terrain ("rocks") in equal numbers on all tables.
- Etc..

If people want "X-Wing-levels" of "balance" in 40K, it's easy to do.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Still, the complexity is far less than in even a single 40K Codex.

Sure, but 40k is full of pointless complexity. You have useless upgrades, useless units, even useless armies if you're at the wrong time in the update cycle. Does it really matter if my IG veterans can take grenade launchers? Of course not, that text might as well be blank. If you look at the options that people actually take you've got a game that isn't even close to complicated enough to justify the shameful lack of balance.

And of course then you could always compare it to MTG, a game with much more complexity (at least in terms of options, as you define it here) but also much better balance. But I guess that's the benefit of having a company that doesn't use "but it's hard" as an excuse to avoid proper playtesting.

If balance means that much to you, that you are willing to bring down 40K to X-Wing levels of complexity, you shouldn't have a problem.

No, you're just confusing complexity with lazy design. 40k could be balanced without sacrificing any interesting complexity. The only reason it isn't is that GW doesn't care enough to do it.

 Peregrine wrote:


Sure, but 40k is full of pointless complexity.

It's not pointless if there is a demand for it.

People who don't like it are free to play simpler games, including X-Wing. People who like the "pointless" complexity 40K can play 40K. There is nothing to be gained in making 40K as simple as, to stick with the example, X-Wing, because X-Wing is already on the market.

Sure, but 40k is full of pointless complexity.

Thiiiiiiis. I've been saying this for ages, glad to see others get it too.

Complexity =/= depth. Look at Chess or Diplomacy or something, and then look at this game.

 Zweischneid wrote:
It's not pointless if there is a demand for it.

Sigh. You're missing the key difference between a complex and interesting game where each of those complex options matters, and a bloated mess where there are lots of rules but you can ignore half of them because they're so bad that nobody ever uses them. You think 40k is in the former category, the truth is that it's in the latter one. You could cut out large parts of 40k and hardly anyone would miss it, and you'd still have a game that's significantly more complicated than X-Wing.

Anyway, this is all a complete tangent. You can insist on pulling out one sentence and debating it to death, but the simple fact is that in my experience the X-Wing community isn't plagued with the same "casual at all costs" players who obsess over how casual they're being and how little they care about the game. And my impression is that the biggest reason is that X-Wing games are more likely to be fun and balanced even without negotiation, while trying to play a 40k pickup game without first agreeing on how competitive you're going to be often ends in a one-sided massacre that nobody enjoys. Feel free to substitute some other balanced game for X-Wing if you want, the basic point remains the same.

 Peregrine wrote:


Anyway, this is all a complete tangent. You can insist on pulling out one sentence and debating it to death, but the simple fact is that in my experience the X-Wing community isn't plagued with the same "casual at all costs" players who obsess over how casual they're being and how little they care about the game. And my impression is that the biggest reason is that X-Wing games are more likely to be fun and balanced even without negotiation, while trying to play a 40k pickup game without first agreeing on how competitive you're going to be often ends in a one-sided massacre that nobody enjoys. Feel free to substitute some other balanced game for X-Wing if you want, the basic point remains the same.

Again, because X-Wing is a far, far more simple game. And because people, in my experience, don't go claiming the entire game is ready for the bin because Tie-Swarms are overpowered, as they do with 40K, where every little hick-up has people screaming that the sky is falling. X-Wing players just move on and make Tie-Fighter noises, cause it's cool, even if the game ain't perfect. If 40K player were to approach it with the same spirit, we'd have no issue.

 Zweischneid wrote:
And because people, in my experience, don't go claiming the entire game is ready for the bin because Tie-Swarms are overpowered, as they do with 40K, where every little hick-up has people screaming that the sky is falling.

That's because 40k updates screw over one large part of the community, buffs another large part, and leaves a ton of people in the middle ground wondering what the hell just happened.

Deadnight wrote:

I sometimes wonder if it's the players collective histories that cause this. Face it, a lot of us are nerds. A lot will be, or were on the bottom of the social ladder (as distinct from 'those' players, who rate lower!) and how many of us got bullied at school? I know I did, back in the day (happy to laugh it off now though). And sometimes I wonder if we all carry a collective sense of 'baggage' with regard to this stuff, and we carry it over to our hobby - one some level, I feel there is an implied attitude amongst the players of 'if no one wins, no one loses, and I'm tired of being a loser'. it's interesting. Since I've gotten into more competitive, and far more physical pursuits since school, my outlook towards 'doing my best' and 'pushing' things has changed completely from my attitudes in school, back in the day. Far less of the 'stop playing so hard against me' and far more 'I'm taking you down punk, bring it on.' (Punk being tongue in cheek, obviously)

Not really--I don't remember seeing this sort of attitude in any game where the rules are better balanced, at least not to that degree. In mean, in my Warmachine group, you might get a raised eyebrow or good-natured ribbing if you drop some of the known top-tier pieces, but certainly not people refusing to play against you.

Where the game system is less breakable, the rule of social conduct moves from what you're putting on the board and what tactics you're using as grounds for disapproval, and onto your actual conduct and personality as a player. The burden of balancing the game, and preventing overpowered combos and "why did I show up?" experiences is taken up by the system instead of the players, as it should be.

 Selym wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
And because people, in my experience, don't go claiming the entire game is ready for the bin because Tie-Swarms are overpowered, as they do with 40K, where every little hick-up has people screaming that the sky is falling.

That's because 40k updates screw over one large part of the community, buffs another large part, and leaves a ton of people in the middle ground wondering what the hell just happened.

As X-Wing screw-ups would, if the game only 1% of the complexity and 1% of the player-base of 40K. The scale of 40K obviously amplifies things to a far greater extend, and I am no saying that is irrelevant nor that a game like 40K, which requires a much greater investment, shouldn't be held to a higher standard.

But, to return to the original point, simply saying X-Wing is "better balanced" (despite several obvious and grievous imbalances with barely 10 different unit existing in the entire game) than 40K with its hundreds and hundreds of units and rules and mechanisms, is utterly stupid.

I am not saying that there are no issues with 40K at all. I am merely pointing out one of the most ludicrous cases of apples and oranges to have graced the interwebs in a while.

Guys i don't get all of this whining about the imbalance of the game. I have just rekindled my love of all GW after 20 years out. I find the new versions of the game much better to play now, although it helps to have the money now to buy what units i want to.

I have just started on 40k earlier this year and have Ebayed a 3,000 to ultramarine army since the new codex.

Now some units are overpriced imho such as Terminators and some are massively underpriced such as the TFC. But some games my terms have stomped on 1000pts and my TFC has been destroyed in turn 2 after killing a big fat Zero.

But in all of these games i have enjoyed playing it, if it didn't i would't do it.

All the arguments of this unit is too good and that unit are too cheep just sounds like sour grapes, your list wasn't good enough, your tactics were poor and your dice rolls sucked.

If you don't like it play something else!!

All I wish is that the rules team would even try, I can't understand what kind of a gamer would let something like the old Slaanesh minor psychic powers pass, I mean of course somebody is going to take 6 of them and have a daemon prince you can't shoot or assault. It should immediately come to mind that it's going to be ridiculously broken, so why did it exist?

Or the recent 2++ vs. D! thing. It should have been obvious in the first place that you shouldn't be able to re-roll invulnerable saves, but at least don't let the guys with access to 2++ saves for units have it (or the 2++ save, way too good). All you need is some D to dick that over, yeah that seems legit just have an unit that can remove the other unit with no effort. It should have been really obvious that if D weapons are needed they should be pretty specialised anti-titan weapons and even then they should never one-shot a titan. At the very least it would have been nice if anybody involved in escalation gave a crap about trivialities such as point costs.

It's not like it's impossible to have a relatively balanced game.

madd_leeroy wrote:


All the arguments of this unit is too good and that unit are too cheep just sounds like sour grapes, your list wasn't good enough, your tactics were poor and your dice rolls sucked.

If you don't like it play something else!!

Here's the thing. Play something else, and then come back to 40k. The issues crystallise.

Your list wasn't good enough? Well, yeah, but that just reinforces the simple fact that 40k boils done to a bare handful of viable codices, with a bare handful of viable builds, and everything beyond this is frankly pointless. Craft world starcannon spam eldar in third, or blood angels rhino spam. Skimmer spam and six man las/plas in fourth and that iron warriors list, grey knights, and long fang spam in fifth. Mc and flyer spam, or taudar in sixth.

Here's the thing, compare this to warmachine, where everything can be built into a game winning strategy, where all factions are represented at the top tables with very fair win loss ratios across the board, and where, frankly, you are not punished because you play faction x. Compare it to infinity, where the over riding attitude to playing better is ' it's not your list, it's you'. Again, across the board, you've got excellent balance and no one thing dominates.

Sour grapes? Well. Yeah. The game mechanics are rubbish. I want better from my game. I get that elsewhere, and frankly, want the same thing from 40k. I want to like 40k again. I want 40k to be the best game it can be, and sadly it falls far too short of the mark.

My gaming group has been working on a wargaming system based on the D10 instead of the D6. it allows for a much greater range of stats and abilities. most of the rules are roughly based on a imiler system, we just made it more 'realistic' and took out a lot of the bugs. Of course, as with any custom rulesets, it is largely useless outside of the group that designs it so for tourneys and pick up games at the shop and all, it's back to the 'official' rules.

You are really missing my point here, if you are playing another game and you think it is much better than 40k then stay playing it…..

40k won't miss you.

But you keep coming back for some reason, i.e. your mates play it, you have loads of models or actually you enjoy it. GW are there to be opoular, they are like the referees at a football match, they keep things on the straight and narrow and sometimes they make a bad call… not intentionally but they do and hacks like you moan about it forever and ever and ever.

I stand by my original quote. You moan because you lost because of poor troop choice, poor tactics or poor dice roll..end of.

If you don't like it play another game.

Deadnight wrote:

madd_leeroy wrote:


All the arguments of this unit is too good and that unit are too cheep just sounds like sour grapes, your list wasn't good enough, your tactics were poor and your dice rolls sucked.

If you don't like it play something else!!

Here's the thing. Play something else, and then come back to 40k. The issues crystallise.

Your list wasn't good enough? Well, yeah, but that just reinforces the simple fact that 40k boils done to a bare handful of viable codices, with a bare handful of viable builds, and everything beyond this is frankly pointless. Craft world starcannon spam eldar in third, or blood angels rhino spam. Skimmer spam and six man las/plas in fourth and that iron warriors list, grey knights, and long fang spam in fifth. Mc and flyer spam, or taudar in sixth.

Here's the thing, compare this to warmachine, where everything can be built into a game winning strategy, where all factions are represented at the top tables with very fair win loss ratios across the board, and where, frankly, you are not punished because you play faction x. Compare it to infinity, where the over riding attitude to playing better is ' it's not your list, it's you'. Again, across the board, you've got excellent balance and no one thing dominates.

Sour grapes? Well. Yeah. The game mechanics are rubbish. I want better from my game. I get that elsewhere, and frankly, want the same thing from 40k. I want to like 40k again. I want 40k to be the best game it can be, and sadly it falls far too short of the mark.

Many players do play other games as well as 40k. not many pigeonhole themselves to just one game and instead keep thier options open or just play different ones for variety.

madd_leeroy wrote:
You are really missing my point here, if you are playing another game and you think it is much better than 40k then stay playing it…..

40k won't miss you.

But you keep coming back for some reason, i.e. your mates play it, you have loads of models or actually you enjoy it. GW are there to be opoular, they are like the referees at a football match, they keep things on the straight and narrow and sometimes they make a bad call… not intentionally but they do and hacks like you moan about it forever and ever and ever.

I stand by my original quote. You moan because you lost because of poor troop choice, poor tactics or poor dice roll..end of.

If you don't like it play another game.

Spoiler:

Deadnight wrote:

madd_leeroy wrote:


All the arguments of this unit is too good and that unit are too cheep just sounds like sour grapes, your list wasn't good enough, your tactics were poor and your dice rolls sucked.

If you don't like it play something else!!

Here's the thing. Play something else, and then come back to 40k. The issues crystallise.

Your list wasn't good enough? Well, yeah, but that just reinforces the simple fact that 40k boils done to a bare handful of viable codices, with a bare handful of viable builds, and everything beyond this is frankly pointless. Craft world starcannon spam eldar in third, or blood angels rhino spam. Skimmer spam and six man las/plas in fourth and that iron warriors list, grey knights, and long fang spam in fifth. Mc and flyer spam, or taudar in sixth.

Here's the thing, compare this to warmachine, where everything can be built into a game winning strategy, where all factions are represented at the top tables with very fair win loss ratios across the board, and where, frankly, you are not punished because you play faction x. Compare it to infinity, where the over riding attitude to playing better is ' it's not your list, it's you'. Again, across the board, you've got excellent balance and no one thing dominates.

Sour grapes? Well. Yeah. The game mechanics are rubbish. I want better from my game. I get that elsewhere, and frankly, want the same thing from 40k. I want to like 40k again. I want 40k to be the best game it can be, and sadly it falls far too short of the mark.

In tactics and strategy games, player decisions need to matter and be critical to the outcome of the game. As azareal13 has pointed out, 6th edition has introduced many game elements that make game outcomes almost predetermined.

Compare to Starcraft, where I can *choose* to scout out my opponents' tech and then build counter tech. He will simultaneously try to hide his tech to make it harder. Because there are no clearly inherently superior choices, like say *WAVE SERPENTS*, there are so many tactics that might work, especially when your tactic is not scouted.

There is no decision making when I fire my overcosted Imperial heavy weapons at Wave Serpents and nothing happens. I just stand there and lose.

I still think that a fan base can pull together and make a set of GW rules better if they want to. Look at Epic Armageddon.

The GW rules are a mess. If you want to download the rules from GW, you also need a 21-page FAQ, and a 9-page Eratta PDF. And for anything other than the 4 factions in the main book, you need to download and look through several different PDF's. All for a game that GW doesn't support anymore.

But with a quick trip on the internet, I found a Forum who has compiled the main rules (with the required rules changed as per the eratta) into one main PDF with the FAQ items as numbered footnotes on each page with the rules they fit with. The community there has also pretty extensively developed and playtested army list entries for every 40K race, with several factions of some of the races (Imperial Guard tank companies, Siege Companies, and Alaitoc versus Biel-Tan army lists) They also cleaned up and sometimes even altered unit entries where the community thought the rules or points costs should have been different. And supposedly they update this main PDF every year.