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.

Here is where that falls apart though...say I love beans, so I go out and buy a lot of beans because the cook book I bought says they may be used in any recipe....then I go to invite by friends over for dinner and they say...I'd love to so long as we are not having any beans....If this always happens I as the bean lover end up frustrated in wasting my money...the game is better served by balanced rules where any combination of models produces a fun game because then I can take what I like and enjoy the game, rather than being given options that I rarely (if ever) get to excersise. As I stated before...there is never anything stopping individuals from doing what they like within their own game...what the bad rules end up doing is creating tension between players that have different expectations.

Breng77 wrote:
Here is where that falls apart though...say I love beans, so I go out and buy a lot of beans because the cook book I bought says they may be used in any recipe....then I go to invite by friends over for dinner and they say...I'd love to so long as we are not having any beans....If this always happens I as the bean lover end up frustrated in wasting my money...the game is better served by balanced rules where any combination of models produces a fun game because then I can take what I like and enjoy the game, rather than being given options that I rarely (if ever) get to excersise. As I stated before...there is never anything stopping individuals from doing what they like within their own game...what the bad rules end up doing is creating tension between players that have different expectations.

Which is why ought to ask your friends first. "Problem" solved.

And as you said, there is never anything stopping you from doing what you like with your own game. So if you want to reduce the selection to a smaller number of available options that are "balanced" enough for you, do so.

But a large selection of stuff, including whacky stuff serves a larger group of people, those who want whacky stuff too (e.g. Titans) and (!) those that want a smaller "balanced" selection (which everyone is free to pick from the greater group of available options).

A smaller "balanced" selection only serves the latter group.

Makumba wrote:

"So we stop it now? And we don´t get to know what happened? No way. Let´s play a sixth turn to see who wins".

But we know what happened . we played 4+turns and one dude lost , and now that he lost he is trying to get extra turns to turn his lose in to a draw or a win . The narrative was forged , two players played and the game ended . I have never seen a player of the supposed non-B&P kind to ask for one turn more , but those B&P players , which have wining unimportant on their banners , do . They are also the ones that try to change other people armies and make other armies easier for them to play , not carring what the other players may want or not. Those bad Tournament players on the other hand always want more lists and more different armies and remove stuff from the game only , if adding a unit or rule would drop the number of players in their area. oddly enough GW who claims their games are B&P are very good at splashing game breaking stuff . cheap multi shot D weapons , demons in WFB in 7th .

In your opinion? It seems so.

But there are many people that couldn´t care less about that. What happened after the 5th turn? Did the Wolves stop the demonic infestation? Did the Chaos Lord win or lose his duel against the Wolf Priest? For competitive players, it doesn´t matter: the game is finished, you count up your points and see who got the victory, and that´s all. For not-competitive players, the narrative is what matters. Winning or losing a battle is of no interest. The models have a story of their own, and that is what they are looking for: to tell a story, to play it with a friend. They are B&P players, as opposed to "competitive players" or "tournament players". If you look at the polls in this forum, they are the majority.

Warhammer was born from role playing games. There are no winners or losers or, more properly written, both players win if they have fun and both players lose if one of them gets upset or bored. That´s a "beer and pizza (I don´t even know what is a pretzel)" game. It doesn´t matter who is the winner. What matters is getting more or lest drunk, full of pizza, and having a good time with your friends.

It can be played as if it were a "competitive" game, but this is not the way it is intended to be played. The rules are too chaotic, the random elements too extreme, the balance nearly zero. "Pay to win" meets "unfair advantage" meets "a random dice and you are out" meets "nobody knows how this rule works". Playing "competitive" with strangers usually means endless arguments, and this is something most players do not want. With friends, it can work.

I love competitive games and tournaments, yet I avoid competitive 40k. It is really difficult to get through all the broken things in the game. I will like to see a properly developed set of rules, but at the moment it seems GW is going the opposite direction. I must admit I also enjoy the craziness of the current game, and welcome all the new stuff.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
That's the exact opposite of what I said. If you don't like, don't have fun playing, the way I play or what I field, you can opt out. And vice versa. That's the bottom line.

And my point is that this opting out and negotiation isn't part of the standard game. A standard game is when I show up at the local store and tell a random stranger "hey, let's play a game of 40k" and we play a game without making any special arrangements about what things we're allowed to use. Once you start talking about things like having to double and triple check that your opponent will be having fun (and presumably change something if they won't) you're talking about playing a special variant game under your own new rules.

"Spirit of the Game" seems to say that negotiation is part of the game. How else do you make an experience that is fun for all involved?

The lengths people go to try and argue that they shouldn't need to talk to their opponent to make sure both sides are going to have a good time is simply amazing.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Here is where that falls apart though...say I love beans, so I go out and buy a lot of beans because the cook book I bought says they may be used in any recipe....then I go to invite by friends over for dinner and they say...I'd love to so long as we are not having any beans....If this always happens I as the bean lover end up frustrated in wasting my money...the game is better served by balanced rules where any combination of models produces a fun game because then I can take what I like and enjoy the game, rather than being given options that I rarely (if ever) get to excersise. As I stated before...there is never anything stopping individuals from doing what they like within their own game...what the bad rules end up doing is creating tension between players that have different expectations.

Which is why ought to ask your friends first. "Problem" solved.

And as you said, there is never anything stopping you from doing what you like with your own game. So if you want to reduce the selection to a smaller number of available options that are "balanced" enough for you, do so.

But a large selection of stuff, including whacky stuff serves a larger group of people, those who want whacky stuff too (e.g. Titans) and (!) those that want a smaller "balanced" selection (which everyone is free to pick from the greater group of available options).

A smaller "balanced" selection only serves the latter group.

The issue is playing with "non-friends", say I move and was playing one way...and now nobody wants to play against my army becaue they don't like x.....wacky stuff is fine....but it is better left on the fringes of an otherwise balanced game...with Titans being Apoc only...nothing stopped friends from playing wacky games like my titan Vs your army...etc. What the rules do now are hurt pick up style play for little gain in variety (balanced rules would provide better variety.) Titans would also not be a problem if they were big powerful, but balanced to point models (i.e. a titan could rasonably expect to be even with a similar number of points worth of models). There still would be no limit to fun wacky scenarios while still providing a good game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 da001 wrote:

Makumba wrote:

"So we stop it now? And we don´t get to know what happened? No way. Let´s play a sixth turn to see who wins".

But we know what happened . we played 4+turns and one dude lost , and now that he lost he is trying to get extra turns to turn his lose in to a draw or a win . The narrative was forged , two players played and the game ended . I have never seen a player of the supposed non-B&P kind to ask for one turn more , but those B&P players , which have wining unimportant on their banners , do . They are also the ones that try to change other people armies and make other armies easier for them to play , not carring what the other players may want or not. Those bad Tournament players on the other hand always want more lists and more different armies and remove stuff from the game only , if adding a unit or rule would drop the number of players in their area. oddly enough GW who claims their games are B&P are very good at splashing game breaking stuff . cheap multi shot D weapons , demons in WFB in 7th .

In your opinion? It seems so.

But there are many people that couldn´t care less about that. What happened after the 5th turn? Did the Wolves stop the demonic infestation? Did the Chaos Lord win or lose his duel against the Wolf Priest? For competitive players, it doesn´t matter: the game is finished, you count up your points and see who got the victory, and that´s all. For not-competitive players, the narrative is what matters. Winning or losing a battle is of no interest. The models have a story of their own, and that is what they are looking for: to tell a story, to play it with a friend. They are B&P players, as opposed to "competitive players" or "tournament players". If you look at the polls in this forum, they are the majority.

Warhammer was born from role playing games. There are no winners or losers or, more properly written, both players win if they have fun and both players lose if one of them gets upset or bored. That´s a "beer and pizza (I don´t even know what is a pretzel)" game. It doesn´t matter who is the winner. What matters is getting more or lest drunk, full of pizza, and having a good time with your friends.

It can be played as if it were a "competitive" game, but this is not the way it is intended to be played. The rules are too chaotic, the random elements too extreme, the balance nearly zero. "Pay to win" meets "unfair advantage" meets "a random dice and you are out" meets "nobody knows how this rule works". Playing "competitive" with strangers usually means endless arguments, and this is something most players do not want. With friends, it can work.

I love competitive games and tournaments, yet I avoid competitive 40k. It is really difficult to get through all the broken things in the game. I will like to see a properly developed set of rules, but at the moment it seems GW is going the opposite direction. I must admit I also enjoy the craziness of the current game, and welcome all the new stuff.

here is the thing though why if you don't care about winning/losing the mission on random length do you bother playing the missions at all...just play out your story....nothing would stop you from doing so....but the rules should be written in a way that allows players to play the game the way they want...without the need to weed through the broken stuff.

Breng77 wrote:


The issue is playing with "non-friends", say I move and was playing one way...and now nobody wants to play against my army becaue they don't like x.....wacky stuff is fine....but it is better left on the fringes of an otherwise balanced game...with Titans being Apoc only...nothing stopped friends from playing wacky games like my titan Vs your army...etc. What the rules do now are hurt pick up style play for little gain in variety (balanced rules would provide better variety.) Titans would also not be a problem if they were big powerful, but balanced to point models (i.e. a titan could rasonably expect to be even with a similar number of points worth of models). There still would be no limit to fun wacky scenarios while still providing a good game.

I disagree. Putting the narrative stuff at the fringes of the game buts people who want to play the narrative stuff at the fringes of the community. That is not healthy for a game and hobby that thrives on the narrative and spirit of the game.

Frankly, this is the situation we've had to endure for most of 3rd and 4th and, partly 5th. It gave an unhealthy weight to a tiny minority of highly organized (and blogging) group of tournament players that managed to poison nearly the entire hobby with abstruse concepts like "RAW" and "Play to Win", etc.. .

It simply didn't work. It may take decades to repair the harm these people did to the hobby.

The problem isn't:
"I want to use all the new stuff, and you can, too."

The problem is:
"I don't want to use all the new stuff, so I won' t let you either."

For some reason, people feel they have this right to determine what everyone else finds acceptable and fun.

Zweischneid, I play to have fun but I really disagree with what you are saying.

I doubt there is any point in arguing with you though since you are so dogmatic in your opinions, but I'll try anyhow. My issue with GW is charging what they do for rules that are so badly written I have to patch them myself, and then negotiate their use with any gaming group I join. (I move around a lot so I don't have access to an established group of players.).
To me that removes one of the greatest strengths of 40K which is that anyone can reasonably expect t obe able to pick up a game no matter where they go. The more the rules need to be personalised, the less that can happen.

On the other hand, if there is a balanced and fun normal game, with some optional narrative stuff, then your situation is essentially the same- you can still negotiate for "fun" narrative games, but my situation is massively improved- the base game is robust enough that I can play "pick up" with strangers with a minimum of fuss, disagreement or awkwardness.

Warzone had an interesting ruleset that I'd like to see brought over.

Each unit is activated separately in an "I go/you go" pattern which allows greater player interaction than the current army "I go you go".

Each unit has three action points which can be spent on movement, shooting, or assault. If you want to get somewhere in a hurry you spend all your action points on movement, if you want to blaze away at something you spend the points on shooting, and if you want to hurl yourself into the fray you spend two points on movement then a third to charge in and initiate assault. (Movement stat would have to be brought back).

We should get rid of separate armour and toughness classes. Armour is too fragile, and high toughness too tough. Vehicles should have toughness/saves/invulnerables like monstrous creatures, and weapons should be built for dealing with that. For example a weapon classed as armourbane (something like lascannons or bright lances as examples) would do D3 wounds rather than 1, titan killer weapons would do D6. Vehicles (and monstrous creatures) would lose weapon functionality as their wound pool decreases. Half wounds, half their weapons function (rounding fractions up) attacking player decides which guns die.

Cover affects to-hit rolls, as does moving at high speed but only to a maximum of -1 for cover, and -1 for speed to a maximum of 6+ to hit. That means that a BS5 unit shooting at a shrouded bike moving 12 inches or more would hit on a 4+. A unit classed as large (vehicles, anything larger than a Wraith Guard) is +1 to hit up to the half range of the weapon shooting, to a minimum of 2+.

Overwatch requires the owning player to have "saved" an action point for that unit from its previous turn, and only a single shot from each model regardless of the class of weapon they're using is allowed.

@Freman: Check out Deadzone. It has a lot of what you're talking about.

I don't think 40k is a beer and pretzels game at all. Though gw has a pub as an actual business attached. While it was a while ago back when allessio calvatore was designing, he is the undisputed master of beer and pretzels, and most of his rules boil down to roll more dice.

Currently, I feel they are trying quite hard to add more narrative (not as just some tag line) to the game, more complexity, and more diversity.

This goes against typical tournament methodology; as tournaments (and their players) trend towards simplicity for a variety of reasons.

Eyjio wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

No, 40k is for people who like to argue over esoteric vaguely written rules. I have yet to see a game go by without both players at some point picking up a rulebook. That's not beer and pretzels.

Ding ding ding, winner. I'll never understand why people will defend GW's rules when they're so horribly convoluted. You can not care about balance, not care about realism, not care about other player's enjoyment, whatever but you CANNOT say that the rules, as they stand, are intuitive, well written and clear. The fact that the rules are what, 131 pages long, plus the length of all the codices and supplements, yet STILL have huge glaring rules issues is ridiculous. I'm yet to see a good answer to the newbie question which is always asked:why doesn't cover affect how well the models shoot; it's still absurd to me now. This is not a game which should be complex at all. There's 4 phases to the game, yet the rules are absolutely colossal and, if we're honest, barely any of them are used with any frequency (when was the last time you used random allocation, split fire, shot a T10 creature, took cover behind razor wire, failed a shooting morale check, used dangerous terrain at all, had to regroup, threw a frag grenade,had a vehicle split from a squadron after immobilisation, etc). Why? What benefit does that add to the game which simple rules wouldn't? The few times it matters are no less realistic than half the stuff built into the rules like being able to run out a transport but not charge, or standing around in the open after completing a combat. How can you describe this game as beer and pretzels when you need to always lug around a huge rulebook, any relevant codices, your entire army, an army list, any IA books, maybe Escalation and Stronghold Assault, etc and THEN play with delicate, finely painted models? It's too much guff to bother IMO.

GW writes bad rules because GW doesn't care and people still have fun. It seemingly doesn't matter to them that it's putting people off or that many people hate the changes, because they have no consumer goodwill anyway. They just want money without actually having a clue about how to get up sales.

I couldn't disagree with you more. The 40k rulebook is far from huge. My FoW rulebook is about 300 pages, and that is only the 'small' one that comes with the starter set. And to be honest, I like complicated games. Some rules may not be used often, but when you encounter certain situations, it is good that they exist. Complex games are good, simple games tend to get boring really quickly.
Imo, the rulebook, even including all the codices, is far from huge, but the benefit it adds to the game is obvious. Most importantly, it is variation.
Also, it is important to keep in mind that the game is not 40k's main thing. Warhammer is all about the hobby. About the miniatures. It is a hobby with a game attached to it, rather than the other way around as with FoW and many other miniature wargames.

You are however correct when saying that 40k is not a 'beer and pretzel' game. imo, the term 'beer and pretzel' is thrown about way too much without regard to the meaning of it.
40k is a wargame. Wargames are meant to be complicated.
What I think most people here mean when they say 'bear and pretzel game' is a game played in a casual setting (with friends, joking around while eating pretzels etc.) as opposed to a game that is often played in a 'serious' tournament setting (like chess).

The problem here is that GW call 40k a beer and pretzels game thus the topic of this thread and conversation.

Complicated rules are all well and good but they could at least do us all the favor of coherent editing and consistency...

 Zweischneid wrote:

I disagree. Putting the narrative stuff at the fringes of the game buts people who want to play the narrative stuff at the fringes of the community. That is not healthy for a game and hobby that thrives on the narrative and spirit of the game.

Frankly, this is the situation we've had to endure for most of 3rd and 4th and, partly 5th. It gave an unhealthy weight to a tiny minority of highly organized (and blogging) group of tournament players that managed to poison nearly the entire hobby with abstruse concepts like "RAW" and "Play to Win", etc.. .

It simply didn't work. It may take decades to repair the harm these people did to the hobby.

Sure, it's "not healthy", which is why 3e/4e had no user base growth at all, narrative play suffered so much that GW no longer ever does campaigns and there's no mention in 6e of narrative at all.

Oh wait.

Are you so blind as to think that a game which can be played in a tournament completely kills narrative players? The only thing which has "poisoned" 40k is the writers and GW. We've seen them nearly collapse due to exponential growth with no way to support it, we're now seeing falling sales. Even in 2e, GW themselves ran tournaments and issued balance changes. If something isn't working in YOUR group, that is your own issue and not one of anyone else's creation. Your attitude towards other people's preferred play style (as in, how they have fun playing a game) is nothing short of sickening to me. If you can't see why having a fair game is completely inconsequential to any story based gameplay, in the same way it is in any other game, then the onus is on you.

Variation grows from balance. In games with balance, most things are used. In games without, people gravitate towards the flavour of the day. It happens in every game, so pinning blame on anything other than the design is foolish. I would love to be able to reenact Space Hulk, with the Kill Team rules, but now Terminators just almost always win. I would love to reenact mass guardsmen, but it plays the book missions badly compared to these silly new 2++ reroll armies. These are things which I know people want, but do not function due to bad balance. There is no excuse for this whatsoever and I can't believe anyone is still defending GW's stance as "it gives options". No, it doesn't; it hampers them. You CAN take whatever you want, sure... if there's a model, it fits in the FOC, it's got unambiguous rules and your opponent agrees, sure. You can. But 99% of players won't. Most of the people I face couldn't care less about tournaments, but I've not seen a genestealer heavy army on the table for 6 years. Why? Because it loses to fluffy marine lists. What is that saying about the game? "Take this, but if you want to actually play the game, take these instead"? Even if you don't mind losing, do you think that people enjoy playing the guy who they always beat, no matter what? No, it's really boring as you know what will happen. If I wanted to make a narrative game, I would run a campaign again, or agree to it beforehand, or even jsut read one of the many 40k novels out there. I sure as heck wouldn't play a pick up game with someone new to the game because they won't get half the fluff, won't know what they're doing and will need help, all of which break the immersion. I don't WANT to play the same people over and over; I want new people to come in, enjoy themselves and stick around. If I have to go through a list of what people SHOULD take or what house rules the area has, or why we do/don't use FW/supplements/allies/fortifications/whatever else, then that's a huge barrier to entry. The game NEEDS to be balanced for those players and armies NEED to enforce fluff restrictions if GW wants the game to run like the background; attempting otherwise is a fools folly. Why then should anyone care about your enjoyment of the "options" (which may as well not exist half the time) when the imbalance created there is driving newbies away and veterans out? It's an exceedingly selfish stance.

I couldn't disagree with you more. The 40k rulebook is far from huge. My FoW rulebook is about 300 pages, and that is only the 'small' one that comes with the starter set. And to be honest, I like complicated games. Some rules may not be used often, but when you encounter certain situations, it is good that they exist. Complex games are good, simple games tend to get boring really quickly.

My issue isn't complexity, it's the needless complexity. Having a basic CC weapon does absolutely nothing, unless you have a pistol/another CC weapon. Why? Why bother even writing they have one then? Why is it that Eldar Jetbikes are a different class of things to normal Jetbikes when the vast majority (in fact, as far as I can think the only significant jetbikes in the game even) of jetbikes are ALL Eldar? Heck, why not amalgamate those rules with the ones for fast skimmers? Why are walkers not MCs? Why is random allocation a rule? There's just no need for half of the rules at all. Heck, even some of the stuff touted at the start of 6e is worthless; when did you last throw a frag grenade? Would the games depth really suffer if half of these things became a unified entity? I doubt it, and it would prevent a lot of rules issues.

As for FOW, that's not a fair comparison. In terms of actual text, it has way, way less than 40k in - it's mostly illustrations of in game situations rather than paragraph after paragraph of text, with the writing being a larger font as well. Even so, those 300 pages have way less rules issues than 40k and they even describe most of the factions special rules. I can't think of a single FOW rule that could be cut without significant detriment to some army builds, which is also highly dissimilar to 40k.

I also disagree with complexity=replayability. Two of my favourite games are Poker and Dou Dizhu which both have fairly simple rules, yet have never gotten boring to play. Sure, they're different from a war game but the idea should be that complexity is player built - there should never be a way to "cheese" the game, nor make "unfluffy" lists; the game should be tactical whilst representing the background. I feel there's still a substantial amount of tactics used in 40k despite what naysayers would have you believe, but very often it comes at the expense of the background rather than from the behest of it. If they make complex rules then charge for them, they should be mostly watertight like most other war games. If they simplify the game (and they certainly should start deleting redundant bits) then they need to make sure it's still enjoyably tactical. At the moment, I am enjoying the game less as my narrative lists get stomped and my tournament lists are not super fun to actually play as or against. If this hobby is going to be model based, they need to make it so that every model can be used, as otherwise sales will die on those models. Too often have we seen deliberate unbalancing to sell kits: the Carnifex nerf and stupid Tervigon, the mech change in 5e, the almost crippling blow dealt to assault in 4e, etc; for what? Because people repeatedly say that it's to boost sales as no-one would otherwise collect other armies (which is patently false if you speak to any 40k player)? No, it's just bad design; intentional or unintentional doesn't matter.

I guess my point is this: what does the game REALLY gain from this complexity? We have model types which have different special rules within special rules within special rules. We have effectively on;y 2 movement speeds - 6" and 12", yet this is individually stated for EVERY model rather than just saying "normal speed" or "fast speed". Why? What do we gain from that? Why is razorwire even 6+ cover - does it protect that well from tank blasts? Why is cover not generally a modifier to armour saves or to hit rolls, instead creating a whole new type of save on its own, needlessly complicating things in a non-intuitive way. Worse, it DOES affect to hit rolls if you're out of LOS - you simply can't be wounded. What sense does it make to have it generate a save one way and stop wounding the next? Would it not make more sense for cover to be -1 BS and out of sight models hit at BS 0 (hence allowing blasts and things to still hit accurately to models they see but not ones they don't)? Again, needless complexity which no-one gains from. If it was all corner cases then sure, but these rules don't cover these cases, they create new ones. It's bizarre that we now ask for FAQs so our paid army rules which require paid game rules have awkward issues covered, isn't it? When all it does it stifle creativity, make a substantial amount of players abandon models they love and confuse even old players, whence comes the extra variation or enjoyment?

 Da Boss wrote:
Zweischneid, I play to have fun but I really disagree with what you are saying.

I doubt there is any point in arguing with you though since you are so dogmatic in your opinions, but I'll try anyhow. My issue with GW is charging what they do for rules that are so badly written I have to patch them myself, and then negotiate their use with any gaming group I join. (I move around a lot so I don't have access to an established group of players.).
To me that removes one of the greatest strengths of 40K which is that anyone can reasonably expect t obe able to pick up a game no matter where they go. The more the rules need to be personalised, the less that can happen.

On the other hand, if there is a balanced and fun normal game, with some optional narrative stuff, then your situation is essentially the same- you can still negotiate for "fun" narrative games, but my situation is massively improved- the base game is robust enough that I can play "pick up" with strangers with a minimum of fuss, disagreement or awkwardness.

Well, I have to assume you'll be equally dogmatic about your point of view, but the "problems" you describe aren't "problem", they are purposeful decisions in game-design.

You are free to disagree with them, despise them, whatever, but they are not a result of "oversight", "ineptitude", whatever on the side of the game developers. They are there because they want them to be there.

I am not gonna start the discussion again about "a balanced game benefits narrative play just as much". It doesn't. It stifles variety and creativity and results in bland, mirror-units.

Does that mean Warhammer 40K is "perfect" for narrative gaming? No, it doesn't, but trying to make the game "balanced" wouldn't help and only make things worse.


Ultimately, it doesn't matter if you "convince" me or not, "agree with me" or not.

Warhammer 40K clearly isn't your game, whether by choice of the game designers (as I argue) or by ineptitude of the game designers (as most people here seem convinced). In either case... walk away.

A 'beer and pretzels' [I hate pretzels btw, crisps are much better] game and well written rules aren't mutually exclusive. Having errata coming out weeks after a rulebook release and having highly ambiguous wording reduces the fun for me. I don't find stopping games to flick through the rulebook, google the answer and failing that make a post on YMDC, fun.

Also, introducing massively unbalancing elements with little thought for the impact or very little playtesting also isn't fun. Fun for me is a well thought out, fast paced and intuitive ruleset.

I'm saying this from the point of view of a [very] casual player]. The worst parts of the game for me are the arguments over rules and the stop/start to try and find the right answer. Also, arguing means less time to drink beer.

 Zweischneid wrote:

You are free to disagree with them, despise them, whatever, but they are not a result of "oversight", "ineptitude", whatever on the side of the game developers. They are there because they want them to be there.

I am not gonna start the discussion again about "a balanced game benefits narrative play just as much". It doesn't. It stifles variety and creativity and results in bland, mirror-units.

Does that mean Warhammer 40K is "perfect" for narrative gaming? No, it doesn't, but trying to make the game "balanced" wouldn't help and only make things worse.

Here is where I lose you...why does balance lead to bland mirror units....The units can be very different and if point costed correctly be more or less balanced (I'm not saying perfect) what we have now is mirror/bland armies being played because not taking those armies makes the game very unenjoyable (narrative or not playing with an army that gets killed turn 2 is boring). Balance is not just about every unit being equal...it is about every unit being valued properly and for that cost being nearly as good as what it is meant to do.

Also this idea that people that don't like it should quit (when they have invested a good deal of time and money in the hobby during editions, including early 6th that were far more balanced.) is silly unless your goal is to make GW go away.

I'll also disagree that things are imbalanced with intent. They may have no intent to balance while designing things but given past FAQs it is obvious they just don't think about it...which makes it unintentional.

Breng77 wrote:


Here is where I lose you...why does balance lead to bland mirror units....The units can be very different and if point costed correctly be more or less balanced (I'm not saying perfect) what we have now is mirror/bland armies being played because not taking those armies makes the game very unenjoyable (narrative or not playing with an army that gets killed turn 2 is boring). Balance is not just about every unit being equal...it is about every unit being valued properly and for that cost being nearly as good as what it is meant to do.

Also this idea that people that don't like it should quit (when they have invested a good deal of time and money in the hobby during editions, including early 6th that were far more balanced.) is silly unless your goal is to make GW go away.

I'll also disagree that things are imbalanced with intent. They may have no intent to balance while designing things but given past FAQs it is obvious they just don't think about it...which makes it unintentional.

The idea that people should quit a game they don't like (investments and all) is not any less silly than the idea that Games Workshop should change their game which many people enjoy (and invest as heavily into) precisely the way it is, because of the way it is.

Doubly so, if the "recommendation" is to change 40K to be more like ... for example ... "Warmachine", when there already is Warmachine on the market (but nothing like the current Warhammer 40K, if the current Warhammer 40K were to stop being the game it is now).

 Zweischneid wrote:
[

I disagree. Putting the narrative stuff at the fringes of the game buts people who want to play the narrative stuff at the fringes of the community. That is not healthy for a game and hobby that thrives on the narrative and spirit of the game.

Frankly, this is the situation we've had to endure for most of 3rd and 4th and, partly 5th. It gave an unhealthy weight to a tiny minority of highly organized (and blogging) group of tournament players that managed to poison nearly the entire hobby with abstruse concepts like "RAW" and "Play to Win", etc.. .

It simply didn't work. It may take decades to repair the harm these people did to the hobby.

Makumba wrote:


All I see "narrative" people to generate is hate . You can't play the army you want , becaue the "narrative" player may not like it . You can't use the models you want , because the "narrative" player doesn't like . Heaven forbid you don't like something he plays , because then your a WAAC and everything is legal and he plays RAI or some other sort of house and not the way the rule is actualy writen down . And what hand to new players do they have . the tournament players help with building armies and narrative says play with what you want , because "everything works" as long as it isn't good , because if the new players likes "riptides" the narrative player won't forget to tell him how bad a person the new guy is for wanting to play with "riptides" .

How so?

All you need to do is find likeminded people and play with them the way you enjoy it.

A less restrictive ruleset accommodates both the more competitive-minded people tweaking their game to their liking, and the narrative people. The player base is that much larger, and even though you might never play with the "narrative people", GW has more revenues, can produce more miniatures, more Codexes, expanding the wealth of options ever further.

A more competitive ruleset would only shuts out people you don't want to play with anyways. The player base would be smaller. Nothing would be gained, and a smaller player-base would only make the releases from GW's side fewer and further in-between, as they break even less often on a smaller group of "only competitive" customers, rather than the larger group of "competitive & narrative" customers.

 Zweischneid wrote:
All you need to do is find likeminded people and play with them the way you enjoy it.

A less restrictive ruleset accommodates both the more competitive-minded people tweaking their game to their liking, and the narrative people. The player base is that much larger, and even though you might never play with the "narrative people", GW has more revenues, can produce more miniatures, more Codexes, expanding the wealth of options ever further.

A more competitive ruleset would only shuts out people you don't want to play with anyways.

No, the division shuts out the people YOU don't want to play with. I'm personally quite happy to play against anyone regardless of what aspects of the game they enjoy. It's hard not to read your posts as very snobbish when you are so happy with shutting people out of the game and saying they can go play with their own kind. I don't want anyone shut out. Nor do the other players you're arguing with. What we want is a situation where anyone can play with anyone else and no-one has to start a session by telling someone they can't play with you unless they use only the units you allow them to.

knas ser wrote:

What we want is a situation where anyone can play with anyone else and no-one has to start a session by telling someone they can't play with you unless they use only the units you allow them to.

Outside of tournaments and competition, I personally have never had a problem with someone's army comp, nor have I seen any narrative player restrict units.

knas ser wrote:
What we want is a situation where anyone can play with anyone else and no-one has to start a session by telling someone they can't play with you unless they use only the units you allow them to.

I hope this never happens. It would mean some people would possibly have to endure games they don't enjoy, just so you don't have to be fethed with digging out some basic social skills. For a "two-player-game/hobby", I find that unacceptable.

If you can't be bothered to actually interact with somebody else to make gaming a fun experience for two people, what's the point of playing any two-player game?

 Zweischneid wrote:

Breng77 wrote:


Here is where I lose you...why does balance lead to bland mirror units....The units can be very different and if point costed correctly be more or less balanced (I'm not saying perfect) what we have now is mirror/bland armies being played because not taking those armies makes the game very unenjoyable (narrative or not playing with an army that gets killed turn 2 is boring). Balance is not just about every unit being equal...it is about every unit being valued properly and for that cost being nearly as good as what it is meant to do.

Also this idea that people that don't like it should quit (when they have invested a good deal of time and money in the hobby during editions, including early 6th that were far more balanced.) is silly unless your goal is to make GW go away.

I'll also disagree that things are imbalanced with intent. They may have no intent to balance while designing things but given past FAQs it is obvious they just don't think about it...which makes it unintentional.

The idea that people should quit a game they don't like (investments and all) is not any less silly than the idea that Games Workshop should change their game which many people enjoy (and invest as heavily into) precisely the way it is, because of the way it is.

Doubly so, if the "recommendation" is to change 40K to be more like ... for example ... "Warmachine", when there already is Warmachine on the market (but nothing like the current Warhammer 40K, if the current Warhammer 40K were to stop being the game it is now).

I don't think anyone (at least not me) is saying 40k should play more like Warmachine (mechanics and scale are totally different). What I am saying is I want balance within the rules that GW provides. Given that what it is right now is a vastly different game than I started playing saying "Well you if you don't like it just quit." is not meaningful because I already invested a lot of time (and money) into the game...and have a lot of friends who play (who feel similarly to me). My recomendation would be "hey GW, you had a good thing going before...why are you so intent on screwing it up."

You seem dead set against units being balanced but have given no reasoning (other than apparently that they would all be the same), as to why that hurts anyone.

Nor do you seem to acknoledge the fact that it is not so easy to "just find likeminded people" as it is a small hobby and fracturing it into groups is bad for the hobby. As is a game that requires copious house rules to play. IT is bad if I live in one area and play with one set of rules...then travel to another to play with a different set of rules...it leads to arguments amongst players etc....

SO I fail to see how a game with just as many options that are at least somewhat balanced is some how worse than what we have now? If I can take a Tau army and successfully compete in a game (not be competitive, but not get outright stomped) with say Vespids, and Kroot, instead of Riptides and Broadsides...without needing you to remake your army....how is that bad for anyone?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:

knas ser wrote:
What we want is a situation where anyone can play with anyone else and no-one has to start a session by telling someone they can't play with you unless they use only the units you allow them to.

I hope this never happens. It would mean some people would possibly have to endure games they don't enjoy, just so you don't have to be fethed with digging out some basic social skills. For a "two-player-game/hobby", I find that unacceptable.

If you can't be bothered to actually interact with somebody else to make gaming a fun experience for two people, what's the point of playing any two-player game?

This is the whole point...we shouldn't need to have a pregame discussion to make the game enjoyable for both of us....it should be designed so that it occurs by default.......it should be the general state of the game within the rules....not some exception to the rules that must be negotiated...to be some comprimise so that we are both a little happy and a little not....What happens right now is I lovingly paint up say a 5 Riptide army because I love giant robots...and no one will play against me because it is OP and Cheesey. This should not occur.

Breng77 wrote:


You seem dead set against units being balanced but have given no reasoning (other than apparently that they would all be the same), as to why that hurts anyone.

Balanced games produce steep learning curves, highly rote-plays, and a general "distancing" from the narrative aspects. I've given plenty of reasons. 40K's "meta-game", which drives so many to keep investing and being engaged with it is another one.




Inversely, I have heard no idea why "balanced" should be "better" by default, other than that it allows you to skip the "social" aspect of wargaming.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Breng77 wrote:


You seem dead set against units being balanced but have given no reasoning (other than apparently that they would all be the same), as to why that hurts anyone.

Balanced games produce steep learning curves, highly rote-plays, and a general "distancing" from the narrative aspects. I've given plenty of reasons. 40K's "meta-game", which drives so many to keep investing and being engaged with it is another one.




Inversely, I have heard no idea why "balanced" should be "better" by default, other than that it allows you to skip the "social" aspect of wargaming.

I think you're misunderstanding that video quite badly and certainly misusing it in thinking it is a counter argument to what many of us have said. The video is also focused on cycles of obsoleting models and creating power-churn. Which is great for GW to milk money from people, but not the goal of a player. You also make the assumption (in so far as the video does apply), that GW implement what they describe well. Whereas GW do so very badly.

I'll skip over the rather rude and offensive parts you directed at me about 'lack of social skills', other than to note the irony of your insults. Your attack on better written and balanced rules because they "allow people to skip the social aspect" is multiply flawed.

Firstly it is flawed because what you are describing is not "the social aspect". I do not require rules or lack of rules to be social. What you are erroneously describing is that a process of negotiation (a social process) can mitigate a problem. Reducing the problem and thus reducing the necessity of a social patch to fix it, is not "removing the social aspect". It's simply making it no longer a necessary stage to go through. Nothing stops you talking to your opponent for as long as you like before a game. What better written and balanced rules allows, is greater freedom as to whether you have to engage in that process.

Secondly, it is flawed because that process is not a necessarily friendly huggy process, but rather a risk that it will create disharmony between the players. A drawn out re-establishment of expectations and compromise is not "a social aspect", it is (as explained earlier) something that can be mitigated by social skills. But that does not make it a problem. Indeed, if two people turn up and one has her lovingly painted Wraith Knights (two of them) and you tell her she cannot use them against you - that has immediately created a social problem. And your demand inherently takes away from her enjoyment. Especially if you then take the attitude of 'stick to your own kind' as you evinced in your previous post. It gets worse if you then take a superior attitude as you have been doing so in this thread (i.e. we're happy to play anyone, you argue for a division between players). But this situation would not arise if the armies and rules were better balanced.

Thirdly, it is tiresome to have to go through an extended process of negotiation when you just want to play someone (who you may or may not know).

Fourthly, your entire argument has a flawed premise. You argue for negotiation between players, finding of mutually satisfactory match-ups, rather than whatever GW allows. If you are arguing in favour therefore, of player negotiation over balancing the codices, what do you care about what the codices are in the first place? Your only reason is that they might set expectations but you are arguing people should self-limit and allow things based on player negotiation anyway, so why should you care if the codices are better balanced?

And actually, I've changed my mind. I'm not going to skip over your personal attacks. Just because someone wants rules to be well written and armies to have better balance, does not mean that they lack social skills. And your snobbish attitude is tiresome. We want everyone to be able to play together. You want a certain section to bugger off and play with their own kind. Indeed, you clearly look down on those players, so maybe you should assess your own sociability.

knas ser wrote:

I think you're misunderstanding that video quite badly and certainly misusing it in thinking it is a counter argument to what many of us have said.

I am not using this video as a counter argument to anything.

I am using it as one example (among many) on why this myth of "balanced=better", or at least "balanced=no trade-offs" that keeps getting perpetuated here isn't as self-evident as you claim.

There are many good reasons to stay away from balance as a game-design goal. Those expressed in the video are some of them (more monetary ones). A more rewarding narrative environment is another reason. Either way, it doesn't matter.

More balance has advantages (skipping pre-game negotiation, if that's something that irks you), but it also has disadvantages.
Less balance has disadvantages (requiring more pre-game negotiation, if that's not something you like), but it also has advantages.

All that matters is that there are a wide variety of opinions about game-design out there. Just because a game heads down a direction you personally wouldn't have chosen or don't enjoy, doesn't mean it's inherently "bad". Nor does it mean there aren't any people who actually do enjoy it.

Inversely, it feels odd that somebody who accuses other people of snobbishness keeps clinging to such a simplistic and egoistical worldview of "Either-I-Like-It-Or-It-Must-Be-gak".

 Zweischneid wrote:
But a large selection of stuff, including whacky stuff serves a larger group of people, those who want whacky stuff too (e.g. Titans) and (!) those that want a smaller "balanced" selection (which everyone is free to pick from the greater group of available options).

A smaller "balanced" selection only serves the latter group.

This is another flawed argument. That better written rules and better balanced armies, require a smaller selection. Lowering the points cost of Howling Banshees slightly, would make them slightly more balanced (imo - it's just an example of principle), but in no way remove them from the game. Indeed, it would mean that you saw more varied lists with a wider selection of units as instead of people being fully aware that Scorpions are better and that they're lowering their chances of winning by picking Banshees, many people would find it more of an even choice between the two units (even though they both play quite differently). You keep trying to make this a divisive issue between extremes - play to win and damn the fluff, or do as you please and resolve all differences with cuddles (and of course blaming any failure in the latter scenario on someone's lack of social skills). But in fact, there are many (most?) who enjoy both fluff and narrative and also enjoy competitive play. At the same time. You should be in favour of letting people have their cake and eat it, rather than widening the gulf so that everyone is forced to choose a side or your way or get "shut out".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Inversely, it feels odd that somebody who accuses other people of snobbishness keeps clinging to such a simplistic and egoistical worldview of "Either-I-Like-It-Or-It-Must-Be-gak".

But that isn't my "worldview". More or less the opposite of what I've been saying. I'm saying that better written rules and more balanced armies are good for everyone, not good for me. That you personally do not think the rules can be improved or the armies better balanced without making things worse, does not mean that I am being egotistical. No more than a medieval Christian not accepting that there was any option other than following God or following the Devil, would make an atheist a devil-worshipper.

I said I found your post snobbish because you said certain types of players should be shut out and I contrasted this with our view that everyone should be catered for by the rules and army lists.

Exactly I don't think anyone is arguing for perfect balance (an monetary reasons for imbalance do not good game design make...they might make for good buisiness...but not good game design.). I am arguing that if you make units more balanced (viable) you have a better game...and one in which people can play with the toys they like rather than having a pregame banning session to enjoy the game.

knas ser wrote:


But that isn't my "worldview". More or less the opposite of what I've been saying. I'm saying that better written rules and more balanced armies are good for everyone, not good for me.

And I am saying that better written rules and less emphasis on balance, with an overall loser, more free-form and sand-box approach, are good for everyone, not good for me. It'll allow the game to reach a larger group of players (including the competitive crowd, who can still play within the larger game with a few house-rules (e.g. 1999+1 as it has been popular). Indeed, hundreds of flavours of "competitive" could be possible, not just one of them.