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.

 Zweischneid wrote:

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.

Those are some really hard to parse sentences.

EDIT: By "loser" did you mean "looser"? If so, I'm completely at a loss how you turn what people have been saying into what you wrote above.

knas ser wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

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.

Those are some really hard to parse sentences.

EDIT: By "loser" did you mean "looser"? If so, I'm completely at a loss how you turn what people have been saying into what you wrote above.

Yes. Looser. I apologize if my typo made it impossible for you to read a sentence.

 Zweischneid wrote:

knas ser wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

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.

Those are some really hard to parse sentences.

EDIT: By "loser" did you mean "looser"? If so, I'm completely at a loss how you turn what people have been saying into what you wrote above.

Yes. Looser. I apologize if my typo made it impossible for you to read a sentence.

Well you were talking about changes making things "better for everyone" but "an overall loser". I don't think that warrants sarcastic apologies and digs about me finding it impossible to read sentences. It was a genuine question. I still don't see how what people have been saying translates into what you're saying in the above.

SO just to be clear you like that their are units that are totally obvious no brainer includes, factions that are bad in comparison to others, and a system that (if you want a fair game) needs players to flat out change rules or ban units. Rather than a game where all choices are actually viable?

knas ser wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

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.

Those are some really hard to parse sentences.

EDIT: By "loser" did you mean "looser"? If so, I'm completely at a loss how you turn what people have been saying into what you wrote above.

You really are wasting your time arguing with Zweischneid, he is either a huge troll or has a severe difficulty in parsing what other people are saying so it is perfectly useless trying to reason with him in any way as he is just going to distort what you say to try and fit his arguments. Take his link of the the perfect imbalance video, for example, lots of people already did what you did, try and explain to him how that video doesn't really apply to GW games for all the reasons that you posted and others, and yet he still insists on posting it on every thread that even mentions how a better balanced set of rules would be beneficial to 40K...

Breng77 wrote:
SO just to be clear you like that their are units that are totally obvious no brainer includes, factions that are bad in comparison to others, and a system that (if you want a fair game) needs players to flat out change rules or ban units. Rather than a game where all choices are actually viable?

There aren't.

Banshees (to use the earlier example) might be too expensive in table-edge-to-table-edge annihilation shoot-out with Tau. They are probably under-priced in a Zone Mortalis game against Tac Marines, where inversely the Wraithknight might be utterly useless. With the multitude of possible match-ups and combinations, it's impossible to find a single "balance" for a given unit, much less a single Codex, unless you limit the game to a highly standardized, inflexible "one-type-of-game".

True diversity will only be possible if the community learns, as a matter of standard pre-game procedure, to adjust things to be "the most fun possible" for the given game they are about to play.

Breng77 wrote:
SO just to be clear you like that their are units that are totally obvious no brainer includes, factions that are bad in comparison to others, and a system that (if you want a fair game) needs players to flat out change rules or ban units. Rather than a game where all choices are actually viable?

Queue re-phrasing of the above into loaded terms and obfuscation of these facts with unsupported corollaries.

EDIT: Haha! Called it!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

knas ser wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

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.

Those are some really hard to parse sentences.

EDIT: By "loser" did you mean "looser"? If so, I'm completely at a loss how you turn what people have been saying into what you wrote above.

You really are wasting your time arguing with Zweischneid, he is either a huge troll or has a severe difficulty in parsing what other people are saying so it is perfectly useless trying to reason with him in any way as he is just going to distort what you say to try and fit his arguments. Take his link of the the perfect imbalance video, for example, lots of people already did what you did, try and explain to him how that video doesn't really apply to GW games for all the reasons that you posted and others, and yet he still insists on posting it on every thread that even mentions how a better balanced set of rules would be beneficial to 40K...

Point taken. Thanks. I'm new here.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
SO just to be clear you like that their are units that are totally obvious no brainer includes, factions that are bad in comparison to others, and a system that (if you want a fair game) needs players to flat out change rules or ban units. Rather than a game where all choices are actually viable?

There aren't.

Banshees (to use the earlier example) might be too expensive in table-edge-to-table-edge annihilation shoot-out with Tau. They are probably under-priced in a Zone Mortalis game against Tac Marines, where inversely the Wraithknight might be utterly useless. With the multitude of possible match-ups and combinations, it's impossible to find a single "balance" for a given unit, much less a single Codex, unless you limit the game to a highly standardized, inflexible "one-type-of-game".

True diversity will only be possible if the community learns, as a matter of standard pre-game procedure, to adjust things to be "the most fun possible" for the given game they are about to play.

Then IMO it would be better to write and pointscost units differently for each type of game rather than have an open system....because saying well X unit is great under y circumstance is silly. In the game (as layed out in the base rulebook, with the missions they provide), some units are much better than others. and you are very specific in your statement...they are underpriced in a particular mission style against a particular opponent....so essentially if we list tailor stuff...then everything works out and if I design a mission with rules saying grots cannot die....then they are the best unit ever....there is a way to find a single balance based on the Base game...which is what the system is designed around playing.....saying well I can design rules to make something work is not a way to design a game...

Breng77 wrote:


Then IMO it would be better to write and pointscost units differently for each type of game rather than have an open system....

That would still "limit" the game to the types of games that have an "official" point value. Just a slightly larger corset

Breng77 wrote:

if I design a mission with rules saying grots cannot die....then they are the best unit ever...

If you have a story that makes this the game to play, why not? A good example of something the game-developers probably wouldn't be able to foresee writing the game.

Breng77 wrote:

there is a way to find a single balance based on the Base game

Yes, but it has proven inhibiting for people wanting to go beyond the "base" game and detrimental to the normal social checks-and-balances against people being ass-hats within this base/default-game, because they read the rules as a sort of absolute gospel (with everything allowed within them fair game, anything outside them anathema).

Making this division more permeable and encouraging hobbyists to move get creative beyond the "provided" missions, "provided" point costs, "provided" rules, "provided" units is to create a more free-form system. It should've worked before with a more closed system, I guess, but for some reason it just didn't.

My point is that it is easier for people to generate rules for the things that fall outside of the inner circle you have there (and they often exist in non-core supplements) than it is to do so for Organized play or pick up play. And what having unbalanced rules leads to is disagreement...hurt feelings, and a bad experience.

I.e. if the core rules are balanced there is nothing stopping you from changing them for a special scenario. However, convincing a guy you just met that x/y/or z is broken...or should be used differently etc...is near impossible...and just leads to games not happening.

Essentially creative groups don't even need the rules at all....

Breng77 wrote:
My point is that it is easier for people to generate rules for the things that fall outside of the inner circle you have there (and they often exist in non-core supplements) than it is to do so for Organized play or pick up play. And what having unbalanced rules leads to is disagreement...hurt feelings, and a bad experience.

I.e. if the core rules are balanced there is nothing stopping you from changing them for a special scenario. However, convincing a guy you just met that x/y/or z is broken...or should be used differently etc...is near impossible...and just leads to games not happening.

Essentially creative groups don't even need the rules at all....

I disagree. I believe it is easier to remove existing rules for a single, specific set of players than it is to compel every single other player outside of that category to invent new rules from scratch. They're not paid to be game developers.

Put another way...if I think riptides are too powerful, and I play just with my buddies and they agree there is nothing stopping us from changing the rules for them...if I show up at a Game shop with those changed rules to play some guy I've never met that is much harder.

Breng77 wrote:
Put another way...if I think riptides are too powerful, and I play just with my buddies and they agree there is nothing stopping us from changing the rules for them...if I show up at a Game shop with those changed rules to play some guy I've never met that is much harder.

True - so why are you trying to change the rules? Is it bad that Riptides are too powerful?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
My point is that it is easier for people to generate rules for the things that fall outside of the inner circle you have there (and they often exist in non-core supplements) than it is to do so for Organized play or pick up play. And what having unbalanced rules leads to is disagreement...hurt feelings, and a bad experience.

I.e. if the core rules are balanced there is nothing stopping you from changing them for a special scenario. However, convincing a guy you just met that x/y/or z is broken...or should be used differently etc...is near impossible...and just leads to games not happening.

Essentially creative groups don't even need the rules at all....

I disagree. I believe it is easier to remove existing rules for a single, specific set of players than it is to compel every single other player outside of that category to invent new rules from scratch. They're not paid to be game developers.

Neither are the people removing the rules....and it is not removing just rules, people are rewriting them...banning units entirely etc...much easier for small groups to change what they want than large communities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Put another way...if I think riptides are too powerful, and I play just with my buddies and they agree there is nothing stopping us from changing the rules for them...if I show up at a Game shop with those changed rules to play some guy I've never met that is much harder.

True - so why are you trying to change the rules? Is it bad that Riptides are too powerful?

If all I ever see from Tau is 4 or 5 Riptides then yes it is bad....

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
My point is that it is easier for people to generate rules for the things that fall outside of the inner circle you have there (and they often exist in non-core supplements) than it is to do so for Organized play or pick up play. And what having unbalanced rules leads to is disagreement...hurt feelings, and a bad experience.

I.e. if the core rules are balanced there is nothing stopping you from changing them for a special scenario. However, convincing a guy you just met that x/y/or z is broken...or should be used differently etc...is near impossible...and just leads to games not happening.

Essentially creative groups don't even need the rules at all....

I disagree. I believe it is easier to remove existing rules for a single, specific set of players than it is to compel every single other player outside of that category to invent new rules from scratch. They're not paid to be game developers.

Neither are the people removing the rules....and it is not removing just rules, people are rewriting them...banning units entirely etc...much easier for small groups to change what they want than large communities.

The tournament scene has been FAQing, Comping, and adjusting the rules for years, and you pay to go to tournaments. So they are paid, after a fashion, and it's nothing new.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:


If all I ever see from Tau is 4 or 5 Riptides then yes it is bad....

Why? The Tau don't have that many Riptides in the fluff or something?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
My point is that it is easier for people to generate rules for the things that fall outside of the inner circle you have there (and they often exist in non-core supplements) than it is to do so for Organized play or pick up play. And what having unbalanced rules leads to is disagreement...hurt feelings, and a bad experience.

I.e. if the core rules are balanced there is nothing stopping you from changing them for a special scenario. However, convincing a guy you just met that x/y/or z is broken...or should be used differently etc...is near impossible...and just leads to games not happening.

Essentially creative groups don't even need the rules at all....

I disagree. I believe it is easier to remove existing rules for a single, specific set of players than it is to compel every single other player outside of that category to invent new rules from scratch. They're not paid to be game developers.

Neither are the people removing the rules....and it is not removing just rules, people are rewriting them...banning units entirely etc...much easier for small groups to change what they want than large communities.

The tournament scene has been FAQing, Comping, and adjusting the rules for years, and you pay to go to tournaments. So they are paid, after a fashion, and it's nothing new.

Ummmmm....most tournaments barely break even...so no they are not paid....they often lose money on the endeavor.....further I could also say local playing groups have been changing rules for ever...

and the Tau thing is because it is better to have other viable units....if one unit is dominant it makes the game unappealing (at least to me).

Breng77 wrote:
My point is that it is easier for people to generate rules for the things that fall outside of the inner circle you have there (and they often exist in non-core supplements) than it is to do so for Organized play or pick up play. And what having unbalanced rules leads to is disagreement...hurt feelings, and a bad experience.

I.e. if the core rules are balanced there is nothing stopping you from changing them for a special scenario. However, convincing a guy you just met that x/y/or z is broken...or should be used differently etc...is near impossible...and just leads to games not happening.

Essentially creative groups don't even need the rules at all....

I disagree.

Some super-creative artist-superminds might not need it, but Timmy from next door does need help and encouragement to be creative. He may never step outside the red circle (or never step inside the game), if the game suggest that all it does and all it cares about is the red circle.

There's a balance to providing people with some guidance to get into it (i.e. a game entirely without point values or stats probably would demand too much of people), but also not make people too dependent on those first pair of crutches they use to learn to walk (or play the game), that they'll never leave them behind.

 Zweischneid wrote:

For someone who uses so much rhetoric about freedom and player choice, you don't half love creating arbitrary boundaries. Why would rules written for competitive play differ from those for narrative play? One of the things many people have argued here is that the rules should be streamlined and more simple. Why is that at odds with "Beer and Pretzels" with a red boundary separating them? What, about balancing points costs better, makes it incompatible with "asymmetrical campaign play". My example of better costing Howling Banshees does not stop anyone from having a 500pt vs. 800pt asymmetrical game. You are very big on making arbitrary statements that X is incompatible with Y (which your diagram is an example of), but do not bother to relate your arbitrary distinctions to what people have actually said. If one were, to take another example proposition, factor cover saves into the actual hit roll thus speeding up play, how is that going to be less suitable for "very low point games" than it is for "very high point games". Or narrative games. What about having better written rules or better balanced armies makes them less suitable for multi-player games? Indeed, you could write the rules in a better way that made them more suitable for both two-player and 3+ player games.

In short, in each case where someone has argued for better rules, you have retreated to making general statements or contrived examples, as an argument against people striving to improve what we have.

Furthermore, as Breng points out - if your argument is that no rules set fits all scenarios, then what is your objection to having the core rules at least fit one general case so that there is a better platform from which to adapt your oddball cases?

Well, they should charge more then. And I haven't been in a single local play group that has changed the rules, except to play tournaments.

And if they only break even or lose money, why don't they charge more? Capitalism is a thing. Regardless of whether or not they're paid, it's an easier task to excise rules than it is to make up new ones from scratch.

And there are other viable units - I have a friend who routinely wins games fielding 72 kroot, three hammerheads, and a crisis commander.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

knas ser wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

For someone who uses so much rhetoric about freedom and player choice, you don't half love creating arbitrary boundaries. Why would rules written for competitive play differ from those for narrative play? One of the things many people have argued here is that the rules should be streamlined and more simple. Why is that at odds with "Beer and Pretzels" with a red boundary separating them? What, about balancing points costs better, makes it incompatible with "asymmetrical campaign play". My example of better costing Howling Banshees does not stop anyone from having a 500pt vs. 800pt asymmetrical game. You are very big on making arbitrary statements that X is incompatible with Y (which your diagram is an example of), but do not bother to relate your arbitrary distinctions to what people have actually said. If one were, to take another example proposition, factor cover saves into the actual hit roll thus speeding up play, how is that going to be less suitable for "very low point games" than it is for "very high point games". Or narrative games. What about having better written rules or better balanced armies makes them less suitable for multi-player games? Indeed, you could write the rules in a better way that made them more suitable for both two-player and 3+ player games.

In short, in each case where someone has argued for better rules, you have retreated to making general statements or contrived examples, as an argument against people striving to improve what we have.

I'm in favor of balancing points costs where possible. Just don't remove any options.

I disagree that there is ample guidance being given now to make that statement....now what you get is Timmy trying to play in the circle because that is what he sees and Tom shows up with this Titan and Stomps Timmy's face. Now Timmy does not want to play games against Titans because they are no fun...So when Bobby goes out and buys a Titan because it is cool....Timmy refuses to play him and he cannot get a game....

Breng77 wrote:
I disagree that there is ample guidance being given now to make that statement....now what you get is Timmy trying to play in the circle because that is what he sees and Tom shows up with this Titan and Stomps Timmy's face. Now Timmy does not want to play games against Titans because they are no fun...So when Bobby goes out and buys a Titan because it is cool....Timmy refuses to play him and he cannot get a game....

Perhaps Timmy should stop defining what is fun and what isn't based on whether or not he wins.

Breng77 wrote:
I disagree that there is ample guidance being given now to make that statement....now what you get is Timmy trying to play in the circle because that is what he sees and Tom shows up with this Titan and Stomps Timmy's face. Now Timmy does not want to play games against Titans because they are no fun...So when Bobby goes out and buys a Titan because it is cool....Timmy refuses to play him and he cannot get a game....

Which won't happen if people learn that you don't simply "show up with X" without making sure it'll be a fun game for all participants.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I disagree that there is ample guidance being given now to make that statement....now what you get is Timmy trying to play in the circle because that is what he sees and Tom shows up with this Titan and Stomps Timmy's face. Now Timmy does not want to play games against Titans because they are no fun...So when Bobby goes out and buys a Titan because it is cool....Timmy refuses to play him and he cannot get a game....

Perhaps Timmy should stop defining what is fun and what isn't based on whether or not he wins.

Again the superior mentality that other people should have to adapt to someone else's preferences instead of producing a better rules system so that Bobby can play what he thinks is cool and Timmy can play against without knowing he is going to auto-lose the battle. Again, the strange mentality that someone must be motivated by EITHER cool OR winning, and excluding anyone who might have a degree of both (which is most).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, they should charge more then. And I haven't been in a single local play group that has changed the rules, except to play tournaments.

And if they only break even or lose money, why don't they charge more? Capitalism is a thing. Regardless of whether or not they're paid, it's an easier task to excise rules than it is to make up new ones from scratch.

And there are other viable units - I have a friend who routinely wins games fielding 72 kroot, three hammerheads, and a crisis commander.


.

The Riptide thing was an example (I don't actually see just riptides, but in general most Armies out there use the same units from each books, with little variety)

Also you are right Capitalism is a thing...which is why they don't charge more.....people are only willing to pay so much. As for it being easier to excise rules...it still ends up pissing people off when you do it at a large scale vs... Lets just use the riptide example.

Tournament thinks riptides are too good....well lets ban them. Or restrict to only 1 per army. Now Timmy cannot bring his multiple riptides at all, or he stays home.

Local Group agrees riptides are too good....well lets bump up their cost 50 points....ok now they work better....

 Zweischneid wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I disagree that there is ample guidance being given now to make that statement....now what you get is Timmy trying to play in the circle because that is what he sees and Tom shows up with this Titan and Stomps Timmy's face. Now Timmy does not want to play games against Titans because they are no fun...So when Bobby goes out and buys a Titan because it is cool....Timmy refuses to play him and he cannot get a game....

Which won't happen if people learn that you don't simply "show up with X" without making sure it'll be a fun game for all participants.

And here you talk about "all participants" whilst using arguments that shut some people out.

knas ser wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I disagree that there is ample guidance being given now to make that statement....now what you get is Timmy trying to play in the circle because that is what he sees and Tom shows up with this Titan and Stomps Timmy's face. Now Timmy does not want to play games against Titans because they are no fun...So when Bobby goes out and buys a Titan because it is cool....Timmy refuses to play him and he cannot get a game....

Perhaps Timmy should stop defining what is fun and what isn't based on whether or not he wins.

Again the superior mentality that other people should have to adapt to someone else's preferences instead of producing a better rules system so that Bobby can play what he thinks is cool and Timmy can play against without knowing he is going to auto-lose the battle. Again, the strange mentality that someone must be motivated by EITHER cool OR winning, and excluding anyone who might have a degree of both (which is most).

As Zweischneid said, if everyone is willing to discuss beforehand what would or would not make the game fun for the participants then you wouldn't have to exclude anyone or anything. Including adapting a better rules system.

I'm done here. Have fun everyone.

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, they should charge more then. And I haven't been in a single local play group that has changed the rules, except to play tournaments.

And if they only break even or lose money, why don't they charge more? Capitalism is a thing. Regardless of whether or not they're paid, it's an easier task to excise rules than it is to make up new ones from scratch.

And there are other viable units - I have a friend who routinely wins games fielding 72 kroot, three hammerheads, and a crisis commander.


.

The Riptide thing was an example (I don't actually see just riptides, but in general most Armies out there use the same units from each books, with little variety)

Also you are right Capitalism is a thing...which is why they don't charge more.....people are only willing to pay so much. As for it being easier to excise rules...it still ends up pissing people off when you do it at a large scale vs... Lets just use the riptide example.

Tournament thinks riptides are too good....well lets ban them. Or restrict to only 1 per army. Now Timmy cannot bring his multiple riptides at all, or he stays home.

Local Group agrees riptides are too good....well lets bump up their cost 50 points....ok now they work better....

Ok, if you see other things, what's the problem with someone who wants to field 5 riptides? or 5 units of kroot? or 5 anything?

Most Armies out there that copy and paste lists are for competitive tournament play. That mindset naturally will spam the best thing, whether it's 5% better than everything else or 50% better.

knas ser wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I disagree that there is ample guidance being given now to make that statement....now what you get is Timmy trying to play in the circle because that is what he sees and Tom shows up with this Titan and Stomps Timmy's face. Now Timmy does not want to play games against Titans because they are no fun...So when Bobby goes out and buys a Titan because it is cool....Timmy refuses to play him and he cannot get a game....

Which won't happen if people learn that you don't simply "show up with X" without making sure it'll be a fun game for all participants.

And here you talk about "all participants" whilst using arguments that shut some people out.

The difference is, his way leaves the route open for discussion, while simply excising things from the rules removes them from the entire game everywhere.

knas ser wrote:


And here you talk about "all participants" whilst using arguments that shut some people out.

I am not.

You still have the option to agree to "let's have a cutthroat competitive game" with "double-blind" lists.

Nobody is taking that option away from anyone. It's simply about adding other options as well, having more than just one "default way" to play the game.

I don't think they'll ever stop adding things to the game and adding models to the range, doesn't make fiscal sense to stop adding things.

As for 'beer and pretzels' I agree it never was that sort of game, it's a table top miniatures game. I have never drank beer or ate pretzels while playing. The game takes more concentration then playing monopoly or cards so I don't think it falls into that category. It's something for fun, although reading on these forums usually makes you think it's meant for argument and stalemate conversation.