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.

 Dunklezahn wrote:
In 40k's case trying to balance over a dozen codicies each with a couple dozen units who each have a potential list of weapon options against each other with perfect balance is impossible.

Sure, perfect balance is impossible, but that's not the point. 40k's balance isn't even adequate. Release after release comes with massive balance problems (and broken rules) that even basic playtesting should have caught. You don't have to get to some impossible ideal of perfect balance to fix most of the balance issues and ensure that two players building lists with at least some understanding of the game and desire to win will be competing fairly evenly. It might be a 60/40 advantage in favor of the more competitive player, but that's a lot better than what we have now.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sure, perfect balance is impossible, but that's not the point. 40k's balance isn't even adequate.

I guess we have to agree to disagree, I find that by taking 5 minutes to talk to my opponent before hand and a willingness to say "I could never handle the Titan with what i have/my list is way harder or softer than yours etc" (something I don't even need at all with the close core of our gaming group that play outside of randoms) and walk away politely from those games I don't think 1 or both of us would enjoy the game becomes very balanced.

The problem lies not in the rules (Well there are some pretty stupid ones but those are outliers for me) but those people who choose to take rules for narrative play (Like D-Weapon fortifications which work great as part of a custom scenario) and try to use them purely for their game winning power. In that case let the Revenant fight the Warhound, sure it'll be a blast but you take your list and play someone else.

Such is the way of list building games, some lists are extremes of one kind or another by purpose or accident and they can (not will. but can) create a unfun situation for 1 or both players if the opponent hasn't got the right list.

 Dunklezahn wrote:
There is no game that involves list building where this is not the case. In 40k's case trying to balance over a dozen codicies each with a couple dozen units who each have a potential list of weapon options against each other with perfect balance is impossible.
If I walk into any local gaming store with any heavily tuned list a good proportion of the players in that store will not enjoy the game because they will spend all their time completely on the back foot/removing models/rolling for injured players etc with no control over the result regardless of the game system. Another finely tuned "list" however will create a game we both enjoy.

So you talk, I may sound like an old fuddy duddy but it's true that it's becoming a lost art. You don't need to have a 2 hour discussion on the merits of D-weapons and Riptides or whatever. A 5 minute chat about how *hard* your list is compared to your opponents will get the job done, everything else is just gravy. If you're gonna invest 2+ hours to play a game what 5 minutes to make sure your lists were designed to fight in the same league.

You may not want to talk but it does remove most of the issues of any list building system. Once you and your opponent are on the same page the fun begins.

Pop on over to the Infinity sub forum and take a peek at the threads on there. New players ask for list advice all the time and the answers they always get are 'Bring whatever you like' 'It's the player, not the list' 'This is not 40k, things are balanced here'.

There is not divide between tournament and fluff lists there, thye are one in the same because that game is, while not perfectly balanced, a shining example of good balance.


A 5 minute chat is 5 minutes more than a professionally developed game should ever need.

 jonolikespie wrote:


Pop on over to the Infinity sub forum and take a peek at the threads on there. New players ask for list advice all the time and the answers they always get are 'Bring whatever you like' 'It's the player, not the list' 'This is not 40k, things are balanced here'.

There is not divide between tournament and fluff lists there, thye are one in the same because that game is, while not perfectly balanced, a shining example of good balance.


A 5 minute chat is 5 minutes more than a professionally developed game should ever need.

But Infinity isn't exactly a runaway success.

Hell, the most successful miniature game of recent years, "dethroning" Warmachine from second-place, has been X-Wing, which is riddled with under-powered (Y-Wings, Interceptors) and over-powered builds (Tie Swarms), badly worded upgrade cards (Saboteur) and blatant "buy-this-expansion-pack"-buy-to-win fishing (e.g. Howl Runner, Advanced Sensors).

The X-Wing forums are already replete with the same "fluffy lists" vs. "competitive lists" discussions you have on Warhammer 40K, even though the entire game only has 2 factions (vs. 40K's .. um 12ish?) with barely 6 models each (vs. 40K's .. um 20-40?), as well as a highly basic and simply game-play (no "reserves", only one type of terrain, no moral rules, no hth-rules, standardized shooting, etc..) and, as a whole game, less possible combinations than just the Elite Section of the Space Marines Codex by itself.

And it's been outselling more balanced games like Warmachine, not to mention Infinity by crazy margins. People truly don't care about "balance".

 Zweischneid wrote:
But Infinity isn't exactly a runaway success.

Hell, the most successful miniature game of recent years, "dethroning" Warmachine from second-place, has been X-Wing, which is riddled with under-powered (Y-Wings, Interceptors) and over-powered builds (Tie Swarms), badly worded upgrade cards (Saboteur) and blatant "buy-this-expansion-pack"-buy-to-win fishing (e.g. Howl Runner, Advanced Sensors).

The X-Wing forums are already replete with the same "fluffy lists" vs. "competitive lists" discussions you have on Warhammer 40K, even though the entire game only has 2 factions (vs. 40K's .. um 12ish?) with barely 6 models each (vs. 40K's .. um 20-40?), as well as a highly basic and simply game-play (no "reserves", only one type of terrain, no moral rules, no hth-rules, standardized shooting, etc..) and, as a whole game, less possible combinations than just the Elite Section of the Space Marines Codex by itself.

And it's been outselling more balanced games like Warmachine, not to mention Infinity by crazy margins. People truly don't care about "balance".

Corvus Bellie grew by like 75% last year and again the year before. They are not a UK/US based company so it doesn't seem all that successful but it is doing well for something so young. Yes Star Wars swooped in and took the number 2 spot but it has the Star Wars name attached, of course it would. And while there are some things generally considered better than others a tie spam doesn't have nearly the advantage over a Y wing list (are the even bad, I thought they were good? Anyway inser sub par list of choice here) as a Ripetide spam list has over a.. not up with 40k but I want to say marine heavy Chaos Marine list (or other bad list of choice here).
And as for the 'pay to win' thing, I'll happily agree it's a bad system, but when it is so cheap (what, $60-$80 for a full, standard size fleet) that problem isn't nearly as glaring as it is in 40k.

X-wing is a very poor comparison. First it is not a hobby game, no painting etc...no effort put into crafting your army other than list building. Second it is much less expensive. Third it is built around a super popular IP so will get buy in from non miniature war game players.

Also while it may have a lack of internal balance at least the factions are better balanced so the choice of playing rebels is not an auto loss.

You are right obviously that balance is not the thing that sells a game above all else...if I put out a minis game called balance with crappy figs...no one is buying.

IP is what sells both x-wing and 40k. That does not mean people prefer unbalanced rules within the IP. Furthermore x-wing is in what it's first edition essentiall and have not had 25 years to work on things.

In reality x-wing is much closer to a CCg than a minature war game, because it lacks hobby aspect of other war games.

Let me put it this way if I acquired the star wars IP and made an army scale mini war game that was balanced...with factions like Jedi, droids, clone army, etc....with cool miniatures....people would buy it in droves and I too would outsell war machine.

 jonolikespie wrote:


Corvus Bellie grew by like 75% last year and again the year before. They are not a UK/US based company so it doesn't seem all that successful but it is doing well for something so young. Yes Star Wars swooped in and took the number 2 spot but it has the Star Wars name attached, of course it would. And while there are some things generally considered better than others a tie spam doesn't have nearly the advantage over a Y wing list (are the even bad, I thought they were good? Anyway inser sub par list of choice here) as a Ripetide spam list has over a.. not up with 40k but I want to say marine heavy Chaos Marine list (or other bad list of choice here).
And as for the 'pay to win' thing, I'll happily agree it's a bad system, but when it is so cheap (what, $60-$80 for a full, standard size fleet) that problem isn't nearly as glaring as it is in 40k.

Well, but you forget how much simpler the game itself is.

Only two factions (say... Eldar & Space Marines)?

Only 5 or so units per faction (X-Wings = Tac Marines, Tie Fighters = Dire Avengers, etc..).

No complexity as in Infantry/Beast/Vehicle Transport. Just 4 stats per unit. No things like moral rules, etc.. .

If it isn't possible (or, more likely, worth it) to balance such a simple tiny game, why bother with a complex game like 40K, where every single Codex has several times the power of ten more combinations and options (and thus possibilities where things might combine in better/lower-than-average effectiveness).

I find the problem in X-Wing to be infinitely more glaring than in 40K. Just imagine X-Wing with 12 factions, 50+ models per side on the table and 40K-style thousands of upgrade options. Still think the Riptides are worse than Tie-Swarms? I doubt it. Makes 40K look like chess in comparison.

And yes, it has the Star Wars brand attached. 40K has the 40K brand attached. Clearly, brand > balance as a means to have fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
Third it is built around a super popular IP so will get buy in from non miniature war game players.

My words... popular IP (40K, Star Wars) > balance.

People keep replying that "more balance" would improve 40K (other things notwithstanding), so that should be true for X-Wing too. Yet FFG doesn't bother taking the time to balance a game consisting of ~10 miniatures (because it seems to make no difference to the bottom line), but GW should take the time to balance a game of ~1000+ miniatures (for likewise no difference in the bottom line)?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

In reality x-wing is much closer to a CCg than a minature war game, because it lacks hobby aspect of other war games.

True enough. Can't wait for the day that 40K requires you to have a "plasmagun-upgrade-card" for each plasmagun-marine in your army, which you only get 1 each by buying the Imperial Guard Platoon box.

Cause having the rules just once for several identical versions of it in an army clearly isn't good enough.

People claim GW is ripping off with the rules? They've seen nothing yet.

 Zweischneid wrote:

*Bunch of stuff about X wing*

Great, now lets go back to the Infinity comparison and you can explain to me how GW doesn't look like idiots there.

9 factions, average of 2 sub factions (which actually seem to chance a lot more than a codex supplement does) each and a good number of units in each yet it makes 40k rules look like they were designed by amateurs.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

*Bunch of stuff about X wing*

Great, now lets go back to the Infinity comparison and you can explain to me how GW doesn't look like idiots there.

Because Money.

Infinity is giving people what they ask for. X-Wing and 40K are not.

“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”
- Henry Ford

@Zweischnied.
Well IF GW plc were growing their customer base,(increasing turn over at the same rate they were increasing prices.)

Then I would agree that there would be little to gain from writing a proper rule set, with professional proof reading and editing . And spending more than a few hours play testing the codex books before publishing them.

But as GW plc ARE LOOSING sales volumes year on year, and HAVE BEEN for EIGHT YEARS .

We might assume the POTENTIAL customers of GW would like a 40k rule set with better editing, proof reading and game play focus.
As other companies seem to GROW their customer base when they focus on quality rule sets, rather than flawed ineffective isolationist marketing in a chain of B&M stores.

It would be possible to improve the quality of the 40k rule set with professional proof reading and editing.
It would be possible to improve the quality of the 40k game play experience with more play testing and ACTUAL game development .

BUT why bother?
While there are enough people willing to do all the hard work for GW plc , they are laughing all the way to the bank!(For now.)

 Dunklezahn wrote:
The problem lies not in the rules (Well there are some pretty stupid ones but those are outliers for me) but those people who choose to take rules for narrative play (Like D-Weapon fortifications which work great as part of a custom scenario) and try to use them purely for their game winning power. In that case let the Revenant fight the Warhound, sure it'll be a blast but you take your list and play someone else.

IOW, 40k's balance is far short of adequate. If you publish rules that are so obviously overpowered that you have to remove them from the game and consider it TFG behavior to take them "just to win games" then you clearly either don't care about balance or you're so hopelessly incompetent that you don't notice there's a problem. There's just no excuse for that kind of thing when you're paying $50 a book for the rules.

Such is the way of list building games, some lists are extremes of one kind or another by purpose or accident and they can (not will. but can) create a unfun situation for 1 or both players if the opponent hasn't got the right list.

No, that's only the way of bad list building games. Balance may not always be perfect, but the extremes you're talking about only exist when you have a game like 40k, where the designers make up some random rules, publish them without any playtesting, and refuse to have any kind of sensible update cycle where any issues that do appear after publication can be fixed ASAP.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Well, but you forget how much simpler the game itself is.

You're confusing "depth" and "bloated mess". If you remove all of the pointless complexity from 40k you're left with a much simpler game.

I find the problem in X-Wing to be infinitely more glaring than in 40K.

Only because you don't understand balance in X-Wing. Not that this should surprise anyone, since you don't understand balance in 40k either.

 Zweischneid wrote:
under-powered (Y-Wings, Interceptors)

Lol, no. TIE interceptors are great, and the biggest problem with y-wings has been the stock shortages that made them almost impossible to find until recently.

and over-powered builds (Tie Swarms)

Which are only overpowered if you define "swarm" as "any TIE list with more than four ships", which is like complaining that horde armies in 40k are overpowered because you lost to a list with 30 tactical marines. Or if you don't play with asteroids like you're supposed to and the swarm never has to worry about maneuvering problems.

badly worded upgrade cards (Saboteur)

There's nothing at all badly worded about it. The card does exactly what it says, and what it says is perfectly clear.

and blatant "buy-this-expansion-pack"-buy-to-win fishing (e.g. Howl Runner, Advanced Sensors).

What does that have to do with game balance? You might as well argue that 40k is unbalanced because a codex costs $50.

Plus, unlike GW, FFG publishes all of the rules online for free so you only have to pay for the cards if you want to play in sanctioned tournaments. Good luck finding a way to get free 40k models instead of paying ripoff prices for them.

The X-Wing forums are already replete with the same "fluffy lists" vs. "competitive lists" discussions you have on Warhammer 40K

Not in my experience.

People truly don't care about "balance".

You're right. People buy based on the fluff or models, or what their friends are all playing. But that doesn't change the fact that a balanced game is better than an unbalanced game from a pure gameplay perspective.

Lanrak wrote:
@Zweischnied.
Well IF GW plc were growing their customer base,(increasing turn over at the same rate they were increasing prices.)

Then I would agree that there would be little to gain from writing a proper rule set, with professional proof reading and editing . And spending more than a few hours play testing the codex books before publishing them.

But as GW plc ARE LOOSING sales volumes year on year, and HAVE BEEN for EIGHT YEARS .

We might assume the POTENTIAL customers of GW would like a 40k rule set with better editing, proof reading and game play focus.
As other companies seem to GROW their customer base when they focus on quality rule sets, rather than flawed ineffective isolationist marketing in a chain of B&M stores.

It would be possible to improve the quality of the 40k rule set with professional proof reading and editing.
It would be possible to improve the quality of the 40k game play experience with more play testing and ACTUAL game development .

BUT why bother?
While there are enough people willing to do all the hard work for GW plc , they laugh all the way to the bank?

Perhaps, but one of the best things (financially) have been the allies rules. Whether or not they are balanced, they allow people to buy and play with the miniatures they like.

That's what changing. Games Workshop needs to square the appeal of "large games" (vs. the Skirmish-Game competition) in a time where fewer and fewer people have the time and inclination to go through the slog of painting 30 boring troops just to paint one "shiny".

Look at the christmas-bundles / dataslates. People love the Riptide, but they don't wanna paint 30 Firewarriors/Kroot to play with one. So here's a dataslate and box that'll allow people to slap on a Riptide to whatever miniatures they already have! Great. I am still surprised the Riptide-formation/data-slate isn't legal for Warhammer Fantasy too. That (!) would probably stop that games decline pretty quick.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:


Stuff

Just from today's posts on the X-Wing Forums from the single top-thread...

[i]The Tie interceptors will alway's be hard to play because of the increased cost and same amount of hullpoints as a simple Tie fighter. They are not reliable or cheap enough to use in tournament play because their defense is not consistent, so they will not win tournaments because you have a hard time achieving consistency in multiple play rounds. The A-wing suffers the same problem. As soon as they become to cheap they will be used as swarm and will become too powerful.

Major really doesn't want anyone to use these guys Anyway, over/under cost doesn't really matter to a lot of people. not everyone plays to win all the time. For a lot of people it's about the fun, and these pilots will be fun to fly I'm sure of it.

The game is better, even for casual play, if it's balanced. I have had the game since December 2012 and have only ever played games at my house, so I fall more into the "casual play" category than "tournament play therefore must win" category.

because you can be more assured that you can randomly pick up any set of ships and they'll be at least semi-competitive.

Competitive level play is another story entirely, and that's what I was referring to.

I just feel the Y-wings need a turret to be competitive/a threat, or condemn them to blocking/annoyance duty.

Then again fluff and competitive have nothing to do with each other.

Sounds familiar? It seems you are so hell-bent on painting 40K into that bleak corner, that you're not only not looking at the upsides of 40K objectively anymore, you are not looking at ANY game objectively anymore.

For the record... I LOVE X-Wing. But if you look for balance, it's not there. Sorry.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Just from today's posts on the X-Wing Forums from the single top-thread...

Yes, let's. And we find:

* A post stating the obvious, that TIE interceptors require a lot of player skill to use effectively (their low HP makes them glass cannons and requires you to out-maneuver your opponent and avoid taking shots at all) and that, combined with their dependence on average dice luck over raw HP, makes them difficult to play in multi-round tournaments. That criticism has very little to do with their balance in a single game.

* A post stating the obvious, that y-wings usually need a turret to be effective. Yes, that's why they come with a shiny new ion cannon turret (with a nice picture of a y-wing) in the box. The y-wing is clearly a ship designed around its secondary weapon upgrades.

* Some vague talk about individual opinions on competitive vs. casual, which doesn't even come close to the competitive vs. casual hostility in 40k and even includes praise for most options in X-Wing being at least semi-competitive.

So yeah, not even close to your claim about X-Wing being horribly unbalanced. Instead we see the kind of "what is the best strategy" discussion that you expect in a game where player choices make a difference in your chances of winning, but balance is good enough that the game isn't reduced to "always take X because it's overpowered" or endless screaming matches about "WAAC TFG SPAM NETLISTING".

Sounds familiar? It seems you are so hell-bent on painting 40K into that bleak corner, that you're not only not looking at the upsides of 40K objectively anymore, you are not looking at ANY game objectively anymore.

And it seems you are so hell-bent on finding excuses for GW's low-quality product and blaming the competitive players for "ruining the game" that you're unwilling to accept the obvious, that balance is good and 40k is not meeting the standards for "best game in the industry".

 Peregrine wrote:
Some vague talk about individual opinions on competitive vs. casual, which doesn't even come close to the competitive vs. casual hostility in 40k and even includes praise for most options in X-Wing being at least semi-competitive.

Well, obviously the hostility is missing, as X-Wing fans don't have to deal with a bunch of Trolls that continually try to convince them that the game they enjoy is gak and that it would be "better for everyone" if the game they enjoy would be more like some other game they have no interest in.

The topics are similar, however.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Some vague talk about individual opinions on competitive vs. casual, which doesn't even come close to the competitive vs. casual hostility in 40k and even includes praise for most options in X-Wing being at least semi-competitive.

Well, obviously the hostility is missing, as X-Wing fans don't have to deal with a bunch of Trolls that continually try to convince them that the game they enjoy is gak and that it would be "better for everyone" if the game they enjoy would be more like some other game they have no interest in.

The topics are similar, however.

Hes not saying that 40k should be more like the other games he plays rules wise, hes saying that we are paying a premium for a incomplete and horribly imbalanced ruleset, and that if the rules met the standard you should expect for a roughly $70-150 ruleset (codex and rulebook)(depends where you buy from), then maybe more people would buy their product and they wouldnt be losing sales each year since it would be a more enjoyable game for everyone (I would imagine that the ork player would love to win at least 1 game against a serpent spam eldar list).

Think if you bought a ferrari but the interior was horrible (seats that are shaped awkwardly and are uncomfortable, missing radio, no windshield wipers, a few holes in the gas tank), it would look nice on the outside and it would still run, but on the inside you are struggling to even keep that thing going since you had to duck tape the holes in the gas tank, change the seats, and buy a new radio and wipers to make it more comfortable, but it turn out those wipers you bought just made your windshield even messier and garder to see through, and the radio just played static or obnoxious music that you dislike, then there is your buddy to the left that bought the newest radio and while it still plays bad music or static it occasionally gets a few songs that are good and has a port to play your own music in. Of course you would feel like you got ripped off since your radio that is just a month older cant even compare to the newest radio for the same car. Sure his radio needs him to go out and buy some of his own music but at least he can play what music he wants to listen to on his.

If you didnt get my references the car is the models that look nice and the brand name is the IP, the interior is the rules, the radio being the codices that are imbalanced, the wipers being the expansions that just make things even more unclear, the gas tank/seats being the core rules that need to be patched up and changed.

 A GumyBear wrote:


Think if you bought a ferrari but the interior was horrible (seats that are shaped awkwardly and are uncomfortable, missing radio, no windshield wipers, a few holes in the gas tank), it would look nice on the outside and it would still run, but on the inside you are struggling to even keep that thing going since you had to duck tape the holes in the gas tank, change the seats, and buy a new radio and wipers to make it more comfortable, but it turn out those wipers you bought just made your windshield even messier and garder to see through, and the radio just played static or obnoxious music that you dislike, then there is your buddy to the left that bought the newest radio and while it still plays bad music or static it occasionally gets a few songs that are good and has a port to play your own music in. Of course you would feel like you got ripped off since your radio that is just a month older cant even compare to the newest radio for the same car. Sure his radio needs him to go out and buy some of his own music but at least he can play what music he wants to listen to on his.

If you didnt get my references the car is the models that look nice and the brand name is the IP, the interior is the rules, the radio being the codices that are imbalanced, the wipers being the expansions that just make things even more unclear, the gas tank/seats being the core rules that need to be patched up and changed.

Well, but the analogy is wrong, because the "car interior" of Warhammer 40K, as you describe it, is perfectly fine. The seats might not be a colour you like and the radio might not play a music you enjoy, but that doesn't make it objectively worse.

That is the problem, all along. Warhammer 40K just happens to come with ... dunna .. black car seats, and people keep complaining that the designers are so incapable, they can't seem to get the white just right. But they are not supposed to be white. They are supposed to be black.

And thats the thing, people want it white and not black but the company cant realize they want it white, they think they just need more black and more bad music with even messier wipers and gas tanks with even more holes. Which is why they are constantly losing sales as more and more people give up on trying to get white seats and a decent radio etc.

I'd say the comparison is really good. I'd add that sometimes you will find leaked developer mail from your car company that the company workers will be performing a maintenance and an upgrade on your vehicle, repairing the radio, painting the seats white if you wanted them, all the while puncturing your tires, taking a whizz in the gas tank, shoving feces into the air vents and occasionally just tearing out your engine with the whole framework so your car won't work.

BUT

You have a prospect of buying the car you always wanted! Yellow seats, sedan, early thirties music playing, green paintjob and a beautiful frame - with some untested faults that you will find after the first several hours of exploitation. All for a bargain of your two kidneys.

 A GumyBear wrote:
And thats the thing, people want it white and not black but the company cant realize they want it white, they think they just need more black and more bad music with even messier wipers and gas tanks with even more holes. Which is why they are constantly losing sales as more and more people give up on trying to get white seats and a decent radio etc.

Wrong. Some people do like black. And that shouldn't be a problem, as there are plenty of other companies out there that offer white seats for those that want them.

So just leave GW's "black seats" to the people that like black seats and stop bitchin'

 MaCa wrote:
I'd say the comparison is really good. I'd add that sometimes you will find leaked developer mail from your car company that the company workers will be performing a maintenance and an upgrade on your vehicle, repairing the radio, painting the seats white if you wanted them, all the while puncturing your tires, taking a whizz in the gas tank, shoving feces into the air vents and occasionally just tearing out your engine with the whole framework so your car won't work.

BUT

You have a prospect of buying the car you always wanted! Yellow seats, sedan, early thirties music playing, green paintjob and a beautiful frame - with some untested faults that you will find after the first several hours of exploitation. All for a bargain of your two kidneys.

And for some cars you wont have any faults, you will find cars that get fixed up right away if there are any faults, or the faults are so miniscule it doesnt really matter that much (your radio might play the occasional bad somg while your friends doesnt doesnt) such as infinity, malifaux, or warmahordes. Also some of them might only cost you a big toe instead of a kidney

The issue is that at one point GW at least offered Grey seats which the white seat crowd was happy enough with...and there was an option for Black. Now I took my car into the shop for some work and my seats were spray painted black.

The whole point is they could provide well written, balanced rules that would provide Black, white, and grey seats but they don't.

They say ..."we know you liked our grey seats...but too bad...you are doing it wrong. I don't care that you spent a bunch of money on the car."

That is where I lose you...the people who bitch had seats they were ok with....that were essentially taken away...after investing money. I could understand saying what you are to new people if things had always been the way you describe...but they have not been. It is a bait and switch.

"There is no game that involves list building where this is not the case. In 40k's case trying to balance over a dozen codicies each with a couple dozen units who each have a potential list of weapon options against each other with perfect balance is impossible. "

I disagree. They could go electronic and update the 15 codices in real time based off real results. You are making excuses for a lazy, greedy company.

What you are missing is that many codices can't fight in the same leagues as some of the other codices. How is your magical discussion supposed to go between BA and Eldar player?

"Yo, man. Just don't take anything from your whole codex, okay?"

Breng77 wrote:


That is where I lose you...the people who bitch had seats they were ok with....that were essentially taken away...after investing money. I could understand saying what you are to new people if things had always been the way you describe...but they have not been. It is a bait and switch.

Maybe so. But changing 40K away from what it is now, would equally "take away" from the people that invested in it for what it is now. Swings and roundabouts.

I am not claiming there were no casualties on the way, or that there is no reason to be mad about GW's past behaviour. All I am saying is that there are people equally as much invested for what the game is now, because of the way it is now, and not everyone will benefit by changing things up to how it used to be (or to how other companies do it).

I have absolutely no problem if people say they don't like 40K the way it is now and would prefer it to be different either. I only object to the arrogance of people claiming to speak for everyone, claiming that GW's current direction has absolutely no beneficiaries and turning into grimdark-Warmachine would "benefit everyone".

 Zweischneid wrote:

 A GumyBear wrote:
And thats the thing, people want it white and not black but the company cant realize they want it white, they think they just need more black and more bad music with even messier wipers and gas tanks with even more holes. Which is why they are constantly losing sales as more and more people give up on trying to get white seats and a decent radio etc.

Wrong. Some people do like black. And that shouldn't be a problem, as there are plenty of other companies out there that offer white seats for those that want them.

So just leave GW's "black seats" to the people that like black seats and stop bitchin'

I'm sorry have I offended you somehow? I apologize if I did, my original reference to the seats was being that it was uncomfortable and needed to be changed to feel better, as in the rules are clunky and can need to be changed in some areas to be more comfortable (like the tons of pregame rolling you need to do for things or the mysterious terrain that needs you to pause the game to get the chart and get agree on a suitable way to mark it without forgetting). If you like the brand ferrari thats great so do I, I just dont to pay a premium for something tgat barely runs and is a pain to drive

Now granted I've been out of the loop for a decade now, but even when I last played and before that it's seemed like the "ideal" situation for Warhammer, 40k or WHFB, has been a "gaming club" with a few good buddies that build themed fluffy armies and enjoy playing in leagues/narrative campaigns with each other. I fondly recall in old and sadly lost White Dwarf issues the tales of Andy Chambers' home campaign with his Iron Warriors against his friends and, while I can't remember the details, a similar WHFB series of articles from a guy playing in as I recall the basement of a flat or something with a few buddies, some of which were good and some which were bad, but they always enjoyed it.

That seems to be what GW expects - you are playing with people you know, likely at someone's home in a spare room or basement, and are deciding beforehand the type of game you're playing; I also recall White Dwarf articles talking about how to link together battles to form a narrative campaign, or things like determining terrain based on whose place you were playing at (I think it was in the old 5th edition WHFB rulebook that said something like if you played High Elves and your friend played Orcs, if he came to your place to play a game you should set the table up to look like the High Elf land, because clearly it meant that his Orcs had invaded Ulthuan).

Somewhere along the line this got blurred to the concept of a pick-up game a la M:tG where you just go down to your FLGS with your army in tow and play against whomever happens to also be there with their army, and worse (IMO of course) the mentality has shifted to "competitiveness" versus just having a good time with people you enjoy being around. Maybe it's a USA thing as the articles I remember fondly were from a UK point of view where, as I understand it, things are more laid back and less "I need to win" like we have here in the states.

I'm not entirely sure and I'm speaking from a weird position as the last time I played I was a teenager, but I definitely recall the tone from GW then being more about having fun with your "mates" in Joe's basement with mediocre painted figures and haphazard terrain than trying to crush all comers at the FLGS to prove your superiority.

 A GumyBear wrote:


I'm sorry have I offended you somehow? I apologize if I did, my original reference to the seats was being that it was uncomfortable and needed to be changed to feel better, as in the rules are clunky and can need to be changed in some areas to be more comfortable (like the tons of pregame rolling you need to do for things or the mysterious terrain that needs you to pause the game to get the chart and get agree on a suitable way to mark it without forgetting). If you like the brand ferrari thats great so do I, I just dont to pay a premium for something tgat barely runs and is a pain to drive

You can pay premium for different things.

Some cars are made for "casual driving"...



Other cars are made for "competitive driving".



And sure, you could go on and on about how the latter, "competitive" car is "technically" superiour in every way, better engine, suspension, acceleration. But that is missing the point of what the former "casual" car is trying to do in the first place.

The very categories by which you compare them are already skewed in favour of the competitive car, because they are categories important for competitive racing, not categories important for casual cruising into the sunset.

The issue still is that at one point GW endorsed Tournaments...and then went ahead and trashed the idea screwing investments people made. So it is not as if people bought something to use in an unintended way. They bought a (crappy) race car...that when taken to the mechanic came back as a casual car.

I also don't see how having clearly written and balanced rules effects the casual car. Which would still benefit from better gas milage and comfier seats.


I'd have no issue if they released 40k "competitive" as a supplement of clear rules to use my army for competitive play. But they don't they say...you are having fun the wrong way don't do it. Essentially say my buds and I like racing our casual cars. What has happened is we got told...don't do that its not the right way to have fun.

Which is something that more balanced rules do to no one...more balanced rules don't prevent variety or narative or anything.

 Zweischneid wrote:


You can pay premium for different things.

Some cars are made for "casual driving"...

Spoiler:

Other cars are made for "competitive driving"

Spoiler:

And sure, you could go on and on about how the latter, "competitive" car is "technically" superiour in every way, better engine, suspension, acceleration. But that is missing the point of what the former "casual" car is trying to do in the first place.

The very categories by which you compare them are already skewed in favour of the competitive car, because they are categories important for competitive racing, not categories important for casual cruising into the sunset.

Except for the price you are paying you can make that casual car just as competitive as the competitive only car while still staying just as casual

Breng77 wrote:
Essentially say my buds and I like racing our casual cars. What has happened is we got told...don't do that its not the right way to have fun.

Which is something that more balanced rules do to no one...more balanced rules don't prevent variety or narative or anything.

Sure it is. M and my buds have been trying to game narrative for years, decades even, and every single pick-up game you get the same idiocy about "you cannot run Ultrarmarines 1st Company" or some such, cause Terminators are not "troops" (and you need to fill all kind a stupid "slots" to be "legal" and other such nonsense). And I cannot have a Space Wolves-Striking Scorpions double-force as described in the fluff section of the actual Codex, because you cannot mix armies, etc....

It's been a gaming climate that has been stifling, oppressive and outright hostile to anything approaching "creativity" for decades, despite being a supposedly "creative" hobby.

The balanced rules themselves my not hurt, but the associated "mind-set" that the rules are some sort of inviolable gospel, the holy script that must be adhered to (and, inversely, that everything that is technically possible within the set of rules is automatically "ok"), is incredibly harmful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A GumyBear wrote:

Except for the price you are paying you can make that casual car just as competitive as the competitive only car while still staying just as casual

No you can't. At the very least, it would be vastly cheaper to get yourself the second kind of "competitive car" for your competitive needs and keep the casual car for your casual needs. Not every car needs to be all things at the same time. Hell, even race-car drivers/managers who do own these kind of racing cars don't use them to go on a cruise with the kids on the weekend.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Essentially say my buds and I like racing our casual cars. What has happened is we got told...don't do that its not the right way to have fun.

Which is something that more balanced rules do to no one...more balanced rules don't prevent variety or narative or anything.

Sure it is. M and my buds have been trying to game narrative for years, decades even, and every single pick-up game you get the same idiocy about "you cannot run Ultrarmarines 1st Company" or some such, cause Terminators are not "troops" (and you need to fill all kind a stupid "slots" to be "legal" and other such nonsense). And I cannot have a Space Wolves-Striking Scorpions double-force as described in the fluff section of the actual Codex, because you cannot mix armies, etc....

It's been a gaming climate that has been stifling, oppressive and outright hostile to anything approaching "creativity" for decades, despite being a supposedly "creative" hobby.

The balanced rules themselves my not hurt, but the associated "mind-set" that the rules are some sort of inviolable gospel, the holy script that must be adhered to (and, inversely, that everything that is technically possible within the set of rules is automatically "ok"), is incredibly harmful.

Which is where I disagree...it is not harmful at all for pick-up play...because unless we know each other, what reason do we have to find common ground. You and your buds were never stopped from doing anything in your own group....but instead stopped from taking that stuff outside your group to play people that don't agree. What the new scenario creates is every pick-up game being toxic because people often don't agree...so games don't get played and the scene dies (I've seen this happen). So while you and your buds still have games in your own garage or whatever doing what you like...me who thrives on pick-up games....gets none because the scene has died.


Essentially you could always have don't SW + Striking scorpions in your own group....as long as everyone agreed. Which is no different than now...except the expectation now is that if I show up to play you...and don't want to play against said army...we don't play because you came expecting anything was OK. Which in a for fun game...no one ever cared....but if one guy brings a broken competitive army...he either eats derision because of how badly broken his army is...does not get a game...or needs to change his army lest he be forced out.

Which never happens in casual groups.

That is where I see our impasse....I feel that the rules should not inhibit any kind of play (which they currently do without great effort) and should not stand in the way of "pick up" play (which they do now). Where as it seems you think they should force out people that want to use the rules competitvely because those people (who are not the game, but players) are somehow ruining things for you.