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.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
did no one notice this is exactly the opposite discussion as the "once GW goes non-competitive" discussion? does everyone here think GW made their flagship games as tourney prize makers? for that matter, any game? I remember playing Magic for *gasp* fun. I like to win, but the people who toss around the words "competitive", "meta", and "viable" are the ones who scream the loudest when being called out for being a WAAC player.

Unbalanced games aren't fun. The outcomes are too trivial.

I suppose there is an interesting outcome from Games Workshop not supporting tournament play. Where they did they could enforce rules like, "you must use GW models."

Now they don't, enforcing such rules is entirely up to the tournament organisers. If they can't be bothered, and of course GW has provided no incentive to care, then any models which adequately represent the units concerned can be used.

GW is a model company first and foremost. Their rules exist solely to sell models. In a sense creating imbalanced rules could benefit their bottom line by promoting sales of whatever the new hotness is, although as with Deathwing, Nephilim, Mutilators and Centurions I'm not sure they actually thought that far ahead.

I love that 'model company, not a rules company' line.

With the latest releases we are potentially up to a rulebook, a codex, a supplement, an allied codex, their supplement, escalation, the fortress one and a dataslate or two all for 1 list, each of which is sold separately and would cost like $600 AU in rules.

Sure that's a bit excessive and no one is making you play with anything more than a codex and rulebook (still over $200 here I believe) and is two separate purchases.

GW are the only guys on the market I can think of that force you to buy anything other than the core rulebook, most other companies sell that (for half the price I might add) then the rules for individual models and the like are given out for free.

Model company not a rules company. But we will charage you a feth ton for the rule and the other rules that you need to play.

Not the rules, the hundred odd full colour pages that you have to lug around whenever you want the rules.

If GW just sold you the rules that would be a considerable saving, in money and weight.

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:
Not the rules, the hundred odd full colour pages that you have to lug around whenever you want the rules.

If GW just sold you the rules that would be a considerable saving, in money and weight.

They did that with 40k I believe. It still cost as much as a codex, which still costs more than the core rules for any other game I've played.

For what it's worth, I remember when the codecies were still $30. Compared to other rulesets, that was still ridiculously expensive for a supplement, but it seems like almost nothing since they doubled in price.

To a similar end to my point about how mammoth and obfuscating the rules are in their complexity, a game which requires so much material to play at such a high price point is also not conductive to a 'beer and pretzels' atmosphere, either.

 Fafnir wrote:
But you can do that with absolutely any ruleset. Better yet, a clear and well written one gives you a more solid base with which to expand from, since you have to worry about less rules disputes coming alone to interfere with the design of your house rules.

Yes you can do that with every ruleset of course. 40k is simply the best option for it because of its fluff (at least for us). You can recreate battles out of books or come up with something you thought about yourself - the universe is diverse enough for almost every crazyness you can think of.

I dont say you cant do that with other games too but for us 40k is what we play since ~1998 and we know our fluff and rules. The 40k ruleset isnt very good ... but generally i dont care and have fun.

And I guess also worth pointing out that the person you're replying to was talking about going to a club and playing a pick up game with some random person. What you describe is much easier (due to time and trust) with a friend than some random stranger met in a store where you both want to just sit down and game.

Of course this playstyle is better for people that know each other. I dont always play narratively but i enjoy it. Its especially enjoyable to play that way with newbies or people that have subpar armies (or if your own is too cheesy).

 Mywik wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
But you can do that with absolutely any ruleset. Better yet, a clear and well written one gives you a more solid base with which to expand from, since you have to worry about less rules disputes coming alone to interfere with the design of your house rules.

Yes you can do that with every ruleset of course. 40k is simply the best option for it because of its fluff (at least for us). You can recreate battles out of books or come up with something you thought about yourself - the universe is diverse enough for almost every crazyness you can think of.

I dont say you cant do that with other games too but for us 40k is what we play since ~1998 and we know our fluff and rules. The 40k ruleset isnt very good ... but generally i dont care and have fun.

So then you don't play the game because of its narrative opportunities. You play it because that's what you've always played.

@Mywik.
I understand there are lots of veteran 40k player that have their own like minded groups , that house rule 40k to suit their own style of play.
They have years of experience , and can generally put the extra work in required to get an enjoyable game experience from GW 40k rules.(And some may enjoy this extra work.)

However, how is this applicable to newbs who play in the local FLGS /GW store?
Poorly defined rules, and poor game balance just sets these new players up for a BAD gaming experience.
They have little knowledge of 40k, and get judged on what units they pick , some gamers refuse to play them for being WAAC, or they get horrible one sided battles where no one enjoys the game.
These new players can be put off playing 40k , and war gaming in general, due to the awful 40k rules.

GW plc write rules for new customers that do not actual get around to play the game, or those experienced enough to fix the rules the way they want.
So while GW plc are writing rules for those that do not actually play , or those that do not actually care about the rules .

Is it surprising GW plc are loosing sales volumes year on year?
I hope that some time very soon GW plc realize that the quality of the rule set is far more important that they give it credit for.

With a BRB, a codex, dice & templates set, starter battalion and some paints your ready to start playing. This doesn't include Escalation, or Stronghold Assault or the cool extra IC/unit you'd like to have.

Then you realize you coulda bought the new Xbox One. Throw in any of the optional crap I mentioned & you just got yourself a online membership & rented a game. Your watching Hulu & playing the coolest new game with 50+ people. You didn't even have to negotiate terrain or argue about forgeworld.

GW needs to take all that new money they're getting from the shiny new 'Nid codex and buy themselves a clue.

 Red Marine wrote:
With a BRB, a codex, dice & templates set, starter battalion and some paints your ready to start playing.

But you really don't. The starter boxes don't have enough points to play a normal game (and certainly don't have a competitive mix of units), so you're pretty much limited to playing small games with the occasional person willing to play a special teaching game for you.

I also doubt any dev team would seriously want to go through the effort of translating such a broken ruleset to tabletop format.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Red Marine wrote:
With a BRB, a codex, dice & templates set, starter battalion and some paints your ready to start playing.

But you really don't. The starter boxes don't have enough points to play a normal game (and certainly don't have a competitive mix of units), so you're pretty much limited to playing small games with the occasional person willing to play a special teaching game for you.

yeah that is very true. not only are there different points in battalions boxs ,but they aren't legal to play with. And most of them have units that will never be used in normal games . The IG starter gives maybe 800pts , when someone maxs up the points and does counts as . that is still 700less then normal games, For WFB it is even worse , because normal games are played at 2500pts

Throw in that most Battle Force Boxes don't come with an HQ choice. Many don't have 2 legal troop choices, and some armies don't even have a battle force.

Fafnir wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
But you can do that with absolutely any ruleset. Better yet, a clear and well written one gives you a more solid base with which to expand from, since you have to worry about less rules disputes coming alone to interfere with the design of your house rules.

Yes you can do that with every ruleset of course. 40k is simply the best option for it because of its fluff (at least for us). You can recreate battles out of books or come up with something you thought about yourself - the universe is diverse enough for almost every crazyness you can think of.

I dont say you cant do that with other games too but for us 40k is what we play since ~1998 and we know our fluff and rules. The 40k ruleset isnt very good ... but generally i dont care and have fun.

So then you don't play the game because of its narrative opportunities. You play it because that's what you've always played.

I play a game where i know the fluff good enough and where i know enough of the ruleset to create special houserules that arent massively overpowered. Lets say i'd play Kings of War from Mantic and wanted to do a narrative game than i would have to first learn what the world of KoW is about and had to understand the rules. I dont have to do that with 40k. But you are right, 40k isnt a special snowflake that is somehow easier adaptable to house rules. Its just what we are used to. Still theres not a single wargame i played so far that has fluff that is even comparable in quantity and (sometimes even) quality to 40k.

Lanrak wrote:@Mywik.
I understand there are lots of veteran 40k player that have their own like minded groups , that house rule 40k to suit their own style of play.
They have years of experience , and can generally put the extra work in required to get an enjoyable game experience from GW 40k rules.(And some may enjoy this extra work.)

However, how is this applicable to newbs who play in the local FLGS /GW store?
Poorly defined rules, and poor game balance just sets these new players up for a BAD gaming experience.
They have little knowledge of 40k, and get judged on what units they pick , some gamers refuse to play them for being WAAC, or they get horrible one sided battles where no one enjoys the game.
These new players can be put off playing 40k , and war gaming in general, due to the awful 40k rules.

GW plc write rules for new customers that do not actual get around to play the game, or those experienced enough to fix the rules the way they want.
So while GW plc are writing rules for those that do not actually play , or those that do not actually care about the rules .

Is it surprising GW plc are loosing sales volumes year on year?
I hope that some time very soon GW plc realize that the quality of the rule set is far more important that they give it credit for.

Beginners should stick to learn the game mechanics that are official instead of making house rules that they dont know the interaction with the official rules. Its not the fault of narrative games that pickup games with strangers that just started out the game arent the best starting point for a narrative game. Also this has a lot to do with environment. In a gw store with 14 year old TFGs ... of course this wont work. In a grown up wargaming club with regular players (like the one i play in) its a lot easier.

Casual and HAAC players are the worst imo, eat some beer drink a pretzel and loosen up, it's just a game and sometimes you just loose to a better opponent/ better prepared army.

tiger g wrote:
It has always been a beer and pretzel game

No, it has never been a beer and pretzels game. No beer and pretzels game in the world requires 100+ pages rulebooks and codieces, 4 hours of time to play the game, hundreds of dolars and countless hours devoted to it off table.

 Peregrine wrote:
If GW can convince you to be proud of how little you care about the quality of the product you're buying then they don't have to waste money on improving their product.

Yes

 jonolikespie wrote:
It's amazing how after doing that they turn around an make claims about being the Ferrari of the minitures world too.

Well as long as it's about their plastic kits, I'd agree with them tbh.

 da001 wrote:
And thinking that there is an "official" set of rules somewhere does not change the fact that if you show up with 3 Riptides (to use an example) your opponent will be perfectly within their rights to say no, claiming that they are way overpowered, and that playing against an overpowered list is utterly boring and unfun.

Playing against overpowered list is pure joy, unless you're a WAAC and can't stand loosing. Pulling a rare well deserved win against it is shivers down the spine . Not to mention the book series you can write about the battle especialy if lost.

You always have right to say no but that does not make your reason valid. And if the guy hates the fact that power lists exist, well it's GW fault not the gamer fielding such list.

Zweischneid wrote:None of that changes the fact that if you show up to club night or to your FLGS with a "3 Heavy Slot" list that sticks pedantically to the rules, but looks like it'll offer no fun to play (e.g. 3 Wraithknights), nobody will have to play against you. And if the guy over there with his 4 HS-slot list seems to offer the more enjoyable Saturday-afternoon, he'll get my game, not you.

Sounds like WAAC imo, "I won't play with you because you will be winning and I can't have fun then. So, I'll rather refuse you a game".




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
If you fix the problems that the competitive players hate you simultaneously improve the game for casual/narrative play.

Yes

 carlos13th wrote:
Its much harder to be a powergamer in a balanaced rule set.

Jesus yes, how simple is that.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
40K has never been designed for tournament play.

Except it was, as stated by Rick Priestley in one of the interviews, not sure 3rd or 4th. Also I remember crazy Matthew and other 6th ed designers whining about Allesio making 5th edition "too competitive"

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It has never been very good for it.

This is true though

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think GW are trying to make the game more "beer and pretzels".

Yes they just hide behind narrative bs to avoid too much work on rules and balancing also to be able to throw anything at the game.

I thought all add ons aside from core rule book and a codex where optional to the foc. They don't have to be used. If the game is not competitive as some say then why is there a winner and loser.

If the game as some say is beer and pretzels, then how would you feel about loosing every game, to say a rev Titan. That sounds like a lopsided narrative.

The onus IMHO is on GW to at least try and guide us with a better rule set so we can stop the sky is falling mentality, and have fun games of 40k. Lacking that kind of support we will have to rely on ourselves as players to unbreak the game. Simple as that.

Escalation is a codex , so you can't say no to someone who wants his eldar titan

@Mywik.
I would suggest that IF 40k is a narrative game , GW plc should avoid using PV and FoC at all costs.

Other wise its like GW plc are LYING to the people that BUY 40k specifically TO PLAY 'pick up and play games' in GW stores.
Dont you agree?

Lanrak wrote:
@Mywik.
I would suggest that IF 40k is a narrative game , GW plc should avoid using PV and FoC at all costs.

Other wise its like GW plc are LYING to the people that BUY 40k specifically TO PLAY 'pick up and play games' in GW stores.
Dont you agree?

You know you're not required to play with a FoC, right? Says so right there in the BRB. Make up your own rules if you like, amongst you and your friends. Go nuts, have fun.

You are not required to use any of the rules in the game you can do what you want amongst friends.

Of course he was talking about pick up and play games and didn't mention friends at all.

If you are going to play with strangers they are likely going to wish for you to use the rules within the book.

Right lets clear up my stance on a few things floating around this thread.

a) Not everyone (I would hope no-one) is arguing bad rules make for a better narrative game. They are however suggesting that by making sure both players are trying to get the same thing out of the game with conversation 40k rules produce a fun and enjoyable experience for both players, which is the whole point.

b) List building is imbalanced. Now I preface this with the fact I have not played Infinity or FoW and I am a reformed munchkin and I have yet to find a single list building game I couldn't break in half with a little practice. Some people are inherently or by practice better at producing powerful lists for any environment and so produce stronger lists that can make the game completely unfun for their opponent who has lost before models/cards even hit the table.

Now at a tournament or a pick up game where you are playing "tournament style", which for me is basically an excuse to create broken in half lists regardless of imbalance, that's fine because everyone is doing it and why I no longer take part. In *any other game* I consider it poor sportsmanship not to match my list roughly power wise accounting for their experience as well. Now once I'm on the table I will play to the best of my ability and if you keep up or outplay me you will potentially win. Short chat, problem solved. I can't see why people wouldn't do this.

c) We are a community. Newbs are having bad experiences with bloated rules someone quote several pages back, this is not something I've ever had a problem with when showing someone the game but hey. We veterans are supposed to helping them, we no doubt have years of tips and tricks, rules knowledge and ways of remembering things under our belt. Without new players a community dies so it's to our benefit to do it.

Now I don't think 40k is a beer and pretzels game (too expensive with lots of rules) but I like the casual game bias as it's the kind of game I play. Like I say, I've yet to find a list building game where it was truly suitable for hardcore tourney play but I am having vast amounts of fun playing 40k 6th.

@Dunklezahn.
A) A quick chat to determine the level of 'zeal' and 'attention to detail' players want to put in the game is a natural part of a social interaction in ANY war game.
Having to negotiate how they interpret poorly defined rules, or deal with poor levels of game balance. seems mainly confined to 40K/WHFB in my experience.

B )Perfect game balance only exists in theory.However, extensive play testing can arrive at game balance that can use 'list building for pick up games' to arrive at enjoyable games over 98% of the time.
The only reason 40k tournament play revolves around a few over powered lists, is because 40k is very poorly balanced game.

C) 40k rules are bloated mess , compared to most other popular war game rules.(Most GOOD game rules you can TOTALLY understand ALL the game play options in less than an hour).Even vets disagree on how they interpret some 40k rules, after YEARS of PLAYING the game! (All the posts on YMDC sort of back this up.
(Every other game rules questions are addressed DIRECTLY by the game devs on the game companies OWN forums.)

So 40k is fine for relaxed narrative games between mates that agree to fix the rules in the same way.
But AWFUL for new players wanting an enjoyable pick up game in the local GW shop/LFGS.

@Dunklezhan

If you are looking for a list building game that isnt broken then try out some of the other games people have mentioned (the game I play mostly is malifaux and have had no issues with balance in 2e so far regardless of units as long as you can pay attention to synergy/fluff/theme and not slap together random units since the game thrives on themed lists and fluff for making balanced lists) so I would reccomend trying out some of the other games that require building lists that people here appraise for good balance

This game has never been balanced in the slightest, and has always been a clunky convoluted mess. This is what I don't understand from the majority of the people that are the most outspokenly vocal (and almost always negative) towards this game.

Would a more balanced ruleset benefit everyone? Absolutely. That it has taken this many editions for many of you to accept that this game has never been or will never be balanced is what boggles my mind. Clearly that is not the intention of the designers, regardless how great this would be.

Every iteration of this game has had glaring weaknesses and aspects that can be construed as broken. History is just repeating itself.

What I grow tired of is what is quite honestly the vocal minority (yes, people on these forums ARE the vocal minority when it comes to overall opinions and thoughts on GW game analysis) who have done nothing but complain for the last X editions, repeating their opinions incessantly how this game SHOULD be.

Well, it isn't. Either do something about it (as many people have suggested- this hobby is what you make of it) or deal with it. Clearly something has kept you around long enough (and unfortunately complaining the entire time). There are endless possibilities with this, and any involved hobby. If one aspect is not to your liking, concentrate on another. Flex some creative muscles and utilize all of your effort to actually better the experience for you and others around you. Stop poisoning the hobby.

I think the negativity of the people who decry the game for everything it is are what is harming this game more so than any ruleset or pricing issue.

XenosTerminus wrote:

I think the negativity of the people who decry the game for everything it is are what is harming this game more so than any ruleset or pricing issue.

Seriously? Complaining about something on the internet (this alleged minority, at that) is somehow more harmful than the flaws with the ruleset or blatant price gouging?

Now I'm curious, enlighten me how a few dozen regular forum goers are harming an internationally played game more than the policies of the company producing it.

Simple. Other than pricing (which people are still willing to pay for it- even those that bemoan it)- the false assumption that this game is 'unplayable' or not 'enjoyable' because of internal balancing issues is largely irrelevant to the average GW consumer, or target audience.

They have made it abundantly clear that they no longer care for tournaments or the competitive scene both in practice and implied with their rules writing (spirit of the game).

They have also made it abundantly clear that the game is meant to be played 'for fun'. While fun is defined differently for everyone, again, the average player (who likely doesn't turn to forums and just plays with their friends or at their FLGS) just does not experience many of the issues often portrayed in places like Dakka.

It's much rarer, then, to hear some minor criticisms from within a local setting than online, where forums tend to degrade into miasmas of negativity.

Quite simply- the GW rules, while flawed and unbalanced, are largely fine for most people. The more people complain about said rules the more apparent the issues become, despite the fact in reality it does not matter for most people.

You still haven't explained how a few dozen forum posters have somehow negatively impacted the game for everyone.

This forum is where people come with the specific intent of posting about miniature wargaming, and this particular sub-board is meant for those who wish to discuss 40k. Its no surprise the discussions here are a little more critical of the game than in real life at your FLGS. No one enjoys listening to constant whining and whinging in person, but forums can be quite nice for critical discussions.

But again, my point is that your claim that the game is being made worse by the discussions on a single forum is absurd.

XenosTerminus wrote:
Simple. Other than pricing (which people are still willing to pay for it- even those that bemoan it)- the false assumption that this game is 'unplayable' or not 'enjoyable' because of internal balancing issues is largely irrelevant to the average GW consumer, or target audience.

They have made it abundantly clear that they no longer care for tournaments or the competitive scene both in practice and implied with their rules writing (spirit of the game).

They have also made it abundantly clear that the game is meant to be played 'for fun'. While fun is defined differently for everyone, again, the average player (who likely doesn't turn to forums and just plays with their friends or at their FLGS) just does not experience many of the issues often portrayed in places like Dakka.

It's much rarer, then, to hear some minor criticisms from within a local setting than online, where forums tend to degrade into miasmas of negativity.

Quite simply- the GW rules, while flawed and unbalanced, are largely fine for most people. The more people complain about said rules the more apparent the issues become, despite the fact in reality it does not matter for most people.

This was viable before the internets. Now if one person at a FLGS gets a net list, the whole thing blows up quickly.