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.

"They are designed with fun/cool in mind".

I think Deathwing is cool. My opponent thinks D weapons are cool. "Fun" is had by one.

They are trying to "steer" the community in a direction that they do not want to go with the likely result of driving themselves off a cliff while simultaneously driving their customer base into the arms of their competitors.

Also, cost increases.

I think this, despite not being 'official' as such, does justify something I have been saying for a long time: It is obvious from the rulebook, expansions and codexes is that the way GW 'intends' the game to be played is in a casual, likely narrative, way. The sole purpose of the rules is to provide a framework to create these stories and games, rather than being the be-all and end-all of gaming. Think of it like being given a very rough script before performing a play; the guidelines are there, how you use them is up to you.

I would never presume to tell someone there was a wrong or right way to play this game, or condemn anyone for playing it differently to how I do, but what I will say is this: I have always played incredibly casually, taking an 'anything goes if it's cool' approach to the rules and generally playing not for the result but how I get there. I have never had a game that I have not enjoyed on account of balance (or imbalance), with my handful bad experiences being on account of unpleasant players.

What I'm saying is that 40k is one of those things where the less seriously you take it, the better it is. Balance is fine in my experience at a casual level. There seem to be endless posts on here about how players got destroyed by 'OP' armies or how the balance in the game is totally non-existent, and yet none of the 'casual' gamers I know have had this problem. It seems clear that 40k does not function that well at a competitive level, but that's not it's intent. Complaining about the lack of balance at the top competitive level in 40k is like buying a 3" paintbrush and then complaining about being unable to paint small details with it. If you try to use something for a task it wasn't designed for, then don't be surprised when it doesn't work.

The other thing that gets me with regards to the lack of balance (perceived or otherwise) is that the community seems intent on simultaneously bemoaning and exploiting the balancing issues. Half the posts in 40k General are about how the likes of Heldrakes, Wave Serpents or triptides break the game, and yet every post in tactics is always 'take more riptides/heldrakes/wave serpents because they're amazing.'

I appreciate some people look to take the absolute best, and that's their choice, but when the same people are complaining about the lack of balance, then something doesn't add up. Similarly, when every new player is told to spam the OP units, the problems are only going to continue to exist. If people stop making those suggestions, then maybe things will start to change a little, but there seems to be a complete contrast when the same community (and often the same people) will both complain about and exploit the balancing issues.

If Games Workshops idea of Warhammer 40k is a fun, beer and pretzels game where you take all your favourite models and duke it out with a friend then they should care more about balance and rules quality. A fun beer and pretzels game is one with a simple ruleset and no player comes to the game with a distinct advantage. Games like Hungry Hungry Hippos and Munchkin come to mind. A game with a complicated ruleset and obvious imbalance that allow players to gain a huge advantage over someone before even sitting down to play describes basically every competitive game I've ever played, including Warhammer 40k.

Well, of course, this is really just a statement of something we already knew, which is that GW is good at making models and not so good at making rules for their own games.

The company is in the business of moving product, and discounts / rules don't affect sales very much so they don't do that.

It begs the question why the community has not come up with it's own ruleset. It's clear the only thing that affects their decisions is the bottom line. Steering people away towards alternative rules could be the way to do that.

 Paradigm wrote:
I think this, despite not being 'official' as such, does justify something I have been saying for a long time: It is obvious from the rulebook, expansions and codexes is that the way GW 'intends' the game to be played is in a casual, likely narrative, way. The sole purpose of the rules is to provide a framework to create these stories and games, rather than being the be-all and end-all of gaming. Think of it like being given a very rough script before performing a play; the guidelines are there, how you use them is up to you.

RPGs are for narrative play, wargames where 2 players choose armies and play against each other are competitive by definition. Fluff is there just to provide mood for battle.

 Paradigm wrote:
What I'm saying is that 40k is one of those things where the less seriously you take it, the better it is. Balance is fine in my experience at a casual level.

Yes for you at the moment. What if you had Khorne berserkers and one of your friends loved Tau suits? If the game was competitivly balanced there would be no problem but now your friend would have to limit himself and watch out for better units.

I say casual play requires more balance than competitive one. Competitive player will just sell worse models and buy better ones, fluff player has to sit with his Thousand Sons and count on other players mercy.

I have a strong feeling that entire "Rep" rant is just some internet troll... it is too conveniently just like the crap you read in the forums and even seems inaccurate in spots.

 Gunzhard wrote:
I have a strong feeling that entire "Rep" rant is just some internet troll... it is too conveniently just like the crap you read in the forums and even seems inaccurate in spots.

The more I read it, the more I think the same.

@paradigm.

You make a fair point. I must admit that I have had some pretty satisfying games in 6th Ed with some like minded people. But I feel at that point it was the people that made the game and not the rule set. I have never in my life cared to compete in 40k. I think have won 20 games since 1997. Like you I care more about painted models and a good story, but with some of the recent developments I feel as though people have to make an active effort to balance a game.

I will freely admit that 40k has never been balanced, nor is it likely possible to completely balance it. I just think we would all benefit from a little tighter rule set. After all, good fences make good neighbors.

 Chongara wrote:
This is news? This is like announcing KFC isn't concerned with providing dry-aged beef and gourmet french soups.

Don't know why, but this made me laugh... thank you sir!!!

 Paradigm wrote:
I think this, despite not being 'official' as such, does justify something I have been saying for a long time: It is obvious from the rulebook, expansions and codexes is that the way GW 'intends' the game to be played is in a casual, likely narrative, way. The sole purpose of the rules is to provide a framework to create these stories and games, rather than being the be-all and end-all of gaming. Think of it like being given a very rough script before performing a play; the guidelines are there, how you use them is up to you.

And here's the problem inherent in that approach:

You give a rough script to your amateur theater group. Those actors who enjoy and are good at ad-libbing will do fine with it. Those actors who aren't... won't, and don't bother coming back for next week's rehearsal.

On the other hand, you give a finished, polished script to your amateur theater group. Those actors who enjoy and are good at ad-libbing will do fine with it. Those actors who aren't... will still do fine with it, because they can just follow the script.

The 'framework' argument is a nonsense excuse for rushing out rules that haven't been cooked for long enough, and it alienates a large part of the potential player base without actually adding anything to the game that wouldn't still be there if the rules were actually finished before release.

The other thing that gets me with regards to the lack of balance (perceived or otherwise) is that the community seems intent on simultaneously bemoaning and exploiting the balancing issues. Half the posts in 40k General are about how the likes of Heldrakes, Wave Serpents or triptides break the game, and yet every post in tactics is always 'take more riptides/heldrakes/wave serpents because they're amazing.'

If you're playing a game where the object is to win (which is ultimately most games), and some things in that game are clearly more powerful than others, it's fairly easily apparent that the best chance of winning will come from taking those things in your army.

Realising that those things are cheaper or more powerful than they should be doesn't change that.

Similarly, when every new player is told to spam the OP units, the problems are only going to continue to exist.

Yup, it's totally the fault of the players that the writers of the game keep putting those OP units in the codexes...

This problem will go away the moment GW's games devs start finishing their work before they release it for sale.

Honestly I do not have much to add to this convesation, not a competetive player. Balance? Don't care about balance as long as the game is fun.
If one faction is really powerful or other is really gimped it kinda sucks though.

Petrov wrote:
Honestly I do not have much to add to this convesation, not a competetive player. Balance? Don't care about balance as long as the game is fun.
If one faction is really powerful or other is really gimped it kinda sucks though.

And for some, balance would keep the game fun.

I guess if you are playing pick up games, or dealing with a power gamer it would take the fun out of it.

Petrov wrote:
I guess if you are playing pick up games, or dealing with a power gamer it would take the fun out of it.

Which is the problem many people have, unfortunately. Admittedly, a tight gaming group of all like-minded people would allow for a lot of house ruling and equal footing, but I imagine many gamers don't have that readily available.

Hence why balance issues, and proper rule wording are key to the success of any game.

Why does it have to be a power gamer?
I'm making a Tau list and see something tough, versatile, and can dish out some good damage.
I see the buffs the commander can give reliably each turn.
And I'm the bad guy for taking something that I like and it's actually good?

Bad balance limits non competitive lists too. Friendly game? No more than a single riptide, no Farsight bomb, don't take multiple broadside units, no firewarrior spam with ethereal/fire blades, and no spamming markerlights and JSJ. This is why I don't even bother with non-competitive games. They think they open themselves up to much more variety and found the smart way to play, but don't realize how much they actually limit lists and games.

 insaniak wrote:


You give a rough script to your amateur theater group. Those actors who enjoy and are good at ad-libbing will do fine with it. Those actors who aren't... won't, and don't bother coming back for next week's rehearsal.

On the other hand, you give a finished, polished script to your amateur theater group. Those actors who enjoy and are good at ad-libbing will do fine with it. Those actors who aren't... will still do fine with it, because they can just follow the script.

The 'framework' argument is a nonsense excuse for rushing out rules that haven't been cooked for long enough, and it alienates a large part of the potential player base without actually adding anything to the game that wouldn't still be there if the rules were actually finished before release.
(...)

^This

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Why does it have to be a power gamer?
I'm making a Tau list and see something tough, versatile, and can dish out some good damage.
I see the buffs the commander can give reliably each turn.
And I'm the bad guy for taking something that I like and it's actually good?

Bad balance limits non competitive lists too. Friendly game? No more than a single riptide, no Farsight bomb, don't take multiple broadside units, no firewarrior spam with ethereal/fire blades, and no spamming markerlights and JSJ. This is why I don't even bother with non-competitive games. They think they open themselves up to much more variety and found the smart way to play, but don't realize how much they actually limit lists and games.

Over on the thread about tac marines, this is the solution many people advocate. Self-nerfing.

 Blacksails wrote:

Petrov wrote:
I guess if you are playing pick up games, or dealing with a power gamer it would take the fun out of it.

Which is the problem many people have, unfortunately. Admittedly, a tight gaming group of all like-minded people would allow for a lot of house ruling and equal footing, but I imagine many gamers don't have that readily available.

Hence why balance issues, and proper rule wording are key to the success of any game.

I would wager that the majority of 40K games in the US are done via "pick-up games" at a game store versus an established gaming club where you can have "club rules" to get rid of the most game-breaking things. Hence why GW must care about balance, because you can't reasonably have a list of your house rules and hand them to your opponent before every random game.

Now I can't speak to everybody else, and take anything I say with a grain of salt as I haven't played in 12 years, but then and even now I don't see gaming clubs, I see game stores with a couple of tables set aside for wargames and a night dedicated as "miniatures night" (with every other night being for MtG and whoever happens to wander in with another game) where you can play whatever game you fancy provided you have an opponent - in most cases that's 40K. So you turn up to the shop and if you're lucky somebody else had the same idea, and you play a game. You can't be expected to come up with "house rules" for a random game. If it was part of a league/campaign/tournament then I could see limiting specific things for the duration of that, but most of us only play against what amounts to random strangers (who might over time become acquaintances/friends) at a game shop, and having rules that aren't balanced means you could end up facing somebody with the Taudar army that tables everybody one week, a guy with a balanced force the next and a guy with some weird unorthodox "I don't have a hope in hell of winning, but damn I'm going to look good while losing" army the week after that. It's random who you will face, which is why the rules need to be balanced so that a well-rounded army is the norm, not the outlier.

Martel732 wrote:


Over on the thread about tac marines, this is the solution many people advocate. Self-nerfing.

Its because you're playing the game wrong, don't ya know?

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


Over on the thread about tac marines, this is the solution many people advocate. Self-nerfing.

Its because you're playing the game wrong, don't ya know?

That's several people's basic argument. Marines can't handle Taudar at full strength, so the Taudar players shouldn't play at full strength.

WayneTheGame wrote:

I would wager that the majority of 40K games in the US are done via "pick-up games" at a game store versus an established gaming club where you can have "club rules" to get rid of the most game-breaking things. Hence why GW must care about balance, because you can't reasonably have a list of your house rules and hand them to your opponent before every random game.

Now I can't speak to everybody else, and take anything I say with a grain of salt as I haven't played in 12 years, but then and even now I don't see gaming clubs, I see game stores with a couple of tables set aside for wargames and a night dedicated as "miniatures night" where you can play whatever game you fancy provided you have an opponent - in most cases that's 40K. So you turn up to the shop and if you're lucky somebody else had the same idea, and you play a game. You can't be expected to come up with "house rules" for a random game. If it was part of a league/campaign/tournament then I could see limiting specific things for the duration of that, but most of us only play against what amounts to random strangers (who might over time become acquaintances/friends) at a game shop, and having rules that aren't balanced means you could end up facing somebody with the Taudar army that tables everybody one week, a guy with a balanced force the next and a guy with some weird unorthodox "I don't have a hope in hell of winning, but damn I'm going to look good while losing" army the week after that. It's random who you will face, which is why the rules need to be balanced so that a well-rounded army is the norm, not the outlier.

You know, I think what bothers me the most about the game of 40k is the artificial divide it creates through its poor wording and lack of balance.

Sometimes I wonder how the community would look is the game was balanced and tighter.

It would be...

Beautiful

Well if GW are not interested in balance or any sort of competitive play.And they just want people to experience co-operative narrative games.
Why put PV and FoC in the codex books?

Because it's a guideline. The book even tells you that you don't need to use it and are free to make your own.

 insaniak wrote:

The other thing that gets me with regards to the lack of balance (perceived or otherwise) is that the community seems intent on simultaneously bemoaning and exploiting the balancing issues. Half the posts in 40k General are about how the likes of Heldrakes, Wave Serpents or triptides break the game, and yet every post in tactics is always 'take more riptides/heldrakes/wave serpents because they're amazing.'

If you're playing a game where the object is to win (which is ultimately most games), and some things in that game are clearly more powerful than others, it's fairly easily apparent that the best chance of winning will come from taking those things in your army.

Realising that those things are cheaper or more powerful than they should be doesn't change that.

Like I said, I entirely appreciate that for some, the victory is the ultimate goal, but my problem is when those same people who exploit and encourage that exploitation of the balance issues are the ones complaining about how 40k can't function as a competitive game due to those same problems.

I am also a firm advocate of choosing your army from what you like the look/fluff/stlye of, and winning in the game, rather than this idea that everyone must take the best possible units all the time and cut&paste netlists to win. Looking at it from a narrative POV, I doubt there ever has or ever will be a battle where a commander has had exactly the troops and resources they need, and to me it almost breaks the immersion when I see those min-maxed optimised lists being played that do not at all represent the force or situation.

I fully understand there are players who don't give a care about the fluff, but in my own opinion, list building is not what the game is about. It takes far more skill to win with an army of non-optimised or spammed units that it does to win with mass-spam/ridiculous combo lists. Like I said above, I am lucky enough to play with a group of people who have the same mindset, and have never found there to be any issue with balance. The simple fact is, if both players are going with something that's 'good enough', rather than the absolute best, then it becomes far more about skill than any inherent imbalance.

Similarly, when every new player is told to spam the OP units, the problems are only going to continue to exist.

Yup, it's totally the fault of the players that the writers of the game keep putting those OP units in the codexes...

This problem will go away the moment GW's games devs start finishing their work before they release it for sale.

Nowhere have I said that it's the fault of the players that such units exist. I will say that is possibly the fault of the attitude of portions of the player base to go looking for the most powerful units and combos when this is clearly not how the game is intended to be played, that cause the problem. If people were to all play the game in the way it seems obviously built for (build a force you like, roll some dice, see a cool story unfold) rather than going for making the absolute best combos and furthermore suggesting these to any new player that asks for advice, then the issue of balance would rear its ugly head far less often.

Take for example when 6th came out, every IG player was told by the majority of posters to spam Vendettas. I would like to think that none of those same players ever complained about Vendettas being OP (Although I imagine many did), as to suggest something to someone on the basis it's the best and then complain about it being too good is crazy.

I think there's a good chance the problems would go away if people got over the obsession with taking the best and instead taking what's 'good enough'. The lack of balance, although it starts at the dev level, is extremely exacerbated by the crowds of competitive players who feel the need to exploit that system for all that it's got.

But narrative co-operative games do not need any guidelines, the players just make them up as they want to!

Including PV and FoC lets players think they can use the rules and codex books to play 'competitively' to a set PV with a set way of structuring forces.(Suitable for pick up and play games)
Which is very odd if GW only want people to play co-operative narrative games.

Or are GW plc just using the terms 'casual, cinematic, and narrative' to try to excuse poor rules writing ?

Lanrak wrote:
But narrative co-operative games do not need any guidelines, the players just make them up as they want to!

Including PV and FoC lets players think they can use the rules and codex books to play 'competitively' to a set PV with a set way of structuring forces.(Suitable for pick up and play games)
Which is very odd if GW only want people to play co-operative narrative games.

Or are GW plc just using the terms 'casual, cinematic, and narrative' to try to excuse poor rules writing ?

There is a difference between co-op narrative and a game between two playeres based around a narrative. The object of the game is still to win, but the idea is that fun stuff will happen on the way there. So it's not like both players are going to just completely ignore winning, but it's certainly secondary to how you get to the result in GW's eyes (and my own, for that matter).

The 'guidelines' are there for those that can't be bothered to make up their own rules. I'm sure that, no matter how bad GW's rules are, the majority of players could not do better themselves, and having overall guidelines does help in pick-up games. Can you imagine walking into the store and creating a ruleset with your opponent before each game? No, so GW provide the framework so that everyone is mostly on the same page, while still actively giving you the freedom to do your own thing should you want to.

 Paradigm wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
But narrative co-operative games do not need any guidelines, the players just make them up as they want to!

Including PV and FoC lets players think they can use the rules and codex books to play 'competitively' to a set PV with a set way of structuring forces.(Suitable for pick up and play games)
Which is very odd if GW only want people to play co-operative narrative games.

Or are GW plc just using the terms 'casual, cinematic, and narrative' to try to excuse poor rules writing ?

There is a difference between co-op narrative and a game between two playeres based around a narrative. The object of the game is still to win, but the idea is that fun stuff will happen on the way there. So it's not like both players are going to just completely ignore winning, but it's certainly secondary to how you get to the result in GW's eyes (and my own, for that matter).

The 'guidelines' are there for those that can't be bothered to make up their own rules. I'm sure that, no matter how bad GW's rules are, the majority of players could not do better themselves, and having overall guidelines does help in pick-up games. Can you imagine walking into the store and creating a ruleset with your opponent before each game? No, so GW provide the framework so that everyone is mostly on the same page, while still actively giving you the freedom to do your own thing should you want to.

There is logic behind your attitude but in the end it's making up excuses for lack of balance and bad rules that they charge big money for. Btw why can't the framework be better writen, more balanced, more tactical? You prefer watching a war movie where you only see the main charaters and their fate or the one when you also have the whole situation shown and explained for you to analyse? Even your stories would benefit from better rules.

Is it a coincidence that I don't see these sort of threads in the WHFB part of the forum? That's GW too.

I wouldn't know about WHFB. Both areas I've been to have completely dried up for Fantasy after 8th dropped.

Aaaaaand another thread bashing "anonymous GW rep" in case of "my sisters boyfriends uncle met the son of GW rep, BUT ITS COMPLETELY TRUE!"...

Yeah, GW is evil, wants to eat your children and make money, time to start revolution...Oh My Emperor...

 Wilytank wrote:
Is it a coincidence that I don't see these sort of threads in the WHFB part of the forum? That's GW too.

Not nearly as many people around there to talk about it and there is a general concensus there that while fantasy still has plenty of problems it has MUCH better balance than 40k.