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.

Breng77 wrote:

The imbalance is also an obvious money grab and they essentially say as much. New unit screw your army...change your army to fight that unit. We don't want take all comers because that means you only need to buy 2000 points (or whatever) worth of models...instead of 10000 so you can tailor to fight whatever new crap we throw out there

Hmmm, that's more of a grey area for me.

I actually don't really like the idea of list tailoring, nor do I really agree with the mindset of buying the newest, most broken, army.

The hobbyist in me feels that the "proper" way to collect an army is to find a faction you strongly identify with, and build up a diverse collection of units over a period of time, allowing you to field multiple lists in different flavours at different point levels eventually.

That isn't to say that I think that everyone should do it that way, but those that abuse poor rule design by collecting a force that runs only one way in order to take advantage of an imbalance perhaps have less right to complain than someone who has a large and diverse collection when the clock ticks around and the Nerf bat swings due to a new codex or edition change.

I also don't begrudge any company making a living, so structuring the game to encourage further purchases is sensible - but there's more than one approach to this, and GW have taken the wrong one IMO. Much better to have a range of awesome models that makes your customers want to own them all, and a set of balanced and well written rules that makes all of them playable than an arms race that can inevitably only end when the power level gets so ridiculous that even 10 year olds are simply going "wtf" when the rules are published.

 azreal13 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

The imbalance is also an obvious money grab and they essentially say as much. New unit screw your army...change your army to fight that unit. We don't want take all comers because that means you only need to buy 2000 points (or whatever) worth of models...instead of 10000 so you can tailor to fight whatever new crap we throw out there

Hmmm, that's more of a grey area for me.

I actually don't really like the idea of list tailoring, nor do I really agree with the mindset of buying the newest, most broken, army.

The hobbyist in me feels that the "proper" way to collect an army is to find a faction you strongly identify with, and build up a diverse collection of units over a period of time, allowing you to field multiple lists in different flavours at different point levels eventually.

That isn't to say that I think that everyone should do it that way, but those that abuse poor rule design by collecting a force that runs only one way in order to take advantage of an imbalance perhaps have less right to complain than someone who has a large and diverse collection when the clock ticks around and the Nerf bat swings due to a new codex or edition change.

I get what you're saying, but the idea you should buy lots of stuff to protect yourself from the makers of the game just seems....mad.

See here is the thing though...if I don't have a ton of money a TAC (not uber new broken) list allows me to buy 2k points of models (not cheap in its own right), and expect to be able to play it in any game and have a reasonable chance. Instead of needing to own tons of stuff just to have fun. Then when they swing that bat, or add a hard counter...the army I spent money and time on is now dead...and it was not OP at all.

For instance I am currently playing a fairly TAC nurgle Daemon list...hardly the new most broken thing. But releases like knights basically tell me....well if you want to enjoy this game you need to bring hard counters which leads to more net listing etc.

I agree with them making money, but also agree with you that a better approach is making everything viable...because it makes the hobby more accessable.

From a purely money-making perspective, the best approach to rules writing that i can think of would be to make all units good in some way against various opponents, and put rules in that allow you a degree of list tailoring pre-game. This would encourage players to have large, varied collections ensuring all kits will sell well.

I wish I knew what GW was truely thinking. Maybe, they really think they are balanced, and then again maybe they don't care if any balance exists. I would love to see an article either way from them, at least then I'd know.

I keep hearing this "its a beer and pretzels game" crap from people, and it annoys me. For me a true beer and pretzels game is based on balance, where two people can play any two different armies and still have equal chances of winning.

The best games that I ever played are the ones that go down to the wire for the win in my book. Unfortunatly, they have been few and far between lately.

I'll be the first to admitt that my local meta has become WAAC, its kind of a downer. If I don't bring a tournment list I'm not going to have even a fair shot. I can't not play them, because well then who's left?

Recruitment into the game is becoming harder and harder, I find myself playing a handicap list (matching army selection choices: troop for troop etc.) so I don't chase people away. GW does a good enough job of that themselves when it comes to price.

 azreal13 wrote:


I actually don't really like the idea of list tailoring, nor do I really agree with the mindset of buying the newest, most broken, army.


I also don't begrudge any company making a living, so structuring the game to encourage further purchases is sensible - but there's more than one approach to this, and GW have taken the wrong one IMO. Much better to have a range of awesome models that makes your customers want to own them all, and a set of balanced and well written rules that makes all of them playable than an arms race that can inevitably only end when the power level gets so ridiculous that even 10 year olds are simply going "wtf" when the rules are published.

Here here!

I never understood why GW doesn't make their game like WotC do with MtG . MtG is fun and balanced on every level . World class tournament are played with it and so do we in small drafts . w40k seems to be fun only , if your playing one of the top builds at the moment and every one else hopes they will get one in the near future.

Makumba wrote:
I never understood why GW doesn't make their game like WotC do with MtG . MtG is fun and balanced on every level . World class tournament are played with it and so do we in small drafts . w40k seems to be fun only , if your playing one of the top builds at the moment and every one else hopes they will get one in the near future.

Neither do I. They could have both, but for some reason they think it's mutually exclusive. I've long maintained that there should be a solid, tightly-tuned "core" set of rules designed with competitive games and tournaments in mind. You then allow add-ons that loosen the rules for friendly and narrative play; things like fortifications, escalation, apocalypse, etc.

It's much easier to bolt on things to loosen up tightly-tuned rules, than to tighten up a loose set of rules, and that's the issue right now. The game is built around loose rules instead of having a tightly written ruleset that can be made more flexible.

 Swastakowey wrote:
One last comment before I stop receiving comments here.
The point of what im saying is not to play it my way, but to use your brains to look at what is stopping you from enjoying the game with your friends and work out how to make the game your own.
Dont like small games? well dont play em, play bigger games and find another solution to your problem. Sitting in your chairs complaining and crying whilst doing nothing solves nothing. If you keep doing the same thing you keep getting the same result.
As to the advertisements, I can play the game without re writing anything. But its more fun to make the game fit the style of games you do with friends. If you are dumb enough to buy a game you dont like well jokes on you.
So keep complaining. It will fall on deaf ears. Keep playing a game that "doesnt function" you are simply wasting life time. Keep blaming someone else for your purchase, it only prolongs the problem.
Unless you have a better solution. Shut up.

I find myself agreeing with Swastakowey here.
He’s right.
Boil 40k right down to its barest elements – if you’re not having fun, why? If you’re not having fun, why not change it yourself? if you can’t change it, why not walk away? At the end of the day, you are the only one who is responsible for what you are doing, and the actions that you take.
It’s not that walking away can’t be done.I walked away from 40k, from 3 editions of gaming-from a large tau army, a whole bunch of space wolves, marines and assorted odds and ends. I have three editions worth of codices (plus sixth ed tau). Being “invested” did not stop me from walking away when I realised 40k as a game wasn’t offering me what I wanted. 40k was toxic. The community at large was toxic. And no amount of wishlisting, complaining, or internet discussion would solve it. I simply dropped sticks, walked off and found games that were offering what I wanted. And since then, I’ve been playing warmachine/hordes (3 years), infinity (3 years), flames of war (1 year) and recently dropzone commander (1 week! Just bought the starter!) instead of a game I essentially didn’t like any more, and do you know what? It’s made me love my hobby again.
Maybe it’s about where I am in life, or maybe it’s just been my experience up to now, or the life changes I’ve made (getting a lot more active) but in the last few years I’ve very much embraced the idea of self- reliance, self- discipline, and personal responsibility in my life.
Don’t confuse sharp elbows with insulting behaviour. People seem to want GW to offer them a perfect game. Well, they won’t. Be realistic. Be practical. GW is making (rightly or wrongly!) the game they want to make. They’re not bothering any more with ideas of “balance”. They don’t want it. they’re not bothering any more with the idea of making 40k a game for all gamer types. Historically, 40k was a game where everyone was welcome – hobbyists, casuals, competitives, cut-throat competitives, and everyone in between. It was an open sandbox. Now though, they’re dragging 40k kicking and screaming to where they want it to be- a casual, open, no holds barred, narrative driven game with everything from small wee scraps to minicalypse games. They’re making the game into what they want it to be. They’re giving you options to play with, nothing more. And folks don’t like it. Fair play. You’re fully entitled to that POV. If I still played, I’d probably be annoyed too! But here’s the thing – too often these discussions end up being a never ending series of circular arguments, complaints and moaning. And I genuinely believe people get trapped by all that negativity. And you end up not being able to see the forest for the trees.
Look back and see what Swas is saying: Sitting in your chairs complaining and crying whilst doing nothing solves nothing. If you keep doing the same thing you keep getting the same result.
Also: If you are dumb enough to buy a game you dont like well jokes on you.
And: So keep complaining. It will fall on deaf ears. Keep playing a game that "doesnt function" you are simply wasting life time. Keep blaming someone else for your purchase, it only prolongs the problem.
Sharp elbows aside, these are valid points. Being utterly ruthless about it, everything he’s saying is right. Moaning about stuff on the internet does nothing. Repeating this won’t change it. then folks keep continually buying into it. What? Were they expecting different? And keeping at it is just a waste of time. Your time. And its too bloody valuable to just fritter away on a game that makes you mad. Stand up, and take responsibility. I’ll repeat what I said earlier: At the end of the day, you are the only one who is responsible for what you are doing, and the actions that you take.
Swas was right. And to be fair, he has some valid ideas for actually doing something about it.
The point of what im saying is not to play it my way, but to use your brains to look at what is stopping you from enjoying the game with your friends and work out how to make the game your own. Dont like small games? well dont play em, play bigger games and find another solution to your problem.
Find other games if (like me) 40k doesn’t offer you what you want. fix it yourselves if you don’t like what GW offers! We’ve never had it so good in terms of options and alternatives. You don’t have to play the game their way. Be assertive, and take charge of the game, and make it the game you want to play. What is it you don’t like? Get rid of it, or change it. What is it you do like? Expand on it, and play. Get like-minded folks involved. Organise. Get active. you don’t have to make one game to rule them all – everyone wants something different, and that’s OK. It’s Ok to just run things for you and your mate, don’t think it has to be able to accommodate a theoretical “that guy” you may or may not meet, some way down the line. Its “your game” first and foremost. Lets be honest, while it’s a small community, its never been easier for our community to organise – facebook etc. Pick up games ? is there a chance to go further with your hobby than “head down to the shop and play a game with someone”? Get involved. Organise. Make it more than what it is.
And to make a criticism, I think too many members of our community are content to give out mercilessly and incessantly, a lot fewer are willing to take charge, step up and do something about it. it seems no one wants to do any of the necessary work. Sometimes I think if a tenth of the energy that’s put into complaining was directed into this, we’d have a far better, more vibrant, and less toxic community. And that is a failure that is entirely on us, and of our own making. Maybe it’s just me, but I've been willing to do the work involved to make a game that I enjoy (and I hope others are too) for my group of friends. For our group, I’ve written up a set of rules for a squad based skirmish. Nothing fancy, but it’s fun. I’ve written up an infinity home brew that streamlined the game. I’m currently turning my mind to a space combat game (interesting mental challenge, let me tell you!). We're all happy to house rule, and home brew.
I genuinely think a lot of the problems folks have with the game would be solved by being more assertive, and stepping up to do something about it. I genuinely feel from personal experience that it is its own reward.

but yeah, its only my own $0.02

feel free to disagree.

I was thinking of that too. MtG even brought in side decks to give you the ability to swap out for some versatility.

My biggest issue with 40K, outside of the hard counter armies, is the overwhelming amount of random tables. Psyker powers should not be random, it leaves too many times when a cheap psyker gets a powerful spell or expensive psyker Hqs getting nothing worth a damn, like MoT sorcerers.

Warlord traits that either give an entire army stealth in ruins or lets you re-roll your reserve roll on an army that has no reserves or even something as stupidly good as letting a knight warlord and d3 buddies outflank. Seriously, outflank? Like they would have issues moving down field or need to remove any threat from drop pod melta at all.

Deadnight wrote:

I genuinely think a lot of the problems folks have with the game would be solved by being more assertive, and stepping up to do something about it. I genuinely feel from personal experience that it is its own reward.

What you and Swastakowey don't get is that you can't always do this. In my meta you'd likely get laughed at if you tried to hash out how to fix the rules before each game, or if you came with your own house rules; nobody would play you.

If you play in a club or regular group it's one thing to have "club rules" that fix things, but if you don't then you can't really just go around fixing things, when the rules should be written in a fair and balanced way to encourage playing anywhere against anyone. And that's part of the issue. In the same breath GW says they have a game that lets you play against anyone else, and a game that's meant to have a discussion before you play about what you are using, what kind of list you should bring, etc. Instead of making sure the rules are tuned and allowing exceptions for friendly games, GW has tried to do both extremely badly.

The random tables and junk should be extra optional rules you can add for more cinematic battles (or whatever junk they try to use to justify it) and not part of the core rules. There's a reason most of that rubbish was dumped after Rogue Trader, but now it seems they want to have Warhammer 40,000: Epic Rogue Trader Edition with bigger and larger armies and more random charts.

At the end of the day, you are the only one who is responsible for what you are doing, and the actions that you take.
It’s not that walking away can’t be done

And then what not play wargames at all ? Other game systems are not played as offten as w40k . It is lucky if there is a one shop per city that supports warmachine or infinity , in smaller cities w40k is the only game being played . And about changing stuff I don't like , how am I suppose to make people not use their eldar titans, riptides , deathstars . I don't like those , but they are having one hell of a time using them . No one is going to agree to have less fun , for others to have some .

I can't help but laugh every time I see someone suggest "just make your own rules."
In general people are pretty terrible at it. Look at GW, they're bad at it and they're professionals with decades of experience.

If you ever think a solution is "just make rules that work" then I invite you to go check out the Proposed Rules section and look at all the entries for the Emperor or anime inspired special characters.

GW is fundamentally a miniatures company, not a gaming company. The rules are almost an afterthought stuck onto some pretty awesome models to create an incentive to buy them.

As to how to deal with the fact that the game is unbalanced all you've got is house rules. Whether you're adding rules on top of 40k or building a new game from the ground up (as some of us are doing on these very forums) you're limited by the inevitable limited acceptance of your rules but if you're playing with people you know it's entirely possible you could come up with a more fun game for your group.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I can't help but laugh every time I see someone suggest "just make your own rules."
In general people are pretty terrible at it. Look at GW, they're bad at it and they're professionals with decades of experience.

If you ever think a solution is "just make rules that work" then I invite you to go check out the Proposed Rules section and look at all the entries for the Emperor or anime inspired special characters.

GW is also bound by the constraints of the model-selling side of the business and tied to a release schedule that doesn't allow live updates to the army books, both of which we're not. If you dig through the chaff on Proposed Rules some of us are actually trying to create a meaningful dialogue on fixing the game, http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/566430.page managed to go through nineteen pages of discussion on the topic and come out of it with several people working on revised systems.

If GW is a model company above being a rule company, then why do they sell two army books that contain the exact same models but only slightly different rules? GW does not get to use the excuse of being a model company first, since they started shelling out supplements and data slates. The army release should be all the incentive to buy models for that army. I shouldn't need a data slate on top of that to get me to purchase Broadsides and a Riptide.

Deadnight wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
One last comment before I stop receiving comments here.
The point of what im saying is not to play it my way, but to use your brains to look at what is stopping you from enjoying the game with your friends and work out how to make the game your own.
Dont like small games? well dont play em, play bigger games and find another solution to your problem. Sitting in your chairs complaining and crying whilst doing nothing solves nothing. If you keep doing the same thing you keep getting the same result.
As to the advertisements, I can play the game without re writing anything. But its more fun to make the game fit the style of games you do with friends. If you are dumb enough to buy a game you dont like well jokes on you.
So keep complaining. It will fall on deaf ears. Keep playing a game that "doesnt function" you are simply wasting life time. Keep blaming someone else for your purchase, it only prolongs the problem.
Unless you have a better solution. Shut up.

I find myself agreeing with Swastakowey here.
He’s right.
Boil 40k right down to its barest elements – if you’re not having fun, why? If you’re not having fun, why not change it yourself? if you can’t change it, why not walk away? At the end of the day, you are the only one who is responsible for what you are doing, and the actions that you take.
It’s not that walking away can’t be done.I walked away from 40k, from 3 editions of gaming-from a large tau army, a whole bunch of space wolves, marines and assorted odds and ends. I have three editions worth of codices (plus sixth ed tau). Being “invested” did not stop me from walking away when I realised 40k as a game wasn’t offering me what I wanted. 40k was toxic. The community at large was toxic. And no amount of wishlisting, complaining, or internet discussion would solve it. I simply dropped sticks, walked off and found games that were offering what I wanted. And since then, I’ve been playing warmachine/hordes (3 years), infinity (3 years), flames of war (1 year) and recently dropzone commander (1 week! Just bought the starter!) instead of a game I essentially didn’t like any more, and do you know what? It’s made me love my hobby again.
Maybe it’s about where I am in life, or maybe it’s just been my experience up to now, or the life changes I’ve made (getting a lot more active) but in the last few years I’ve very much embraced the idea of self- reliance, self- discipline, and personal responsibility in my life.
Don’t confuse sharp elbows with insulting behaviour. People seem to want GW to offer them a perfect game. Well, they won’t. Be realistic. Be practical. GW is making (rightly or wrongly!) the game they want to make. They’re not bothering any more with ideas of “balance”. They don’t want it. they’re not bothering any more with the idea of making 40k a game for all gamer types. Historically, 40k was a game where everyone was welcome – hobbyists, casuals, competitives, cut-throat competitives, and everyone in between. It was an open sandbox. Now though, they’re dragging 40k kicking and screaming to where they want it to be- a casual, open, no holds barred, narrative driven game with everything from small wee scraps to minicalypse games. They’re making the game into what they want it to be. They’re giving you options to play with, nothing more. And folks don’t like it. Fair play. You’re fully entitled to that POV. If I still played, I’d probably be annoyed too! But here’s the thing – too often these discussions end up being a never ending series of circular arguments, complaints and moaning. And I genuinely believe people get trapped by all that negativity. And you end up not being able to see the forest for the trees.
Look back and see what Swas is saying: Sitting in your chairs complaining and crying whilst doing nothing solves nothing. If you keep doing the same thing you keep getting the same result.
Also: If you are dumb enough to buy a game you dont like well jokes on you.
And: So keep complaining. It will fall on deaf ears. Keep playing a game that "doesnt function" you are simply wasting life time. Keep blaming someone else for your purchase, it only prolongs the problem.
Sharp elbows aside, these are valid points. Being utterly ruthless about it, everything he’s saying is right. Moaning about stuff on the internet does nothing. Repeating this won’t change it. then folks keep continually buying into it. What? Were they expecting different? And keeping at it is just a waste of time. Your time. And its too bloody valuable to just fritter away on a game that makes you mad. Stand up, and take responsibility. I’ll repeat what I said earlier: At the end of the day, you are the only one who is responsible for what you are doing, and the actions that you take.
Swas was right. And to be fair, he has some valid ideas for actually doing something about it.
The point of what im saying is not to play it my way, but to use your brains to look at what is stopping you from enjoying the game with your friends and work out how to make the game your own. Dont like small games? well dont play em, play bigger games and find another solution to your problem.
Find other games if (like me) 40k doesn’t offer you what you want. fix it yourselves if you don’t like what GW offers! We’ve never had it so good in terms of options and alternatives. You don’t have to play the game their way. Be assertive, and take charge of the game, and make it the game you want to play. What is it you don’t like? Get rid of it, or change it. What is it you do like? Expand on it, and play. Get like-minded folks involved. Organise. Get active. you don’t have to make one game to rule them all – everyone wants something different, and that’s OK. It’s Ok to just run things for you and your mate, don’t think it has to be able to accommodate a theoretical “that guy” you may or may not meet, some way down the line. Its “your game” first and foremost. Lets be honest, while it’s a small community, its never been easier for our community to organise – facebook etc. Pick up games ? is there a chance to go further with your hobby than “head down to the shop and play a game with someone”? Get involved. Organise. Make it more than what it is.
And to make a criticism, I think too many members of our community are content to give out mercilessly and incessantly, a lot fewer are willing to take charge, step up and do something about it. it seems no one wants to do any of the necessary work. Sometimes I think if a tenth of the energy that’s put into complaining was directed into this, we’d have a far better, more vibrant, and less toxic community. And that is a failure that is entirely on us, and of our own making. Maybe it’s just me, but I've been willing to do the work involved to make a game that I enjoy (and I hope others are too) for my group of friends. For our group, I’ve written up a set of rules for a squad based skirmish. Nothing fancy, but it’s fun. I’ve written up an infinity home brew that streamlined the game. I’m currently turning my mind to a space combat game (interesting mental challenge, let me tell you!). We're all happy to house rule, and home brew.
I genuinely think a lot of the problems folks have with the game would be solved by being more assertive, and stepping up to do something about it. I genuinely feel from personal experience that it is its own reward.

but yeah, its only my own $0.02

feel free to disagree.

This is spot on.

Unfortunately for a lot of people complaining about 40k is literally their hobby instead of actually finding ways to enjoy 40k AS a hobby.

I don't know a single person in reality who spends a lot of money or invests a lot of time into a hobby (something that by nature is optional, leisurely, and intended to be enjoyable to you/relevant to your interests), but complains about it everyday. If you have ever reached the pinnacle of toxicity and distaste in your 'hobby', it's time to find a new one.

WayneTheGame wrote:
What you and Swastakowey don't get is that you can't always do this. In my meta you'd likely get laughed at if you tried to hash out how to fix the rules before each game, or if you came with your own house rules; nobody would play you.

I do get it though. Since I’ve played the pick up games, club games, big convention tourney games, and at a mates house games. I’m sympathetic, but I find it hard to believe you are the only horse in town who has issues with the game, and who wouldn’t want to try something different. Like I said, we live in a world of facebook, gaming clubs, and internet forums. Getting active, and getting organised is how you get going about it, if you ask me. Because typing things on Dakka wont change the game for the better, I figure you’ve gotta go out there and do it yourself. Maybe I’m just too used to having two or three friends getting together, getting on the same page, willing to make the games we play ours, more fun, and more interesting for us, and just doing our own thing. I don’t think I’m unique in this, and I don’t see how this is something that only we are capable/interested in doing.

WayneTheGame wrote:
If you play in a club or regular group it's one thing to have "club rules" that fix things, but if you don't then you can't really just go around fixing things, when the rules should be written in a fair and balanced way to encourage playing anywhere against anyone. And that's part of the issue. In the same breath GW says they have a game that lets you play against anyone else, and a game that's meant to have a discussion before you play about what you are using, what kind of list you should bring, etc. Instead of making sure the rules are tuned and allowing exceptions for friendly games, GW has tried to do both extremely badly.

GW is doing what GW wants to do. this wont change. ever. We will be seeing similar discussions in ten years time when ninth or tenth edition hits. Firstly, You don’t have to tie your boat to their ship. I know GW does things badly. That’s why I walked away. The game wasn’t giving me what I wanted.
Secondly, why cant you go about fixing things? you don’t need to think on a global scale where anyone can play against anyone. The community is simply too fractured – a lot of people want different things. Its like recycling -I can’t save the world, but I can do my little bit, in my little corner.

WayneTheGame wrote:
The random tables and junk should be extra optional rules you can add for more cinematic battles (or whatever junk they try to use to justify it) and not part of the core rules. There's a reason most of that rubbish was dumped after Rogue Trader, but now it seems they want to have Warhammer 40,000: Epic Rogue Trader Edition with bigger and larger armies and more random charts.

Agreed – no argument here Wayne. 40k has turned into 40k:minicalypse in terms of the scale its played at. But again, its GW doing what they want to do. Its not for me, so I don’t get involved. Personally, I’d just walk away and do something else.

Makumba wrote:
And then what not play wargames at all ? Other game systems are not played as offten as w40k . It is lucky if there is a one shop per city that supports warmachine or infinity , in smaller cities w40k is the only game being played . And about changing stuff I don't like , how am I suppose to make people not use their eldar titans, riptides , deathstars . I don't like those , but they are having one hell of a time using them . No one is going to agree to have less fun , for others to have some .

Why play wargames? Because you like playing wargames is the answer.
Mate, I live in a small city, and can get games of 40k, fantasy, warmachine, hordes, infinity, dystopian wars, firestorm armada, flames of war, dropzone commander, malifaux, bolt action, etc pretty much any night of the week. And I don’t have to drive further than 45 minutes for any of these. And this is with limited support for DZC and Infinity. You’d be surprised whats under the radar, and for what its worth, its not impossible to get people interested in a new game – that’s how infinity, and malifaux has picked up so much here-folks on the ground level working hard to build communities.
40k is still an extremely popular game, but it’s far from being the only game in town. I’ve seen 40k gutted back home in Ireland, with a lot of retailers now doing a big stockings of WMH stuff, and its similar here in the UK. It’s not hard to get the pieces together.
How do you make people not use their stuff? Find like-minded people that don’t like “that sort of thing”. That’s how I’d do it. And IMO, they’re out there. It’s not a zero-sum equation. Again, it boils down to the “if you’re not having fun, why are you doing it argument”, which is followed by “is there an alternative, or something you can do about it”. I was unhappy, so I walked. And found something better. And it worked for me.

Savageconvoy wrote:I can't help but laugh every time I see someone suggest "just make your own rules."
In general people are pretty terrible at it. Look at GW, they're bad at it and they're professionals with decades of experience.
If you ever think a solution is "just make rules that work" then I invite you to go check out the Proposed Rules section and look at all the entries for the Emperor or anime inspired special characters.

Yeah, agreed. The proposed rules section is amusing. To be fair though, I don’t see any issues with houseruling “all vehicles have +1 hull point”. Or saying “skirmish game, infantry and light walkers (like sentinels) only”. Or whatever. I mean, it’s worth trying. PP do specific format games all the time. I don’t see why this couldn’t work. And if it doesn’t work, try something else. For me, part of the fun is refining a system, and trying new things. Especially with people who are on the same page as yourself in trying to figure out how to make the game you want it to be. I mean, we’ve “bolted on” mechanics from bolt action to our flames of war games and had an absolute blast. If someone wanted to do a stormtrooper army using the IG platoon structure, I’d think it would be pretty cool.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
GW is fundamentally a miniatures company, not a gaming company. The rules are almost an afterthought stuck onto some pretty awesome models to create an incentive to buy them.

Selling additional rules for existing models with existing rules in form of supplements and data slates determined this to be a lie.

The are creating rules, selling rules and making profit of them. They are a gaming company and their product is of mediocre quality at best.

 Jidmah wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
GW is fundamentally a miniatures company, not a gaming company. The rules are almost an afterthought stuck onto some pretty awesome models to create an incentive to buy them.

Selling additional rules for existing models with existing rules in form of supplements and data slates determined this to be a lie.

The are creating rules, selling rules and making profit of them. They are a gaming company and their product is of mediocre quality at best.

Pretty much. You can say you're a miniatures company until the cows come home, but charging $50 for the book required to use said miniatures, plus $75 for the actual game rules, plus who knows how much for additional supplements and dataslates, many of which for some insane reason are digital only, says otherwise.

They're a game company that designs rules poorly, executes rules poorly, has zero marketing or PR and doesn't know how to capitalize on the internet, all the while justifying it by claiming they're a miniatures company and not a game company. Sorry, not buying it. A miniatures company would provide its rules cheap and/or free, not charge as much as many figures for the rules to use them.

 insaniak wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
GW games work as advertised.

The Games Workshop Website wrote:Warhammer 40,000: Rulebook


There is no time for peace. No respite. No forgiveness.

There is only WAR.

In the nightmare future of the 41st Millennium, Mankind teeters upon the brink of destruction. The galaxy-spanning Imperium of Man is beset on all sides by ravening aliens and threatened from within by Warp-spawned entities and heretical plots. Only the strength of the immortal Emperor of Terra stands between humanity and its annihilation, and in his name, countless warriors and agents do battle against the encroaching darkness. Foremost amongst them stand the Space Marines, the ultimate protectors of Mankind.

Across airless moons, within the depths of dark, twisted hive worlds and even in the immaterial realm of Warp space, battles rage that will shape the future of the galaxy forever.
It is a universe that you can enter today, if you dare. But remember that this is a dark and terrible era, and there is no peace amongst the stars...

The Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook is your essential guide to playing atmospheric battles in the 41st Millennium. It helps you field majestic armies of Citadel miniatures across the war-ravaged battlefields of the far-future, in the ultimate contest of strategy and skill.

With 452 full-colour pages, this hardback Rulebook is packed with rich background and contains all the rules for fighting pulse-pounding tabletop battles. The Rulebook includes exciting features such as dynamic close-combat, flyers, psychic devastation and interactive scenery. As well as jaw-dropping artwork, contained within is a history of the 41st Millennium and a richly detailed guide to the races and weapons of the far-future. It also features a comprehensive hobby section to set you on the path to choosing, collecting and building your own Warhammer 40,000 army of Citadel miniatures.
Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours.
Part Code: 60040199026

Maybe I missed it - Can you please point out the part in that advertisement that mentions having to re-write the rules in order to make the game completely functional? Or the bit that says that as you play this 'ultimate contest of strategy and skill' you should avoid using certain codexes or combinations of units or your opponent may not enjoy himself?

Maybe I'm also missing something here... but can anyone please point out the fact that the rule book and/or codexes promised a "balance" game?

I also spied another thread about speculation on why GW employee doesn't want to point people to this website, and if that is true, I just have to site this thread as a reason why.

Cladmir wrote:
Maybe I'm also missing something here... but can anyone please point out the fact that the rule book and/or codexes promised a "balance" game?

I also spied another thread about speculation on why GW employee doesn't want to point people to this website, and if that is true, I just have to site this thread as a reason why.

Seriously?

Balance is implied in any game involving two people. Also, god forbid people criticize a company that charges a small fortune for the "privilege" of playing their game.

Yeah for everyone buying that GAMESworkshop is a model company and not a game company I have a bridge in brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

They sell rules...if there were no rules they would sell far fewer models.

The issue is that they don't care about balance because they play in a closed environment, and don't playtest outside that environment.

They are a game company, that has beautiful game pieces and a substandard actual game, that is getting worse.

I liked 5th, I loved 6th up through about the Daemon release. Since then (in part starting with Daemons) they have been piling garbage on top of garbage.

I want to play a game where people can use all their cool toys, and play together without requiring a huge social contract, or a club errata. I want GW to release cool models like knights. I just want them to balance them with the rest of the game (which should be balanced in and of itself). The knight would be cool with 6 HP, the rule where it could not get blown up. Its current guns, the 12" move (and ignores difficult terrain). With a DCCW, and Stomp but stomp is just hits at its base strength (say 6 or 7) and Ap of 5 or 6, maybe to every model in base contact, or as it is now but the templates must be placed on models in the combat.

That sounds useful, scarey but not overly so, and fun. Then just drop the points accordingly.

Cladmir wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
GW games work as advertised.

The Games Workshop Website wrote:Warhammer 40,000: Rulebook


There is no time for peace. No respite. No forgiveness.

There is only WAR.

In the nightmare future of the 41st Millennium, Mankind teeters upon the brink of destruction. The galaxy-spanning Imperium of Man is beset on all sides by ravening aliens and threatened from within by Warp-spawned entities and heretical plots. Only the strength of the immortal Emperor of Terra stands between humanity and its annihilation, and in his name, countless warriors and agents do battle against the encroaching darkness. Foremost amongst them stand the Space Marines, the ultimate protectors of Mankind.

Across airless moons, within the depths of dark, twisted hive worlds and even in the immaterial realm of Warp space, battles rage that will shape the future of the galaxy forever.
It is a universe that you can enter today, if you dare. But remember that this is a dark and terrible era, and there is no peace amongst the stars...

The Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook is your essential guide to playing atmospheric battles in the 41st Millennium. It helps you field majestic armies of Citadel miniatures across the war-ravaged battlefields of the far-future, in the ultimate contest of strategy and skill.

With 452 full-colour pages, this hardback Rulebook is packed with rich background and contains all the rules for fighting pulse-pounding tabletop battles. The Rulebook includes exciting features such as dynamic close-combat, flyers, psychic devastation and interactive scenery. As well as jaw-dropping artwork, contained within is a history of the 41st Millennium and a richly detailed guide to the races and weapons of the far-future. It also features a comprehensive hobby section to set you on the path to choosing, collecting and building your own Warhammer 40,000 army of Citadel miniatures.
Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours.
Part Code: 60040199026

Maybe I missed it - Can you please point out the part in that advertisement that mentions having to re-write the rules in order to make the game completely functional? Or the bit that says that as you play this 'ultimate contest of strategy and skill' you should avoid using certain codexes or combinations of units or your opponent may not enjoy himself?

Maybe I'm also missing something here... but can anyone please point out the fact that the rule book and/or codexes promised a "balance" game?

I also spied another thread about speculation on why GW employee doesn't want to point people to this website, and if that is true, I just have to site this thread as a reason why.

A balanced game is pretty much a prerequisite in any "game."

It is why the Shoe doesn't get a free hotel in monopoly, it is why the first player to sit down doesn't get to pick a card from the deck at poker, it is why it is possible to complete a video game, and not get half way through and meet a boss that isn't possible to defeat at that point in your character's development.

People, by and large, play a game to pit themselves against a puzzle, or in the case of an opposed game like a wargame, another person's intellect.

To make a game that isn't balanced is going to undermine a lot of very deeply ingrained expectations that people will have learned from an early age.

So to turn your post on it's head, why doesn't GW explicitly state that 40K isn't intended to be a balanced game? As surely stating your product is an exception to established norms, rather than promising that it is, would be more necessary.

 azreal13 wrote:


A balanced game is pretty much a prerequisite in any "game."

It is why the Shoe doesn't get a free hotel in monopoly, it is why the first player to sit down doesn't get to pick a card from the deck at poker, it is why it is possible to complete a video game, and not get half way through and meet a boss that isn't possible to defeat at that point in your character's development.

People, by and large, play a game to pit themselves against a puzzle, or in the case of an opposed game like a wargame, another person's intellect.

To make a game that isn't balanced is going to undermine a lot of very deeply ingrained expectations that people will have learned from an early age.

So to turn your post on it's head, why doesn't GW explicitly state that 40K isn't intended to be a balanced game? As surely stating your product is an exception to established norms, rather than promising that it is, would be more necessary.

Interesting that you brought up monopoly. Out of all the board games I've played, monopoly is considered one of the most luck-based and extremely susceptible to turning into a runaway game when the dice roll a certain way.

But as far as "balance" goes, the game is rather balance if two people with identical list and skill play against each other, right? If the two players have different builds/skills, then we have what we say in the Superbowl, right? Unless the game of football is also imbalanced?

And I thought GW does have a line that they are not about creating a "competitive" (and therefore, balance), but rather a "narrative-driven" system?

I think it's odd how all the people saying "Take it or leave it" automatically assume that anyone complaining about the game is still playing it. I walked a long time ago - I haven't had a game in almost a year now, and I stopped buying 2-3 years ago. I haven't bought anything direct from GW in longer than that (mostly because every store nearby is out of business).

But I voice my concerns because I want to give them my money. I want to like this game, support their business, and get the most enjoyment out of the hobby experience that I can, but as it stands that isn't the case.

I think of it like this: Imagine that 40k is a car. Now lets say that for me, this car has a feature that no other car has - a feature which is a huge selling point for me (this is the lore, aesthetic, and story behind 40k). But the car itself has a terrible control system, which is both difficult to use and takes a long time to learn. The car also has very expensive maintenance requirements to keep it road-worthy. Now I can always make the necessary modifications myself, but I am surprised that the manufacturer doesn't do this before-hand, since cars have a pretty commonly accepted standard for their internal systems. I voice these concerns, and the response is basically "We don't care." So for all practical purposes, I need to get a different car. But no other car has that one feature that really seals the deal. Sure, other cars work just fine - but if GW's car worked at least up to normal standards, I wouldn't even think of buying anything else.

Is this a silly metaphor? Sure. And you know what? Maybe I am part of the tiniest minority in the community that isn't satisfied with just hoping that my opponent understands the rules as I do, and isn't accidentally breaking the game because they happen to like a powerful model. But that's still a market that GW isn't tapping - and if they really want to grow their business and make their shareholders happy, maybe they should take a risk with that market and see what happens.

Cladmir wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


A balanced game is pretty much a prerequisite in any "game."

It is why the Shoe doesn't get a free hotel in monopoly, it is why the first player to sit down doesn't get to pick a card from the deck at poker, it is why it is possible to complete a video game, and not get half way through and meet a boss that isn't possible to defeat at that point in your character's development.

People, by and large, play a game to pit themselves against a puzzle, or in the case of an opposed game like a wargame, another person's intellect.

To make a game that isn't balanced is going to undermine a lot of very deeply ingrained expectations that people will have learned from an early age.

So to turn your post on it's head, why doesn't GW explicitly state that 40K isn't intended to be a balanced game? As surely stating your product is an exception to established norms, rather than promising that it is, would be more necessary.

Interesting that you brought up monopoly. Out of all the board games I've played, monopoly is considered one of the most luck-based and extremely susceptible to turning into a runaway game when the dice roll a certain way.

But as far as "balance" goes, the game is rather balance if two people with identical list and skill play against each other, right? If the two players have different builds/skills, then we have what we say in the Superbowl, right? Unless the game of football is also imbalanced?

And I thought GW does have a line that they are not about creating a "competitive" (and therefore, balance), but rather a "narrative-driven" system?

Balance = Parity

Balance =\= Everything the same.

Not a difficult concept to my mind, but seems to elude many people.

Either way, the NFL analogy is a flawed one, as coaches don't get unrestricted access to the same players, plastic models are never injured, nor is one Riptide ever going to be capable of a greater degree of independent thought than a other, or likely to do something that the coach did not explicitly instruct it to do. I could go on.

There's been another thread recently discussing that imbalance actually hinders narrative play more than competitive, as competitive players will simply home in on the best builds, whereas those who want to use less optimal units for more fluffy games are the ones that get done over by a poorly balanced system. So, GW can say what they like, but it is essentially an excuse in defense of a poor product and basically BS.

Football has equal sides and equal rules on players. Broncos don't get 5 seconds of invincibility after each successful pass. The deciding factor is physical ability and skill. Which is how it should be.

Monopoly is indeed about luck, but all characters start off with the same amount and have the exact same odds, aside from one person going first.

40K is unbalanced in that the rules favor shooting over cc. Then each army is unbalanced against the others such as IK having no air defense, nids having very little answers to IK and cover ignoring armies, CSM having the short end of the stick on the allies matrix. The allies matrix itself is another major issue of imbalance. Data slates and supplements that can ally with their parent codex to give another insane level of imbalance. Then throw in random charts on everything to top it all off. The warp storm table is the bane of my existence. No chart should offer those results every turn with no possible ability to predict, prepare, or save against.

Cladmir wrote:

Interesting that you brought up monopoly. Out of all the board games I've played, monopoly is considered one of the most luck-based and extremely susceptible to turning into a runaway game when the dice roll a certain way.

For what it's worth, even the original developers of Monopoly recognized that it was a pretty unenjoyable game.

But as far as "balance" goes, the game is rather balance if two people with identical list and skill play against each other, right?

Only insofar as that specific match using those specific lists. The overall game itself, as well as each specific faction internally, are still not balanced.

What's more, the skill of the individual players has nothing to do with the balance of the game. When balancing a game, it's assumed that you typically want to balance towards the highest level of skill in the metagame (while you also might want to cater towards a level of balance at lower skill levels, in order to stop characters/factions with low skill ceilings from becoming unreasonably dominant at low levels of play, the highest level of play is important, since that's where players will be able to develop the most exploitative strategies, given the chance).

If the two players have different builds/skills, then we have what we say in the Superbowl, right? Unless the game of football is also imbalanced?

What do we say in the Superbowl? I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Every team has the same amount of players on the field, and each team is composed of the same positions. While individual players may be more or less skilled than one another, the basic team construction is identical.

What's more, I think I understand what you're trying to argue, but that doesn't make it any less silly. Balance does not require both sides to be identical. It simply requires them to have an equal chance of winning in the current metagame, assuming an equal level of aptitude between the players. If each faction can achieve victory through different methods or playstyles, there's nothing wrong with that.
While it's a given that, short of giving players identical tools, perfect balance is impossible (even Chess isn't perfectly balanced, since White has a slight advantage for going first), a reasonable level of balance where players of a similar level of skill can actually manage to compete against one another is expected of almost any game.

To make a comparison to a different game, I'd like to point out the fighting game series Guilty Gear. The series has a reputation for being one of the most meticulously balanced fighting games in the entire genre (it's not unreasonable to see bottom tier characters winning large tournaments in the GG series). But the really interesting thing is that each character is so unique that they might as well play as their own distinct game. The developers manage to get around this by making sure that each character, despite their wild differences (seriously, wild is the best term to describe it, the characters in that game are insane), has the relevant tools required to deal with any matchup that might be thrown their way.

And I thought GW does have a line that they are not about creating a "competitive" (and therefore, balance), but rather a "narrative-driven" system?

Except GW's systems aren't narrative driven. That's just the company line that they constantly use to cover their lack of ability to write rules. They're extremely abstract and random to the point of alienating the player and the decisions they make from the game itself (essentially turning the players into dice-rolling machines above all else).

 Xca|iber wrote:
I think it's odd how all the people saying "Take it or leave it" automatically assume that anyone complaining about the game is still playing it. I walked a long time ago - I haven't had a game in almost a year now, and I stopped buying 2-3 years ago. I haven't bought anything direct from GW in longer than that (mostly because every store nearby is out of business).

But I voice my concerns because I want to give them my money. I want to like this game, support their business, and get the most enjoyment out of the hobby experience that I can, but as it stands that isn't the case.

Pretty much same boat. I Haven't played in some 11 years. I want to play again (I've recently rediscovered the game a couple of months ago) but everything I keep seeing is that it's just a broken mess and not at all the game I remember. If it wasn't the most popular option in my local game store I'd likely not even be here caring about it.

For the most part I'm happy with the game as is. Sure I think there's issues here and there but nothing even close for me to say I'm unhappy with the product. I think I understand both major sides of the discussion. That being said, I'm glad that the design team doesn't seem to plan on making the game more balanced. I would probably be less interested in the game if it were. I won't argue the "why's" as I feel they've been covered above.

To the people who have been telling me "The fact that they release new expensive rules means your statement is dumb": Consider that the new rules tend to have an advantage in power over the old ones and the advantage seldom comes from the same units that were good under the old rules.