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.
Xerics wrote: 40k isnt designed for tournaments... Never was meant to be. I'm surprised GW hasn't promoted larger games because it means more people buying more models to participate in larger games. 5 hours to play a game is easy. Most people have an entire 48 hours on the weekend. the only reason you would have less then say about actually 32 hours (16 hours for sleeping) is things you did to reduce your own time (ie. had kids). Don't tell me out of 32 hours on the weekend you can't find 5 hours with someone else to play a game.
BTW games + kids don't go hand in hand very well. Just sayin.
Says the 14 year old.
Suddenly all becomes clear!
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Xerics wrote: 40k isnt designed for tournaments... Never was meant to be. I'm surprised GW hasn't promoted larger games because it means more people buying more models to participate in larger games. 5 hours to play a game is easy. Most people have an entire 48 hours on the weekend. the only reason you would have less then say about actually 32 hours (16 hours for sleeping) is things you did to reduce your own time (ie. had kids). Don't tell me out of 32 hours on the weekend you can't find 5 hours with someone else to play a game.
BTW games + kids don't go hand in hand very well. Just sayin.
Says the 14 year old.
Suddenly all becomes clear!
I posted this in another tread,
40k is a beer and pretzels game aimed at kids. Maybe that is why we have so many posts that seem like they were posted by drunken 12 yr old's.
Its hard to be awesome, when your playing with little plastic men. Welcome to Fantasy 40k
If you think your important, in the great scheme of things. Do the water test.
Put your hands in a bucket of warm water,
then pull them out fast. The size of the hole shows how important you are.
I think we should roll some dice, to see if we should roll some dice, To decide if all this dice rolling is good for the game.
Xerics wrote: 40k isnt designed for tournaments... Never was meant to be. I'm surprised GW hasn't promoted larger games because it means more people buying more models to participate in larger games. 5 hours to play a game is easy. Most people have an entire 48 hours on the weekend. the only reason you would have less then say about actually 32 hours (16 hours for sleeping) is things you did to reduce your own time (ie. had kids). Don't tell me out of 32 hours on the weekend you can't find 5 hours with someone else to play a game.
BTW games + kids don't go hand in hand very well. Just sayin.
Says the 14 year old.
Suddenly all becomes clear!
I posted this in another tread,
40k is a beer and pretzels game aimed at kids. Maybe that is why we have so many posts that seem like they were posted by drunken 12 yr old's.
I want to meet the idiot parents that are throwing down $600-$1000 for their kid's Space Marine army.
Here's how it'd go with me:
"Dad, I want a Space Marine army!"
"How much does it cost?"
"Only $800!"
"How about we put $800 in your college fund instead?"
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
Yes, well, comments about people's supposed age aren't helpful to the discussion.
GW has promoted large games for years. They also have promoted tournaments in 40K for over 20 years and only stopped this 2-3 years ago. (I think there is still a GT but it's low profile.)
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, well, comments about people's supposed age aren't helpful to the discussion.
GW has promoted large games for years. They also have promoted tournaments in 40K for over 20 years and only stopped this 2-3 years ago. (I think there is still a GT but it's low profile.)
I'm this case, I'd respectfully disagree, the user has claimed their age is 14 on their own profile, and it certainly speaks to their declaration that finding 5 hours on a weekend is easy to do.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Official 40K events started dying out real quick the moment GW management in their infinite wisdom decided that promotional events should have minimal profit margins (as in, GW promotional events are forceds by upper management to turn a tidy profit during the events themselves)...
6,000pts (over 5,000 painted to various degrees, rest are still on the sprues)
Xerics wrote: 40k isnt designed for tournaments... Never was meant to be. I'm surprised GW hasn't promoted larger games because it means more people buying more models to participate in larger games. 5 hours to play a game is easy. Most people have an entire 48 hours on the weekend. the only reason you would have less then say about actually 32 hours (16 hours for sleeping) is things you did to reduce your own time (ie. had kids). Don't tell me out of 32 hours on the weekend you can't find 5 hours with someone else to play a game.
BTW games + kids don't go hand in hand very well. Just sayin.
Says the 14 year old.
Suddenly all becomes clear!
Thanks for pointing that out. I would never have realized that the date I put in was wrong. I was wondering why nobody took me seriously. Also if you read the battle rep i linked to you'd know i am married with 3 dogs. Also the pictures that I posted on page 9 of my army has me in the background (the ABU pants) so you'd have to know i'm at least 18 to be military.
The only times I've played larger games have been 3 vs. 3 team games and up, which generally took forever and we called every game early. I mean it does sound easy on paper to get a large game going. Only 5 hours! One day on the weekend! Easy. It's like going to dinner and a movie and hanging out with some friends.
Only problem is you have to find the people, get them all agreed on a time, and make sure everyone shows up or it's all thrown off balance and takes time to fix. This is also back in the other area I played, in the new area and after 6th hit people spend more time worrying about their painting and collecting than they do about actual games. So finding enough people that want to play a huge game, where they may end up playing only a small part in, is not an easy task.
Honestly I don't even like team games that big. Trying to coordinate 6k+ worth of firepower between 3-4 people.
It's also partly because I had no motivation what so ever to collect more than 2k points since my main army was Tau and at 2K I have everything maxed out comfortably. Going above that just seemed like a waste because forgeworld didn't, and probably never will, have any unit that's really worth the cost of getting. Just look at Heavy Gun Drones and tell me that is the product of an intelligent and benevolent being.
I'm expecting an Imperial Knights supplement dedicated to GW's loyalist apologetics. Codex: White Knights "In the grim dark future, everything is fine."
"The argument is that we have to do this or we will, bit by bit,
lose everything that we hold dear, everything that keeps the business going. Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky."
-Tom Kirby
Definition: a condition in which different elements are equal or in the correct proportions.
The only way there is even a nod of the head to that is many groups can use the Knights except the prejudiced few army lists so: availability = balance.
The only way I get any semblance of balance in 40k is creating a scenario where I pretend that rolling the dice I would have to play either army and so have to design to each group's advantages and weaknesses.
They really do highlight the "rock-paper-scissors" aspect of army lists.
One thing of note: I too agree that using age as a means to refute someone's argument is "childish". Argue based on facts or what little logic there is to a sci-fi game played with man-dollies.
Plus I reviewed some poll of age distribution at Dakka and I am getting into the very small percent "old guy" range so I am getting rather sensitive...
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Definition: a condition in which different elements are equal or in the correct proportions.
The only way there is even a nod of the head to that is many groups can use the Knights except the prejudiced few army lists so: availability = balance.
The only way I get any semblance of balance in 40k is creating a scenario where I pretend that rolling the dice I would have to play either army and so have to design to each group's advantages and weaknesses.
They really do highlight the "rock-paper-scissors" aspect of army lists.
One thing of note: I too agree that using age as a means to refute someone's argument is "childish". Argue based on facts or what little logic there is to a sci-fi game played with man-dollies.
Plus I reviewed some poll of age distribution at Dakka and I am getting into the very small percent "old guy" range so I am getting rather sensitive...
I wasn't looking to refute anyone's argument, but knowing something about where someone's perspective lies, either in terms of nationality, age, race, religion, socio economic background, career or anything else, can sometimes help explain why they are making the case they are, when the points they make can seem ludicrous beyond reason from another perspective.
As it happens, that poster had (somehow) inputted their age incorrectly, making them some 11 years older than originally thought. I still think that finding 5 hours to play a game on a weekend is a challenge for a lot of people, and to suggest it isn't demonstrates a limited understanding of the commitments many gamers have.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/11 18:36:30
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Xerics wrote: 40k isnt designed for tournaments... Never was meant to be. I'm surprised GW hasn't promoted larger games because it means more people buying more models to participate in larger games. 5 hours to play a game is easy. Most people have an entire 48 hours on the weekend. the only reason you would have less then say about actually 32 hours (16 hours for sleeping) is things you did to reduce your own time (ie. had kids). Don't tell me out of 32 hours on the weekend you can't find 5 hours with someone else to play a game.
BTW games + kids don't go hand in hand very well. Just sayin.
Says the 14 year old.
Suddenly all becomes clear!
I posted this in another tread,
40k is a beer and pretzels game aimed at kids. Maybe that is why we have so many posts that seem like they were posted by drunken 12 yr old's.
Doesn't anybody find it strange that GW markets this game as Beer and pretzels. Then aims squarely at 12 to 15 yr olds.
Who shouldn't be drinking.
The rest of my posting is just a comment on posting standards.
Plus I reviewed some poll of age distribution at Dakka and I am getting into the very small percent "old guy" range so I am getting rather sensitive...
I,m helping lead that percentage.
Its hard to be awesome, when your playing with little plastic men. Welcome to Fantasy 40k
If you think your important, in the great scheme of things. Do the water test.
Put your hands in a bucket of warm water,
then pull them out fast. The size of the hole shows how important you are.
I think we should roll some dice, to see if we should roll some dice, To decide if all this dice rolling is good for the game.
Maybe GW is secretly being used as a form of market/behavioral research?
"Player base abuse increased 50%, rules quality decreased 20%, game balance offset 30%. Loss of costumers 30% slower than theoretical projections over a period of 2 years, bears further testing. I suggest inducing a steeper decline in rules quality and game balance over the next year to see how this affects the trend."
6,000pts (over 5,000 painted to various degrees, rest are still on the sprues)
Galorian wrote: Maybe GW is secretly being used as a form of market/behavioral research?
"Player base abuse increased 50%, rules quality decreased 20%, game balance offset 30%. Loss of costumers 30% slower than theoretical projections over a period of 2 years, bears further testing. I suggest inducing a steeper decline in rules quality and game balance over the next year to see how this affects the trend."
One thing I'm starting to wonder is if everything actually was planned out. When CSM first released I thought the Maulerfiend was odd that it was extra good at hitting fortifications since only two existed. Now Stronghold Assault. Broadsides got reduced to a S8 AP1 HRR, which is pointless compared to the HYMP. Until the Knight atleast, which now there is actually a benefit to the HRR.
I still don't think that by the end of 6th things will work themselves out. I don't think the DA or tau aircraft will ever make sense. Honestly who even remembers DA now? I haven't seen them get used outside of a few dedicated players.
I'm expecting an Imperial Knights supplement dedicated to GW's loyalist apologetics. Codex: White Knights "In the grim dark future, everything is fine."
"The argument is that we have to do this or we will, bit by bit,
lose everything that we hold dear, everything that keeps the business going. Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky."
-Tom Kirby
Swastakowey wrote:I agree with them. i think its cool what they are doing. Merely giving us lots of options to make lots of cool games to fit our liking.
Pretty much what i want in a game.
Awesome.
Crablezworth wrote:"As a games developer, the most important thing I have learned to be most wary of is cutting down options" - Jervis Johnson
Dear god, is he just trolling all of us now? He just wrote a fething codex that has no options. This is insane.
WayneTheGame wrote: I recall once long ago I think it was an old White Dwarf article, and the details and author escapes me, that talked about how it was fun to see what new tricks your opponent came up with and then try to counter it and/or one-up them the next battle. That definitely seems to be how they seem to think the game should be played (all in good fun of course), but I think culturally they might also think that most people playing have a regular opponent or more that they are friendly with versus pick-up games and the like.
I have to admit though for all the flack I give them, that mentality explains a lot. People would IMO be less cutthroat or complaining about netlists/balance and the like if you were just playing with some friends in somebody's basement or garage or house and drinking a few beers, having a good time with whatever you decided to field in a balanced list versus the typical "Let me go to the local game store and see who's up for a game" or "Let me compete in this tournament for a prize" which tends to bring out the "It's a game, I want to win" mentality even indirectly.
As discussed in a recent thread that you may have seen, balance hurts friendly games a lot, too. A game should never make you actually feel bad because your list is just so fantastically powerful vs your friend's. The first time I brought a Heldrake, my regular opponent brought a mostly-PASM army with zero anti-air beyond a lasPred. It wasn't fun for either of us until I straight up gave him an Icarus lascannon on his Bastion in the middle of the game and made sure to ignore the lasPred (which I could have easily taken out with my Land Raider's lascannons or my Forgefiend's autocannons/plasmahead or the Heldrake itself). While the 'drake died quickly to such firepower, the damage potential it had was just silly. I've said before that I don't think Heldrakes are broken on their own (three of them, yes, but the Heldrake is hardly equal to a Riptide, being in a much weaker army), but this demonstrates perfectly how lack of balance is bad. While his list was poorly-made, some matchups (which are getting increasingly common) are like this, regardless of how well-made your list is, by virtue of the strength of your Codex vs theirs. It's getting to the point where it's like "I brought army Y, but I see you brought army X or unit Z so I may as well just surrender before deployment". I don't believe Knights are part of this problem, due to their expense and comparatively low-power weapons (big enough for what they are, but no 72" Str D Large Blasts or Ion Accelerators), but this developer attitude shows.
In essence, the defence of "we're designing it for friendly games" rings hollow. I want my friend to have fun. I don't really care so much if a random stranger has fun, although I would prefer it if they did. Going into a tournament scene or even just a random gaming store game, I don't expect to be treated lightly or like a friend. Yet in friendly games, I'm forced to actually limit myself so that the game can be fair and enjoyable.
I have a small army of Tau, which include a Riptide. I am going to field it (because I love the model, which is why I bought it), but I'm going to fluff-rule it that the pilot is an absolute idiot so that my opponent can actually have an army to play with. I might make it use the Chaos Dreadnought table.
If you play with friends (as I do) you should make lists with them in mind, just like any game. And you avoid most problems. I know one of my friends has NO ANTI AIR. SO I dot field flyers around him.
I know that pick up games show unbalance but they should be avoided at all costs anyways. But its easy to make the game balanced buy just playing 500 points with lots of terrain. That will fix everyone's problems.
Ok reading this thread, found this post and had to try to understand it..
So hang on let me understand, is this what you are saying?
"List taylor your friends and avoid any contact with any other gamers which has the strong possibility of making new friends?"
Ok so you say your opponent does not have any sort of anti-air? ok I will fill up my list full of Helldrakes.
Boom.
I'm having fun.
My opponent may not be having fun.
Now he/she has to fork out an absurd amount of cash to deal with these flyers with units he may not want.
If he does not? Too bad, I'll just exploit and use my Helldrakes again.
See how that can be bad? there is a fine line in 40k and its called "just because you can, does not mean you should" I hear you say tell other that its all "one size fits all" on other people on this thread, but if your going to exploit you friends list like that then you are just as bad as others.
This is how bad in terms of balance 40k is, tbh its not the fact that it could be hard to face my theoretical list full of Helldrakes, but because of my power level I could easily slam down his list harder than when Bruce Lee broke Chuck Norris, and there is only very good luck he/she needs for that game.
And that's saying something.
But I could still do that because its perfectly legal, which just goes again to show how bad in terms of balance 40k 6th ed. is.
Back to OT anyway..
The problem with Jervis is that what he is saying is good on paper in terms of options, but he and other G-Dev's do not handle the balance of these options very well and because of this the power levels within the game are not subtle, and that is bad for a game. Yes sure give all armies a strength and a weakness but for the name of all that is chaos, you make them subtle! otherwise you have the bland internet meta that we have now.
Jervis (no offence to the guy) isn't a very good tactician, which affects his judgement on TAC lists, the main problem with TAC lists comes from their strength, yes its a list to deal with every scenario, but you take one of those units out, your opponents going to struggle a prime example of link and chain. If Jervis cannot see that then now I can see why 40k has very bad balance issues.*
The statement about the Baneblade was just to fill paper, they knew this. we knew this.
*to note, in terms of 40k I personally divide TAC into two types: Competitive and Casual, Competitive TAC lists come in the form of Netlists while casual lists may have different units that do not follow the structure of a Netlist, I was referring to latter in terms of TAC for 40k.
Must say though the OP has given me something cool to discuss on my YouTube channel, so cheers OP
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/03/11 22:33:59
I understand where they are coming from a business model and from a game play model but the time and money it takes to keep up is rather staggering. I love theory crafting my army especially when I have come up against an element that I never played against and now I have to adapt to it but it feels like I am constantly re-arranging and buying new models to adapt that a good amount of the models I have bought are incomplete. I would like some respite to get my army fully painted before I start buying extra models to play around with. Albeit, I am coming from the perspective of a casual player. I don't want necessarily a TAC list but I want to know that I can have a core aspect of an army and buy adaptive units to use interchangeably to adapt to new situations.
When Escalation and Stronghold assault came out, I thought they were interesting ways to play the games but I feel like they should be options and not a full core game-play aspect much like Kill Team is. A way to shake up the game. I especially liked the thought of having an attacking army advancing on a stronghold with a defender on the other side. I haven't had the pleasure to play any either of these but from the reports I have heard on both online and off, that it is still an unfair advantage for the person who isn't in the Stronghold or have a Lord of War. I really do think this were good ideas but they were executed poorly and forced into game-play.
I play this game to have fun and hang out with awesome people. I don't need to win to have fun, discussing tactics and lore is enough for me but constantly loosing unless I try to keep up with the meta affects the enjoyment of the game.
*bursts though room with axe* HEEEAAARRRS JHONNY!!!
Envihon wrote: I understand where they are coming from a business model and from a game play model but the time and money it takes to keep up is rather staggering. I love theory crafting my army especially when I have come up against an element that I never played against and now I have to adapt to it but it feels like I am constantly re-arranging and buying new models to adapt that a good amount of the models I have bought are incomplete. I would like some respite to get my army fully painted before I start buying extra models to play around with. Albeit, I am coming from the perspective of a casual player. I don't want necessarily a TAC list but I want to know that I can have a core aspect of an army and buy adaptive units to use interchangeably to adapt to new situations.
When Escalation and Stronghold assault came out, I thought they were interesting ways to play the games but I feel like they should be options and not a full core game-play aspect much like Kill Team is. A way to shake up the game. I especially liked the thought of having an attacking army advancing on a stronghold with a defender on the other side. I haven't had the pleasure to play any either of these but from the reports I have heard on both online and off, that it is still an unfair advantage for the person who isn't in the Stronghold or have a Lord of War. I really do think this were good ideas but they were executed poorly and forced into game-play.
I play this game to have fun and hang out with awesome people. I don't need to win to have fun, discussing tactics and lore is enough for me but constantly loosing unless I try to keep up with the meta affects the enjoyment of the game.
I agree with this, it is rather boring losing constantly because you feel pidgon holed into buying up more and more just to compete even at a casual level..
What this might be (and I'm only offering this as an idea, I have no facts to back it up) is a symptom of their shrinking customer base and falling sales, coupled with a lack of ideas.
Rather than attempt things to attract more customers (about the most difficult thing for any established company to do) they are trying to stimulate a greater volume and/or value of purchases from their existing ones. This is subsequently having the side effect of breeding discontent among a certain number (as is evidenced by the preceding posts) which might, in reality, drive them away.
They subsequently try even harder, and so on and so forth. It's the classic "the more you tighten your grip" scenario.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
azreal13 wrote: What this might be (and I'm only offering this as an idea, I have no facts to back it up) is a symptom of their shrinking customer base and falling sales, coupled with a lack of ideas.
Rather than attempt things to attract more customers (about the most difficult thing for any established company to do) they are trying to stimulate a greater volume and/or value of purchases from their existing ones. This is subsequently having the side effect of breeding discontent among a certain number (as is evidenced by the preceding posts) which might, in reality, drive them away.
They subsequently try even harder, and so on and so forth. It's the classic "the more you tighten your grip" scenario.
You might be right. I am currently residing in my barracks and when I have my 40k stuff out as I work on getting my army painted people do stop by and are interested in them but are deterred by how much work goes into making an army. It isn't like the card games where you buy the cards and play or even Privateer Press who works off a lower model count so new players are intimidated by the amount of work that goes into all this. Albeit, I have also be successful in getting new players to come to the hobby but a lot of people are daunted by the amount of work and also the amount of money it takes to get started. I didn't even get started until I got a really good source of stable income in the military. A lot of people I know love Warhammer 40k, they play the video games and love the books but the actual table top is hard for them to get into. GW is shooting themselves in the foot with the amount of updates they have been coming out with in the past 3 years which is only going to drive new players away because of how much it changes. Some of us already in it are having a hard time keeping up. I think GW needs to focus on some PR instead of coming out with new models and codices every month.
Envihon wrote: I understand where they are coming from a business model and from a game play model but the time and money it takes to keep up is rather staggering. I love theory crafting my army especially when I have come up against an element that I never played against and now I have to adapt to it but it feels like I am constantly re-arranging and buying new models to adapt that a good amount of the models I have bought are incomplete. I would like some respite to get my army fully painted before I start buying extra models to play around with. Albeit, I am coming from the perspective of a casual player. I don't want necessarily a TAC list but I want to know that I can have a core aspect of an army and buy adaptive units to use interchangeably to adapt to new situations.
When Escalation and Stronghold assault came out, I thought they were interesting ways to play the games but I feel like they should be options and not a full core game-play aspect much like Kill Team is. A way to shake up the game. I especially liked the thought of having an attacking army advancing on a stronghold with a defender on the other side. I haven't had the pleasure to play any either of these but from the reports I have heard on both online and off, that it is still an unfair advantage for the person who isn't in the Stronghold or have a Lord of War. I really do think this were good ideas but they were executed poorly and forced into game-play.
I play this game to have fun and hang out with awesome people. I don't need to win to have fun, discussing tactics and lore is enough for me but constantly loosing unless I try to keep up with the meta affects the enjoyment of the game.
I agree with this, it is rather boring losing constantly because you feel pidgon holed into buying up more and more just to compete even at a casual level..
Exalt.
Race to the bottom. Same thing happened with allies, plenty of people didn't want to have to use them but felt they needed to to be able to compete. Just like fortifications, any idea how many people complained about how their opponents were using skyshields only to go out and buy one not long after their first encounter?
The game has gotten stupid, but more accurately it's bloated as hell. It needs formatting, there was a reason not every game was meant to be planetstrike or apocalypse.
I agree with anyone indicating GW doesn't give a flying leap about balance. It is only used as just another tool to convince people to buy more models, not as the end-product of their games.
I'm fairly certain imbalances are pretty consistently and 'deliberately' being introduced to the game via new codices and edition changes specifically to insure people will 'army hop' to whatever the new hotness is.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/13 19:27:16
Neorealist wrote: I agree with anyone indicating GW doesn't give a flying leap about balance. It is only used as just another tool to convince people to buy more models, not as the end-product of their games.
I'm fairly certain imbalances are pretty consistently and 'deliberately' being introduced to the game via new codices and edition changes specifically to insure people will 'army hop' to whatever the new hotness is.
There was a story I heard, I think it was on Warseer, about someone who had a chance to talk with Jeremy Vetock at a Games Day, I think in '11 or '12. Mr. Vetock stated that it was perfectly acceptable for one army to trump another and wouldn't listen to any argument of balance. Another person (might have been the same person, I don't remember) said they once asked a store manager what should you do if you only had one opponent, and they played the army that trumped yours. Without skipping a beat the manager replied the answer was to buy the army that trumped your opponent. One can assume some of the salesman mentality seeping in there, but in the larger context I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised to find out that is what GW expects.
I think this might be the final straw for me. I was fine with thinking that maybe GW just didn't know how to balance their game, but it seems like they are actively avoiding it.
That would not surprise me in the slightest. Incidentally it doesn't not mean they don't understand inherent balance in 40k, they need a pretty good grasp of that in order to upset it only slightly (good for business) rather than overturn it completely (bad for business).
WayneTheGame wrote: Mr. Vetock stated that it was perfectly acceptable for one army to trump another and wouldn't listen to any argument of balance.
Wow. This confirms my theory that GW isn't a business, they're a charity to provide "productive" employment to the hopeless failures who would otherwise be homeless and starving. Maybe our criticism of GW's balance problems should account for the fact that "game designers" like Mr. Vetock would have no hope of ever finding a job in the industry if GW wasn't so generous? Maybe an occasional balance problem is just something we should accept if it means helping the needy?
WayneTheGame wrote: Mr. Vetock stated that it was perfectly acceptable for one army to trump another and wouldn't listen to any argument of balance.
Wow. This confirms my theory that GW isn't a business, they're a charity to provide "productive" employment to the hopeless failures who would otherwise be homeless and starving. Maybe our criticism of GW's balance problems should account for the fact that "game designers" like Mr. Vetock would have no hope of ever finding a job in the industry if GW wasn't so generous? Maybe an occasional balance problem is just something we should accept if it means helping the needy?
Surely there's work to be had in the bustling narrative forging market the kids seem to be so into these days?
I'm considering opening a Narrative Foundry, I may invite Mr Vetock to apply for a post (only a junior one at first, mind)
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
I found the actual quote; this was apparently at Games Day '13?
KR3LL (from Warseer - 01/12/2014) wrote:I keep thinking of my discussion games day in memphis this last year. I was talking to Jeremy Vetock with a 3 other guys. I was there by myself but I just kind of walked up during the questions these guys were throwing at Jeremy. One of the guys was obviously a very competitive player. All he talked about was game balance issues. Jeremy Vetock replied to this guy with something that has irked me since. He said and I paraphrase "Some armies should easily win over others" You could imagine our disbelief with this comment it spawned a lot more discussion. We kept stressing to him how important getting 40k balanced was. He really would hear no part of it. He said it was part of the narrative of the game.
WayneTheGame wrote: I found the actual quote; this was apparently at Games Day '13?
KR3LL (from Warseer - 01/12/2014) wrote:I keep thinking of my discussion games day in memphis this last year. I was talking to Jeremy Vetock with a 3 other guys. I was there by myself but I just kind of walked up during the questions these guys were throwing at Jeremy. One of the guys was obviously a very competitive player. All he talked about was game balance issues. Jeremy Vetock replied to this guy with something that has irked me since. He said and I paraphrase "Some armies should easily win over others" You could imagine our disbelief with this comment it spawned a lot more discussion. We kept stressing to him how important getting 40k balanced was. He really would hear no part of it. He said it was part of the narrative of the game.
If vetock had said "some armies WILL easily win over others" it would be much better than the word "should" because that's a massive cop out on his part, basically saying he has no responsibility to create any kind of internal balance using the foc (remember that thing?) and proper costing of units to incentivize players needing a selection of tools in their toolbox rather than 3 really big hammers.
6,000pts (over 5,000 painted to various degrees, rest are still on the sprues) 
Night Lords (40k): 3500pts
Klan Zaw Klan: 4000pts
