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.

 azreal13 wrote:
So, yeah, semantics.

Oh man, that cracked me up. It's also ironic that the guy arguing semantics said when you go to a tournament "you are literally cutting your throat."

As someone who's played other nerd games competitively, mostly CCGs, as well as 40k both competitively and non-competitively, I can see both sides to the argument. I have infinitely more fun with 40k playing it casually with friends with some goofy fluff/FTN scenario than I do in tournaments. Not so much because of the rules, but because I think it just take such a huge investment of time and money to play that you want to have as much fun as possible, and it's more fun to play with friends than total strangers. I find that as I get older and have more perspective on how I spend my free time, this seems to be more and more true.

That being said, in other nerd hobbies I have, I see games like MtG that have improved over the years to stay fun to their players. I see Blizzard, who engages their player base and at least tries to improve. And I see other gaming companies like PP who are active in engaging their community and interacting with players to give them the best experience they can.

Then I see Games Workshop, who jacks up their prices at every turn (Raptors went up $3 at my local store for new box art. NEW F*$%ING BOX ART), completely disengages the community via common routes like Facebook, forums, and their own website, and has had a cycle of hiring, demoralizing, and eventually firing their own employees at my local GW store for 4 years.

I don't get it. I don't get how you can come in here and defend them. Yes, you can play 40k and have fun, usually. But the notion that somehow the game is in this acceptable state and everything's good, and that them supporting competitive play, good rules, and a slightly more balanced set of armies is somehow a bad thing is just.... sadly laughable. You're blindly defending a company's policies because you love the game 40k, but my god man, open your eyes. You are nothing more than a golden goose to them, and they do two things to get as much money as possible from you: jack up their prices to the maximum they can and minimize their re-investment (i.e. spending minimally on developing/play testing good rules). They're not some omnipotent bunch of geniuses who have developed the perfect game and the player base is just too stupid to play it the right way, they're a bunch of stockholders who overwork and under support their development in the name of maximizing profit in the short term.

And yes, I *am* selling my stuff. I've been eBaying stuff since September, and I've gone through about half of it and have pulled in about $3k. It's liberating. But it's not this BS "if you don't like apples, buy oranges," crap. I put a lot of time and effort into those models, and it makes me sad that the game sucks so hard that I can't find anybody that I enjoy playing with anymore. The only upside is the ridiculous amount of money that I'm getting out of selling all of it.

Actually I think I said the "cutting your own throat" cause you are. I mean if you are going to tournaments because you need to win or want to win stuff, then you do not understand finances. If there was an actual financial benefit sure. If your going to tournaments to have fun and play a bunch of people sure and if you win yeah that's accomplishment but it doesn't mean anything ultimately because the system is broken.

I like tournaments and playing in them, but I don't view it as any indication of being a "good" player.

 Psienesis wrote:

My whole point in regard to Competitive 40k is that it is a myth. Competition requires a inherent fairness. 40k doesn't have that. If your goal at being competitive at 40k is to be a generally knowledgeable player who understands each armies different facets abilities and odds of winning against other armies is your definition of a "competitive" 40k player then that is fine, but saying the only competitive players are people who play in tournaments or that the only competitive 40k play is tournament play. Is just false. I mean your just wrong.

Yes, that's true. That's the issue behind the current threads about game balance. 40K is, by the books, as written, an unfair game. The current term for this in games, whether a video game, an RPG or a table-top wargame, is "imbalanced'. And, yes, all 40K players are, to some extent, competitive. Everyone likes winning, but not everyone minds losing.

Yeah, but I don't know of many who genuinely likes losing. You don't play the game to lose ; you just don't care if you do if it was a good time, but I don't know many . There is a difference there. Your still being competitive though even if you don't care.

Luck, Odds, Chance, are called something Gambling.

Actually they are called statistics, and a better understanding of statistics will improve ones list building and tactical skills in 40k. But 40k isn't just about the statistics, it is still a tactical game, with a deterministic movement phase, favorably and unfavorably unit matchups, and emphasis on positioning and playing the objective, along with other tactical elements. If you want to play 40k to the best of your ability, you need to master both tactics and risk management, and blend these skills together. It is more than a matter of simply rolling the dice.

Obviously this is not unique to warhammer 40k, most tactical wargames incorporate some element of chance, so you typically be managing the odds in addition to attempting to outmaneuver your opponent no matter which game you play.

Yeah, but I don't know of many who genuinely likes losing. You don't play the game to lose ; you just don't care if you do if it was a good time, but I don't know many . There is a difference there. Your still being competitive though even if you don't care.

If I play a game with some friends, or even a total stranger, and the game goes back and forth for a couple hours, gets down to the wire and, as it so shakes out, I lose, I don't care. If the battle was fun to play, then it was worth it.

Now, setting models down only to be tabled by Turn 3? That's boring as hell, and a complete waste of my time.

I enjoy tournaments because there's a palpable energy and excitement with them. I just don't think they mean much in terms of competiton.

I'd rather play a bunch of games , bring the best list I can and roll the dice. I just don't think it means I'm great or a good player because I won. I give no gravity to victory or defeat in the game, just the momentum of playing the game itself and whether there's a "good" energy.

If I play a game with some friends, or even a total stranger, and the game goes back and forth for a couple hours, gets down to the wire and, as it so shakes out, I lose, I don't care. If the battle was fun to play, then it was worth it.

Now, setting models down only to be tabled by Turn 3? That's boring as hell, and a complete waste of my time.

Pretty much this. Most people will still enjoy playing a game they lost if it is a good, tight, close game. On the other hand, I have never met anyone who enjoys getting curb stomped with absolutely no hope of victory, especially if they feel like they were being cheated in the process, whether it is because of their opponents, the rules, or some other factor. Unfortunately, the imbalances have become so severe that the latter case is happening with enormous frequency. I can't think of a faster way to drive someone away from the hobby than have them repeatedly tabled by deathstars that are invulnerable thanks to rerollable 2+ saves.

The thing about 40k and competitive play, the game was never designed for it. GW said it was built to have fun with friends while having a drink or two, and thats how they test things lol. Competitive play in any game looks for loopholes in mechanics/rules to further themself...40k is full of that to the point of most of the stuff youre used to ignoring technically is illegal, even if it makes sense for it to be legal.

Thats why i dont play competitively. If im tabling my opponent, im not having fun because theres no challenge. Not sure about you but to me in a competitive "tournament" scene of any game, winning > having a challenging match.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
The thing about 40k and competitive play, the game was never designed for it. GW said it was built to have fun with friends while having a drink or two, and thats how they test things lol.

That's relevant up until 3rd Edition+

I believe Alessio and others are on record that some of the driving force behind the changes from the RT/2nd era were to facilitate a quicker, more streamlined approach to allow for tournament style play (not all of the driving force, larger armies = more models sold of course was a factor) but I would agree that isn't the priority any more, cause designing a proper game is hard, much easier to dingle dangle the shinys in front of little Johnny and pick his mummy's purse while they're both distracted.

Tournaments are not for everyone but they are healthy for the gaming culture. They are a great way to meet new people, play several games in the course of a day, and find a group to game with if you don't already have one.

I also like to look at them as sort of a stress test that helps reveal the faults in 40k. Now my attitude toward 40k rules, as well as just about anything else in life, is that it should be put to the test so that flaws can be exposed and then corrected, resulting in a stronger, better written game system. Unfortunately, many hold the attitude that it is better to cautiously tip-toe around all of 40k's problems to avoid breaking the system then it is to confront those problems and fix them, which seems to include the 40k's developers.

 slowthar wrote:

And yes, I *am* selling my stuff. I've been eBaying stuff since September, and I've gone through about half of it and have pulled in about $3k. It's liberating. But it's not this BS "if you don't like apples, buy oranges," crap. I put a lot of time and effort into those models, and it makes me sad that the game sucks so hard that I can't find anybody that I enjoy playing with anymore. The only upside is the ridiculous amount of money that I'm getting out of selling all of it.

Debated about this, but I can't pull the trigger because I still like the models too much. I could sell my Eldar NIB or I could invest the time to make it awesome, go pew pew a few times, and then sell it for a much higher cost. Plus, it's hard to let go of 2.5k or so of legit SoB. Rare army and all. Plus, I doubt anyone would be crazy enough to buy Dayglow Wing

There are, however, 4 armies I want to buy and build that are being actively resisted for things like fattening my Cryx or buying Malifaux (it's cheap). It doesn't scratch the 40k itch, for certain, but I like my hobby dollars going to a company that cares about me as the consumer.

Plus, I just open the Bolt Action guys knuckle down and make a 28mm sci-fi company level game.

Phanixis wrote:

Luck, Odds, Chance, are called something Gambling.

Actually they are called statistics, and a better understanding of statistics will improve ones list building and tactical skills in 40k. But 40k isn't just about the statistics, it is still a tactical game, with a deterministic movement phase, favorably and unfavorably unit matchups, and emphasis on positioning and playing the objective, along with other tactical elements. If you want to play 40k to the best of your ability, you need to master both tactics and risk management, and blend these skills together. It is more than a matter of simply rolling the dice.

Obviously this is not unique to warhammer 40k, most tactical wargames incorporate some element of chance, so you typically be managing the odds in addition to attempting to outmaneuver your opponent no matter which game you play.

Deathstars are fantastic at minimizing their statistical variability. That is what makes these games so deathstar oriented. You KNOW that your screamers won't fall at any given 18 wounds because their chance of failing exactly 18 wounds is 9.69 x 10^29, or a 0.00000000000000000000000000969% chance. In essence, you're far, far, far more likely to win the lottery than you are to fail 18 saves on screamers.

When I have more of a chance at winning idiot tax than I do at killing a 225 point unit + HQs, you know your game is broken.

As an aside, let's think about how many wounds it actually takes to kill screamers. 648, on average. That's 1,296 hits, or 1934 boltgun rounds fired. That's literally 97% of a chapter of space marines - 967 marines firing boltguns - to kill 9 screamers, at 12" range. Shall we ignore the fact that's a 14,000 point army within 12" shooting?

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

Phanixis wrote:

Luck, Odds, Chance, are called something Gambling.

Actually they are called statistics, and a better understanding of statistics will improve ones list building and tactical skills in 40k. But 40k isn't just about the statistics, it is still a tactical game, with a deterministic movement phase, favorably and unfavorably unit matchups, and emphasis on positioning and playing the objective, along with other tactical elements. If you want to play 40k to the best of your ability, you need to master both tactics and risk management, and blend these skills together. It is more than a matter of simply rolling the dice.

Obviously this is not unique to warhammer 40k, most tactical wargames incorporate some element of chance, so you typically be managing the odds in addition to attempting to outmaneuver your opponent no matter which game you play.

Deathstars are fantastic at minimizing their statistical variability. That is what makes these games so deathstar oriented. You KNOW that your screamers won't fall at any given 18 wounds because their chance of failing exactly 18 wounds is 9.69 x 10^29, or a 0.00000000000000000000000000969% chance. In essence, you're far, far, far more likely to win the lottery than you are to fail 18 saves on screamers.

When I have more of a chance at winning idiot tax than I do at killing a 225 point unit + HQs, you know your game is broken.

As an aside, let's think about how many wounds it actually takes to kill screamers. 648, on average. That's 1,296 hits, or 1934 boltgun rounds fired. That's literally 97% of a chapter of space marines - 967 marines firing boltguns - to kill 9 screamers, at 12" range. Shall we ignore the fact that's a 14,000 point army within 12" shooting?

No wonder GK were created! (Sorry couldn't resist)

When I have more of a chance at winning idiot tax than I do at killing a 225 point unit + HQs, you know your game is broken.

Your preaching to the choir here. Pretty solid evidence GW has botched the design of their game though.

Yeah I brought up in another thread that the units you see the most of are the ones that skew statistical averages in their favor which is what makes them so powerful.

It doesn't matter that you have one unit that always does one thing , if it does that one thing 100 percent of the time in a game of chance that's kind of powerful.

 Ratius wrote:
Can you give us an example KK, quite interested in non points determination (only played GW and PP games really).

Fire & Fury rules for America Civil War
You make an army by examining the records of an actual battle to find out how many men and units were there. You divide that by a factor to give you the number of wargame figure and units to put on the table.

Marechal de l'Empire rules for Napoleonic Wars
For each major campaign (such as Moscow 1812) there is a set of tables that reflect the theoretical maximum available composition of forces. You roll up an army that represents the units that actually arrive at the battlefield in time. The dice deprive you of units that didn't get orders, or got lost, or were too far away, and so on.

Both these sets are intended for "narrative" or historical recreation games. There is no attempt to balance the forces for competitive games.

The idea that a game is okay when certain armies are auto-win is ridiculous. Auto-loosing is not fun and if you think so you're a very small minority and don't understand the definition of game. (a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.) Showing up with a certain army isn't listed there. If You're playing rock, paper, scissors, gun and gun always wins...then there's no point in playing anything other than gun. That's not fun, that's stupid.

Well actually... 40k could take a hint from pretty much any strategy game out there...

Most fighting games work on 3 principles, maneuverability, offense and defense. Remember Star Wars Rogue Squadron? The A Wing was super fast, the Y Wing was slow and had tons of bombs and the X Wing was a balanced multipurpose fighter. That seemed to work, at least it was a damn fun video game. There are plenty of examples of "balanced" game designs. Just because Matt Ward says there is no balance doesn't mean he's right. 40k is what it is...

I always like to compare balance to Starcraft. Asynchronous gameplay which is balanced at both the lower and higher levels of play. 4x zerglings = 2x marines = 1x zealot for a basic troop choice. All have different strengths and weaknesses but are balanced overall as you can fight to your strengths if you know how. Blizzard are far from perfect at balancing, as Carriers and mother ships rarely see action at high levels for example, but it's so much more balanced than 40k that it's disappointing GW doesn't try to do better.

All it takes is a lot of playtesting, analysing results and well thought out balancing decisions - which might not even be a direct change to the obvious unit, but rather a change to the maps available for tournament play or a change to a different unit. Blink stalkers too powerful atm? Greatly reduce the impact of blink all-ins by reducing mothership core sight radius. Warp prisms not being used much? Increase their speed. Firebat drops too powerful early game? Reduce their damage to light units and slow down their acquisition.

Overall, it results in a closely balanced game at all levels of play. It takes work - but that's what we pay GW for.

It's way a well run , organized, competitive enviroment would actually benefit the game as it allows instant access to what people are playing and why.

I mean even just from a marketing stand point and data analysis of armies etc.. it's a great tool to know who is playing what and why.

It's just GW is kind of fething slowed.

IF GW plc rules for 40k are developed for narrative co-operative games.
Why do they include point values for everything, including scenery?

The ONLY reason to include Point Values is to allow competitive play at set values.(EG 1500pts, 200pts etc.)

If GW are writing 40k JUST for narrative gaming, then drop the point values from the rules.
Then we shall see now many 'narrative 40k players' there really are.

Because competitive players would not buy it.

However, if the rules for 40k were written for the current game , rather than WHFB in space v3.x.It may allow much better balance in the rules.
(Making everything backward compatible to 1970s Napoleonic game mechanics and resolution methods is just lunacy IMO.)

Lanrak wrote:
IF GW plc rules for 40k are developed for narrative co-operative games.
Why do they include point values for everything, including scenery?

The ONLY reason to include Point Values is to allow competitive play at set values.(EG 1500pts, 200pts etc.)

If GW are writing 40k JUST for narrative gaming, then drop the point values from the rules.
Then we shall see now many 'narrative 40k players' there really are.

Because competitive players would not buy it.

The opposite is equally true.

If GW plc rules for 40K are developed for some form of illusionary "balanced" "standard" game.
Why do they include instructions for "Forging the Narrative" or "Spirit of the Game" that clearly state the above is not the intent?

The ONLY reason to include instructions that points and rules are to serve as a loose framework, rather than written-in-stone law is to communicate just that.

If GW are writing 40K for balanced gameing, they could just drop those boxes from the rules.
Then we shall see how many "competitive 40k players' there really are.

Because narrative players would not buy it.

Infact, GW doesn't even have the to do that. We already know. Plenty of other wargames don't include the "Forge the Narrative"-style instructions. Guess which game is the most popular.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
IF GW plc rules for 40k are developed for narrative co-operative games.
Why do they include point values for everything, including scenery?

The ONLY reason to include Point Values is to allow competitive play at set values.(EG 1500pts, 200pts etc.)

If GW are writing 40k JUST for narrative gaming, then drop the point values from the rules.
Then we shall see now many 'narrative 40k players' there really are.

Because competitive players would not buy it.

The opposite is equally true.

If GW plc rules for 40K are developed for some form of illusionary "balanced" "standard" game.
Why do they include instructions for "Forging the Narrative" or "Spirit of the Game" that clearly state the above is not the intent?

The ONLY reason to include instructions that points and rules are to serve as a loose framework, rather than written-in-stone law is to communicate just that.

If GW are writing 40K for balanced gameing, they could just drop those boxes from the rules.
Then we shall see how many "competitive 40k players' there really are.

Because narrative players would not buy it.

Except that if they really wanted narrative they'd throw away the point system entirely. The point system, by its nature, attempts to establish balance. Key point, attempts. If they really wanted a loose framework, they'd have models with rules and general books guides and leave points entirely. But they don't.

Finally, narrative players would still buy it. Because the only people that play narrative matches are friends or people that joined a tournament specifically forged to create a tournament. And these are actually the minority of all games. Most are just a quick game using the standard rules.

 StarTrotter wrote:


The point system, by its nature, attempts to establish balance. .

I have yet to see evidence for this ludicrous claim that "point values = balance"

Indeed, a point system works very well in establishing imbalances.

Give two equal units unequal point values ... ta-da ... imbalance.
Give two unequal units equal point values ... ta-da ... imbalance.

Works like a charm.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:


The point system, by its nature, attempts to establish balance. .

I have yet to see evidence for this ludicrous claim that "point values = balance"

Indeed, a point system works very well in establishing imbalances.

Give two equal units unequal point values ... ta-da ... imbalance.
Give two unequal units equal point values ... ta-da ... imbalance.

Works like a charm.

Implying imbalance is a good thing when it's rampant imbalance. Here's the thing and what you didn't notice from the previous thread. Perfect Imbalance is a form of balance. Contradictory and irritating to say because of their descriptions but it forms a sense of balance in the grand scheme of things. 40k has 3 seasons of trying to be more competitive. 3rd edition to 5th edition pushed more and more for it. Then season 6 dropped most of it yet kept rules. And the thing is, if it wanted to go for truly narrative, it could just toss aside the rules and create abstract ones and some themes to restrict it. Like 3 Leman Russ Variants were used in this skirmish so pick them or some of the other games mentioned in similar threads where war statistics are calculated and then divided for historicals.

Thing is, GW is just really really bad at using their point values even slightly properly.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
What do you lose from getting a more balanced game?
The answer: About as much as competitive player with all gray models getting more beautifully sculpted models - nothing, but sometimes you'll stop to appreciate the change you never asked for.

This part of your post I will pick out specifically (as I am not a game designer, I feel unqualified to address your other points).

I disagree. We lose options in most iterations - many people want things to be eliminated or reduced, for example the removal of Riptides or the limitation 0-1. Unless there is a fluff reason (such as unique characters), this should be avoided. Balance is not a good reason to eliminate/restrict options.

I understand this, but the losses of options I have witnessed in my game time were usually for economic reasons. The sole reason for the three IG characters getting the axe is them not making their money back, the reasons for the tyranid ICs disappearing is the lawsuit they lost, and the reason for the BT codex disapearing is probably low sales on BT stuff.

In order to archive balance, you can kill an option, without killing whatever that options represents. For example, in MtG they wanted to design a card representing the protagonist of the current storyline and passed it on to development. Development deemed the card to be too powerful and unsalvageable and told design to find the new idea. While the specific card was dropped and never saw print, the set still has a card representing that protagonist that fits the story behind it very well. The same could be done to riptides. It's supposed to be a giant fire warrior with awesome guns, you could just drop all its rules and find new, more balanced ones. Taking away stuff is not balance, but bad game design.

Furthermore, however, and perhaps more damning, is the change in the attitude of players. Warmachine has the famous "play like you got a pair" statement on page 5, and I consider it to be a balanced game. However, this means that one can never play narrative games - it's technically possible within the context of the rules (as many of you have pointed out) but people do not wish to play it, because they wish to practice for tournaments / play competitively.

A game that is as unbalanced as 40k seems to attract players who have less of a problem arranging games around a narrative framework.

There is a difference in creating a balanced game and providing support for narrative games. Every single one of my narrative games happened because someone took the time to think up a narrative game. We had a race, moving all models and terrain to the right table edge by 6" at the end of every turn, with the person having a model furthest to the left winning the game. We had a cityfight game in a secret tau laboratory, which ended up with orks teleporting around in a ruin, half a company of Black Templars getting electrocuted by a fence and an ultramarine scout luring a randomly manifested bloodthrister towards an escaped tyranid swarm. GW added absolutely nothing to this - quite the opposite.

What attracts narrative players is the rich background, beautiful and numerous model range and the huge choice between playstyles. Warmachine and Warhordes might have the better rules, but seriously, no one looks at a rulebook and then decides to pick up wargaming. On the other hand, WH40k lures you in with all its fluff and pretty miniatures and, then uppercuts you with its garbage rules once you expand into the game.

I wish to reemphasize that I am not saying that Warmachine cannot be house-ruled for narrative gaming - it certainly can be. However, the type of players I've almost universally encountered have been singularly unwilling to do so (for fear of violating balance, among other things). The same, I can say, is true of the more balanced editions of 40k; I had to labor long and hard to convince people to play against my Armored Company after it was removed from the tournament scene even though it was still published on their website and it was official for normal 40k.

Well in my opinion the whole "what are you allowed to play?" problem could be fixed by GW in two minutes. Put a lists on their homepage divided into "Warhammer 40k", "Game Variants" and "Apocalypse". Just list everything they and forgeworld sell, boom, done. Seriously, this is just their "4+ it!" nonsense ruining your fun, not balance.

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:


The point system, by its nature, attempts to establish balance. .

I have yet to see evidence for this ludicrous claim that "point values = balance"

Indeed, a point system works very well in establishing imbalances.

Give two equal units unequal point values ... ta-da ... imbalance.
Give two unequal units equal point values ... ta-da ... imbalance.

Works like a charm.

Implying imbalance is a good thing when it's rampant imbalance. Here's the thing and what you didn't notice from the previous thread. Perfect Imbalance is a form of balance. Contradictory and irritating to say because of their descriptions but it forms a sense of balance in the grand scheme of things. 40k has 3 seasons of trying to be more competitive. 3rd edition to 5th edition pushed more and more for it. Then season 6 dropped most of it yet kept rules. And the thing is, if it wanted to go for truly narrative, it could just toss aside the rules and create abstract ones and some themes to restrict it. Like 3 Leman Russ Variants were used in this skirmish so pick them or some of the other games mentioned in similar threads where war statistics are calculated and then divided for historicals.

Thing is, GW is just really really bad at using their point values even slightly properly.

Again, you're evading the question and "moving goal posts" as some people here like to call it.

Whether "perfect imbalance" is "balance" or not, is a different subject.
Whether "creating imbalance" is a valid goal or not, is a different subject.
Whether 40K subscribes to "perfect imbalance" or not, is a different subject.
Whether GW makes good games or not, is a different subject.

We can discuss all of them again, if you like.

But the point here is a different one.

Can you use a point system to create imbalances... yes or no?

Answer me that question.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:


The point system, by its nature, attempts to establish balance. .

I have yet to see evidence for this ludicrous claim that "point values = balance"

Indeed, a point system works very well in establishing imbalances.

Give two equal units unequal point values ... ta-da ... imbalance.
Give two unequal units equal point values ... ta-da ... imbalance.

Works like a charm.

That's not how balance works.

 Jidmah wrote:


That's not how balance works.

Obviously. Because that's how imbalance works.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
IF GW plc rules for 40k are developed for narrative co-operative games.
Why do they include point values for everything, including scenery?

The ONLY reason to include Point Values is to allow competitive play at set values.(EG 1500pts, 200pts etc.)

If GW are writing 40k JUST for narrative gaming, then drop the point values from the rules.
Then we shall see now many 'narrative 40k players' there really are.

Because competitive players would not buy it.

The opposite is equally true.

If GW plc rules for 40K are developed for some form of illusionary "balanced" "standard" game.
Why do they include instructions for "Forging the Narrative" or "Spirit of the Game" that clearly state the above is not the intent?

The ONLY reason to include instructions that points and rules are to serve as a loose framework, rather than written-in-stone law is to communicate just that.

If GW are writing 40K for balanced gameing, they could just drop those boxes from the rules.
Then we shall see how many "competitive 40k players' there really are.

Because narrative players would not buy it.

Infact, GW doesn't even have the to do that. We already know. Plenty of other wargames don't include the "Forge the Narrative"-style instructions. Guess which game is the most popular.

Interestingly, in 4th and 5th edition there wasn't any mention of "forging a narrative" and the section on points made specific mention of the fact that this was how the game was balanced. Also at that time, GW ran or sponsored a lot of competitions.

This has all changed under 6th edition, complaints from competitive gamers have shot up, and as far as we can tell from GW's interim report, sales and profits are down.

So it would seem that competitive players are deserting the system.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


That's not how balance works.

Obviously. Because that's how imbalance works.

Not it doesn't. Point value of individual units is completely irrelevant to both codex balance and global balance. Had you actually read my last response to you, you'd know that.