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.

I'm sticking my $.02 in here and with luck it won't explode in my face. So here goes:

There are problems on both sides of the fence.

GW is responsible for a lot of things that are wrong with the game. Points costs that can't be compared from one book to another (example: CSM being priced so closely to Marines but being at least 3 rules shy of what the Marines get standard (not counting that ATSKNF is basically 3 rules at the moment)), upgrade costs that are standardized across multiple books despite being less effective from one to the other (example: Power Fists for instance between IG and Marines), and a host of other issues. And there is a chance they just don't know this or they're apathetic to how we see the game. Neither would totally surprise me but I have strong feelings that it's the first more than the latter.

That said, there is definitely something wrong with a player who will happily bring a Taudar list against someone who is just learning the game and barely has gotten his models together and has learned to start painting. We can't pretend that these people are GW's fault or that there really is a way for a game to prevent them from acting like massive bellends. Some people will behave like that regardless of what the rules say and will do everything they can within those rules (and in some cases they go beyond the rules too) to win. That is definitely a problem with the player, not the game.

Now, that quibble about players aside, should 40k be better? Damn right. It should play faster and easier, be more balanced from one unit to the next and have clearly and tightly defined rules. Frankly I feel they need to throw out the entire current structure of the game and start over because right now it's a mess. Granted it's a mess that I like a lot of the concepts of, but it's still a mess and I want to see it be better.

I think there are some problems with the game, and that is GW's fault.

Doesnt mean that the players cant try and fix it. Look at what they were doing with the tournament missions, or their own FAQs. Make modifications.

Also GW does not force you to buy and use any unit. That is the choice of the player. Do the rules make it more efficient to buy certain units? Sure, but I like to take slightly sub optimal units and play with them because it makes me a better player. Obviously there are some units that are just BAD but when you are a good player you can make use of most of the units in any given book.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


That said, there is definitely something wrong with a player who will happily bring a Taudar list against someone who is just learning the game and barely has gotten his models together and has learned to start painting.

.

I question that logic. How can someone start buying in to the game and not at least check what are the power builds in a game. It would be as if someone bought a car or a house without checking its specifics .

Makumba wrote:
I question that logic. How can someone start buying in to the game and not at least check what are the power builds in a game. It would be as if someone bought a car or a house without checking its specifics .

One is a huge investment, the other is a game. Very dodgy and unnecessary analogy.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That said, there is definitely something wrong with a player who will happily bring a Taudar list against someone who is just learning the game and barely has gotten his models together and has learned to start painting.

A new player could just as easily choose competitive units without knowing anything about what's good or not and stomp the hell out of their friends who unknowingly chose bad units, completely unintentionally.

 Leth wrote:
Also GW does not force you to buy and use any unit. That is the choice of the player.

Once they've already bought the unit and *then* it changes, that's the choice of GW. Then the player can buy all new models, yay!! Until they get nerfed next edition.

Players fixing the game requires wide-spread support from the entire community. This isn't easy to achieve, especially in a community this divided.

Makumba wrote:
I question that logic. How can someone start buying in to the game and not at least check what are the power builds in a game.

Not everyone wants to play a power build. Many players in 40K are going to want to play with stuff they like - because they like the models and/or the fluff. They'll want to make their own force, following an idea they have for it in their head, rather than slavishly following some optimised netlist.

I probably come across as hostile to netlists/tournament armies. I'm not, and I don't do pick up games anyway so I've no personal axe to grind in the fluff list vs tourney list debate. I'm simply saying that we the players have to take some responsibility for the way the game is played within our local circles - whether it is fluff vs fluff or tourney vs tourney, or something in between.

Because anyone who is waiting for GW to balance the game and bridge the gulf between fluff and tourney is going to be waiting for a very very long time.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Players fixing the game requires wide-spread support from the entire community. This isn't easy to achieve, especially in a community this divided.

Not really. In your local group decide what you guys want to do. If you cant decide just ask before the game starts how you are going to play it. I always ask potential rules questions before I take an action rather than later.

If you go to a tournament what the TO decides goes, if you don't like what they decide then you don't attend quite simple.

If GW changes a rule for a unit they are still not forcing you to play or not play it, you are deciding if you want to take it or not. Nothing stopping you. If it is HONESTLY that big a deal to you just proxy it.


Also to perfectly balance everything would require limiting options and abilities. I will take unbalanced variety any day over fewer options and less interesting rules.

 -Loki- wrote:
The current market shows making a well designed ruleset with asymetrical forces that caters to people building from background and people building from a competitive standpoint and allowing them to play together without the competitive player gaining an innate advantage is possible. Smaller companies do it better, which shows how much effort GW actually put into the design side of their game.

Smaller games have less players, and that in itself fosters a different mindset. Like I've said, 40K is currently the big name in tabletop wargames and that means it will pull in a disproportionate number of WAAC players motivated not by love of the game but by the need to win. Rules lawyering and netlisting will follow. Were GW to 'fix' the game that element of the playerbase would immediately set about working out ways to break it again, in order to regain their advantage.

I don't exonerate GW of all responsibility for the current state of the game. Like many here I could come out with a long list of things I think they should do differently, of changes I think should be made. Regardless of that, the 40K community needs to recognise its own failings rather than blaming everything on GW. GW can/could fix the game. GW cannot fix the players.

 ashcroft wrote:
Disclaimer 1: I'm not trying to exonerate GW of all responsibility, There are issues, but it's not a one-way street.

Disclaimer 2: Alternative title for this topic would have been "Competitive 40K would require a whole different ruleset."

There's a lot of debate about 'balance' in 40K - mostly to do with pick up games - and it reminds me a lot about the never ending arguments about PVP (Player vs Player) in MMOs.

In any MMO which has optional PVP there will be two types of player in a pvp zone - the casual player, who has built his character according to personal preference and what they find fun, and the pvp player or powergamer/min-maxer, who has built his character to be absolutely optimised, either doing the number crunching himself or getting the current flavor of the month build from the internet. Is this sounding at all familiar?

If a casual/fluffy player enters a pvp zone and goes one on one against someone running an optimised/min-maxed uber build, then the casual is going to lose, almost always. Doesn't matter if they are more skilled as a player - the superior gear, stats, attack rotation of the min-maxer will usually be the deciding factor. In much the same way a fluff list is, more often than not, going to take a beating from an optimised tournament ready netlist.

There's very little that GW can do to prevent this. If other games are better balanced it's in no small part due to a couple of things - either the armies are more inherently equal to begin with (such as most historical wargames, or for that matter 30K with its marine vs marine set up), or they have a smaller playerbase, or both. A big game like 40K will have more WAAC players simply because it has more players overall. Fiercely competitive players in MMOs are almost always drawn to the big games and the high pop servers - and in tabletop gaming 40K is the big, high pop game.

The only way for GW to force balance onto 40K would be to drastically reduce the options available to the players - in terms of units that can be fielded, missions that can be played, the way and the quantity of terrain that is deployed. Everything. Is 40K as well balanced as a tournament game like Starcraft? Not in the slightest, but Starcraft has only 3 races. I daresay if GW squatted everyone except the Ultramarines, the Eldar and the Tyranids they could balance those 3 codexes better against each other.

GW isn't twisting anyone's arm to force them to spam Riptides, or Wave Serpents or deathstar units. Just because the rules don't say you can do something does not mean you either have to or should do it. Some of the responsibility has to lie with the players to actually agree about what makes an enjoyable game for all concerned, rather than waiting for GW to dictate from on high a set of draconian restrictions to force the game to be what any particular player wants it to be.

That's what I think anyway.

Last I checked the top MMOs like WOW at least try to balance for PvP. It's never perfect but it's a lot better than GWs sucky outdated rules.

GW is some of the worst game design that ive seen. they really dont give a ratsass.

I don't generally like the misconception some people seem to foster in regards of GW being unable to make a balanced game. It's like some people would believe that it could be impossible for a company with budget as vast as that of GW and possible amount of designers and developers they could put to the task.

Again - I don't want anyone to misunderstand me - all I am saying is that with enough quality effort both internal and external codex balance is possible to achieve - the core rules of 40k as of 6th are pretty okay in my opinion. The biggest mistake imho was letting different people make different Codexes to their liking resulting in terrible rifts between those more prone towards making OP stuff and those, who thought that external balance is a good idea. Attempts to make their own Codexes "the best ones around" resulted in terrible lack of balance and I have no idea why did GW allow that to happen - they should've created a team that'd work on all Codexes to balance them properly, both internally and externally. See, the Astra Militarum Codex is the closest to being externally balanced at this point, and it's the latest one in 40k. If they continue that road and work on removal of utter cheese, 40k might be getting closer and closer to becoming a balanced system.

When they're done balancing them externally, they could balance them internally and I -know- that units within the codex can be balanced well enough for every one of them to be at least playable. I'm not saying that Rough Riders should be equally good as any other choice in their bracket, but I wat them to get a buff that will not punish you with terrible handicap if you take them.. look at the Armoured Sentinels - they got buffed by reducing their point cost and if you field them now you can have some fun playing with them in your army - that's a case of good internal balancing. Now let's put enough effort into making every other codex entry balanced within the book and tah-dah! Mission accomplished. It just takes effort and playtesting.

Please, guys, don't justify laziness. GW is more than capable of fixing stuff. Let's encourage them to keep working harder and harder on making more balanced Codexes such as the IG one, because no rulebook hotfix will fix the armies themselves.

One is a huge investment, the other is a game. Very dodgy and unnecessary analogy.

So you want to tell me that any GW army is not a huge investment , specialy when yourt starting the game ?

Not everyone wants to play a power build. Many players in 40K are going to want to play with stuff they like - because they like the models and/or the fluff. They'll want to make their own force, following an idea they have for it in their head, rather than slavishly following some optimised netlist.

I played since middle of 5th and have seen this done twice , and since then we easily went through more then 50 new WFB and w40k players . The two that did end up playing with "what they want" were a player who had a FW army he played in UK and another one being our friend who was stupid enough to trust GW clerks . In one case it ended with the FW guy being unable to play anywhere and in the other our friend being a prime example why to not start with GW games. So in one case it had a guy with ton of cash in models he can't use and in the other fewer new players , because no one wants to put a lot of cash in to something as unbalanced.

I think the game is very unbalanced, but compare it to Marvels Avengers Assembles app on the phone and it begins to seem the Holland of level playing fields. That is until they bring in unbound of course.

Poly Ranger wrote:
I think the game is very unbalanced, but compare it to Marvels Avengers Assembles app on the phone and it begins to seem the Holland of level playing fields. That is until they bring in unbound of course.

Cute. So, you're comparing a game that requires a base purchase of $85 (rulebook) + $50 (codex) + $300 (smallish 1000 point army give or take) that's had 25+ years of gameplay data to a free app that's been around for a few months.

I guess you need to set the bar really low when making GW comparisons.

The difficulty in this or any game balance discussion stems from the fact this game is rather complex as games go.

CCG's and Video games have an exceedingly small amount of interactions you can do in comparison to tabletop games. Just think for a moment of the almost limitless variances of people and actions in tabletop games. Video games also dont have the personal attachment of individual units, you do not paint and model things so when patch 1.6 comes out it is irelevant if its adjusted slightly. Video games also have many times more runs played of it. I play 1-4 games of 40k a week, usually 1. A night of Starcraft may see you play many more, furthermore everything about the game is controlled and sculpted. Your no going to move things around just to have fun and get jumped by confusion.

Card games like Magic have only a handful of turn and only a handful of actions. You can only play 1-3 cards a turn typically (limited by drawing and available resources). Quite simply its a completely different animal than 40k which allows you to field dozens of units in altogether different combinations. Again think of the limitless ways you can screw up your turn in 40k, especially if your just enjoying it. Even battle reports by tourney players talk about how many mistakes they made, or seeing a mistake their opponent didnt capitalize on.

There are people who are simply bad tactically, people who never deploy properly, ect. What this does is allow them to fall into the echo chamber of 'X or Y' doesnt work. For instance there was an Eldar player at my local shop who couldnt fathom for anything how Warp Spiders are good. His games are static gunlines with his Eldar; games he routinely loses since he has no concept of aggression and simply reacts to every situation. With this you not only have to balance the rules, you have to balance the people too. You have to make them in the same mindset, let them in on the same suite of interactions.

40k simply has more stuff than even other miniature games. Every unit of consequence has a wide latitude of options. Warmahordes has a very easy time in a vacuum for balance since all the characters and main models have no options, simply take X. You cannot stress how easy it is relatively to balance if your chapter master is always a certain way. Those other options, no matter how aweful are taken by a person and seen as viable to someone, someone who may be one of the posters on a forum decrying something. Warmahordes is boring to me without this customization, its a great game, just not a great hobby like 40k

Look at the endgame tourney scene of 40k. Over half of the armies are currently involved in it, probably more with 7th. Include all the rules like dataslates and almost all armies are in the game. It may be a mess, but with allies your always guaranteed to see 6+ codexes at top tables. There are stronger codexes, however they can and always do seem to be beat when it comes down to it.

The game is a random pile, with far to many variable to be balanced. As soon as you have unit interactions there is absolutely no way to determine how much stuff costs. You can shave or add points for some things however this isnt the game were getting. Were getting a game with 20+ units all which have hundreds of different combinations when you compare unit amount, wargear and transport options. You will make a wall of mistakes in making your list, or you will white wash your woefully unprepared opponent.

Poly Ranger wrote:
That is until they bring in unbound of course.

Having recently read this in the 7e News thread...

 loki old fart wrote:
Copied from white dwarf

It’s worth pondering exactly what the line ‘whichever units from your collections that you
want’ means, however. Your collection may, of course, include all manner of units from all
manner of armies. So, yes, this means you can simply play a game of Warhammer 40,000
with an army as random and diverse as you want. You could have Space Marine Sternguard
Veterans, a Bloodthirster of Khorne, a Tyranid Exocrine, a Tau Riptide Battlesuit and a unit of
Eldar Guardians as your army.That’s a very silly and extreme example, and you certainly
won’t be very popular with your opponents,

...I can't decide if it strengthens my view, albeit in the most cynical way - i.e. "Balance needs to start AND end with the players because clearly GW doesn't give a feth."

Or alternately if it's utterly futile to ask players to take some responsibility for the games they play when GW themselves are taking none.

 ashcroft wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
That is until they bring in unbound of course.

Having recently read this in the 7e News thread...

 loki old fart wrote:
Copied from white dwarf

It’s worth pondering exactly what the line ‘whichever units from your collections that you
want’ means, however. Your collection may, of course, include all manner of units from all
manner of armies. So, yes, this means you can simply play a game of Warhammer 40,000
with an army as random and diverse as you want. You could have Space Marine Sternguard
Veterans, a Bloodthirster of Khorne, a Tyranid Exocrine, a Tau Riptide Battlesuit and a unit of
Eldar Guardians as your army.That’s a very silly and extreme example, and you certainly
won’t be very popular with your opponents,

...I can't decide if it strengthens my view, albeit in the most cynical way - i.e. "Balance needs to start AND end with the players because clearly GW doesn't give a feth."

Or alternately if it's utterly futile to ask players to take some responsibility for the games they play when GW themselves are taking none.

They are taking responsibility, they want you to play a game that allows you to interact with every model you own. They do not, nor have they ever, enodorsed a bleeding edge tournament simulator. There are other games that take the view you seem to want. Games Workshop has tried time and time again to tell you they do not want to police an airtight tournament game.

 lazarian wrote:
They are taking responsibility, they want you to play a game that allows you to interact with every model you own. They do not, nor have they ever, enodorsed a bleeding edge tournament simulator. There are other games that take the view you seem to want. Games Workshop has tried time and time again to tell you they do not want to police an airtight tournament game.

My reaction to Unbound has nothing to do with tabletop balance. I'm a fluff player, and seeing GW provide 'rules' for using forces that make an utter mockery of that fluff - far beyond even the worst excesses of the allies matrix - is not something I like to see.

Makumba wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:


That said, there is definitely something wrong with a player who will happily bring a Taudar list against someone who is just learning the game and barely has gotten his models together and has learned to start painting.

.

I question that logic. How can someone start buying in to the game and not at least check what are the power builds in a game. It would be as if someone bought a car or a house without checking its specifics .

I've seen it happen plenty. Not everyone lives on the internet, or thinks of digging into the internet to get ideas, or has the time and money to throw together a super strong lists for their first few games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yonan wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That said, there is definitely something wrong with a player who will happily bring a Taudar list against someone who is just learning the game and barely has gotten his models together and has learned to start painting.

A new player could just as easily choose competitive units without knowing anything about what's good or not and stomp the hell out of their friends who unknowingly chose bad units, completely unintentionally.

And while this can happen, it's usually a lot more rare than the people who do so intentionally and frankly maliciously. We've all met TFGs, and that's what I was talking about, the TFGs of 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ashcroft wrote:

 lazarian wrote:
They are taking responsibility, they want you to play a game that allows you to interact with every model you own. They do not, nor have they ever, enodorsed a bleeding edge tournament simulator. There are other games that take the view you seem to want. Games Workshop has tried time and time again to tell you they do not want to police an airtight tournament game.

My reaction to Unbound has nothing to do with tabletop balance. I'm a fluff player, and seeing GW provide 'rules' for using forces that make an utter mockery of that fluff - far beyond even the worst excesses of the allies matrix - is not something I like to see.

Unbound isn't being sold as a "make up any gak you want" ruleset but instead a ruleset for making armies that match the ones in the books or the lore bits in the codexes. To accomplish what can't be done normally inside the FOC.

purplkrush wrote:Rogue Trader. The game you are playing came from that game. If you need some perspextive on what kind of game you're plating, play some Rogue Trader. Want balance? Play Malifuax, or whatever else. Want a game with fun armies and aweet models and a rich universe? Play 40k. But stop bitching. We all know the game.

amusing. Rogue trader was 25years ago. thats a long time, and lets be fair, things were a lot different back in the 80s. things change and evolve. regardless, fun armies, sweet models and rich universe is in a lot of other wargaming IPs as well - 40k doesnt have a monopoly on "good" fluff, just nostalgia.

Makumba wrote:
But how do you find opponent to play this your version of the game . Unless people are lower in the food chain then you , you won't be able to make them play the game your way. I see shop owners oppose FW , because they don't sell it . They are the ones that have tables , so they can enforce the rule. If someone wanted to do the same , he or she would have to own a FLGS .

you talk to people. I assume you have polish facebook groups and polish 40k forums etc? is it that hard to say "i am tired of owergaming 40k. I'd like to play a narrative fluffy game. is there anyone out there who plays this way, or knows people who play this way".

I demoed a few games of Infinity to two gents a few years ago. after afew months, we ended up leaving the club (it wasnt a friendly place) and playing at one of the guy's homes. we've expanded the group with one of my mates from work. every friday we play different wargames - some sci fi (infinity, soon dropzone commander) and historicals - fflames of war, dark age stuff etc. As a group, we're quite happy to "fudge" things, and not play certain rules a certain way if we dont like them.

really, it just depends on your group. they exist.

Makumba wrote:I rather sure that the way the game is played is dictated by the avarge salary . I understand that people in the UK or US have more money . We have less money , so we buy only the units that are good and build armies in a such a way that they can play the most opponents.

People talk about 10 riptides or 10 helldrakes lists and how unbound is bad , when I on the other hand know that no one here would buy 10 of those . Not because they are good or bad, but because spending so much money on an army that you may never get to play is not going to happen.

As not going to shops that have their own house rules goes. Where do you play then . Sure one can buy an army and only play at tournaments , but that is a lot of money spend on something one may use 7-9 time per year.

I don't play at a GW , there is only one in the whole country and they only let noobs that buy from them play there , and give them the boot as soon as they stop buying stuff.

Well, its a difference in perspective for a start. think less "we only buy the units that are good" and more "we only play units that we like and build our games around that". you dont need to play in shops - get a board together at someones house and play there. its what we do. My mate has a gaming room, and another is converting his garage into his gaming room with a table and stuff.

office_waaagh wrote:

This seems to get to the heart of the issue; people are broadly falling into two camps. On the one hand there are the people that agree with the OP, and believe that the game should be fun, fluffy, and cool first and foremost, and as long as the codices are roughly balanced against each other they're happy. If the odd oversight leads to an exploit or a particular army becoming overpowered, you can just agree with your gaming buddies not to play that army list. This is considered a small price to pay for having the freedom to play the game as you like and use cool models. On the other hand there is a group of people that believes the game should be balanced perfectly out of the box, and that you should never have to worry about showing up for an open game night and looking at an all-deathstar list across the table and have to basically start packing up before you begin. That you do speaks to a deep flaw in the system of rules, points values, and codices.
.

amusingly, you contradict yourself. you say the odd oversight is ok, because it can be ignored. you justify this by stating it gives you the "freedom to play the game as you like". quite simply, youre contradicting yourself, as your "freedom" is paid for with the restriction of self policing, restrictions and "gentlemens agreements".despite what you say, thats simply not freedom to play the game as you like. thats "terms and conditions".

office_waaagh wrote:
I'm more sympathetic to the first view, mainly because the second seems like just complaining for its own sake to me. I understand that there is frustration over this issue, and quite justifiably so. Ultimately, however, the game we have is the game GW makes. If we don't like it, we can take our business elsewhere and they'll change their tune right quick or lose their fanbase, which choice they are free to make for themselves. The "gentleman's agreement" school of thought seems more constructive to me; take the game we have and sand down the rough edges among ourselves, and then get on with having fun.
.

and when everyone wants something different? i like the "idea" of gentlemens agreements, but often find reality is a far different beast.

I'm all for house rules, and custom scenarios etc. but this only works in a small group of likeminded mates. it doesnt work for pick up games. it doesnt work for tournaments. having a well written, consise and balanced set of rules benefits everyone. taking our business elsewhere sadly is a valid response, especially when GW has shown no interest in listening to its customer base.

office_waaagh wrote:
Klerych has the right idea, I think, in that the best solution would be for them to create a system to separate tournaments from casual play. I think it can be generally agreed that the "unbound" armies from the upcoming edition will be hopeless in tournaments, and it will just be a competition of who can make the beardiest list. It may be wishful thinking, but if enough people email GW customer service asking after this it might get the designers to take notice.

they wont listen. they've not listened in the past. having separate ormats for tournaments games and casual games is a foolish idea. casual play benefits from a clear set of balanced rules as much as, if not more than tournament play.

office_waaagh wrote:Yonan, I'll forgo quoting your reply at length to save space. It wasn't my intention to make the "the game is unbalanced" camp appear unreasonable, and I apologize for the confusion if my wording did so. I'm just not sure that you can simply rebalance a dozen or more armies while still introducing new models and units quite so easily as you suggest. I certainly don't know how to do it, at any rate, and I solve statistics problems for a living. The number of degrees of freedom is daunting, to say the least.
.

Why not? look at what Privateer Press did when they released Mk2 warmachine and hordes. they put the rules up online for free, and invited the playerbase to take part in a free, open ended beta. send your results, thoughts and comments into PP. it allowed for a huge amount of playtesting to take place and they got great feedback from the community. we're talking about tens of thousands of games here that built up a picture of what worked, and what didnt. and PP were able to take that and consolidate it into Mk2. And certainly, its not perfect, but while they aimed for a head shot and missed, they did tear out the throat. its a far more balanced game and the time and effort put into this shows.

Regarding updating and rebalancing a dozen factions whilst still introducing new models and units - they do this too. at the start of mk2, they updated 6 warmachine factions, and 5 hordes factions along with 2 rulebooks in just over a year. thats a full update for their game. they also release new units and models with each expansion to their game.

it is possible. GW simply choose not to do it.

office_waaagh wrote:
I think that a separate set of rules for tournaments or less casual play is the best of both worlds. It retains the flexibility that some parts of the community enjoy while offering a more structured and objectively balanced system for those who prefer it. I don't think I'm being unreasonable, there are enough similar replies as well as the OP himself on the thread to suggest that at the very least I'm in a sizeable minority, if the split isn't closer to even. But by all means, I am open to alternate suggestions, and this is just my personal opinion.

To a certain extent, I'm just trying to be realistic. The design philosophy that informs GW's decisions is only within our influence to a very limited extent, and we don't all agree on whether it's the right one or not. Some people like the "rule of cool" style, while others would prefer a more objectively balanced game even if it meant a more limited wargear selection (for example). We should raise our issues and complaints; we are the customers, after all, and we have a reasonable expectation of getting something worth our significant investment. But at the end of the day, the game they make is the game we have, and I'd rather just get on with having fun. So far, for me, the rules haven't gotten in the way of that objective.

i disagree. casual and tournament games both benefit from the same design philosophy. Just dont use GWs design philosophy as your reference point.

i want flexibility and structured games. amusingly a balanced approach allows for both.

you might not be being unreasonable, but with the greeatest of respect, you're being a little bit naive- especially in seeking a dual approach.

PrinceRaven wrote:Players fixing the game requires wide-spread support from the entire community. This isn't easy to achieve, especially in a community this divided.

agreed.

ashcroft wrote:Smaller games have less players, and that in itself fosters a different mindset. Like I've said, 40K is currently the big name in tabletop wargames and that means it will pull in a disproportionate number of WAAC players motivated not by love of the game but by the need to win. Rules lawyering and netlisting will follow. Were GW to 'fix' the game that element of the playerbase would immediately set about working out ways to break it again, in order to regain their advantage.

I don't exonerate GW of all responsibility for the current state of the game. Like many here I could come out with a long list of things I think they should do differently, of changes I think should be made. Regardless of that, the 40K community needs to recognise its own failings rather than blaming everything on GW. GW can/could fix the game. GW cannot fix the players.

to be fair, other games are picking up steam. other games might have smaller player bases, but they're growing.

As well ashcroft, i'll point out that those WAAC players thrive on "grey areas" and loosely worded, vague rules. they have a field day in GWs games because they're so poorly defined, and have no overall direction (is it a skirmish game? or apocalypse?etc). with a tightly written set up rules, those WAAC players have no room to manoevre. I've seen in in warmachine games where all their tricks just failed. they simply couldnt "play their game" as warmachine's rules set didnt give them an inch for their shenanigans.

 lazarian wrote:
The difficulty in this or any game balance discussion stems from the fact this game is rather complex as games go.

its complex, but dont mistake complexity for depth. 40k is not a very deep game.

 lazarian wrote:

CCG's and Video games have an exceedingly small amount of interactions you can do in comparison to tabletop games. Just think for a moment of the almost limitless variances of people and actions in tabletop games. Video games also dont have the personal attachment of individual units, you do not paint and model things so when patch 1.6 comes out it is irelevant if its adjusted slightly. Video games also have many times more runs played of it. I play 1-4 games of 40k a week, usually 1. A night of Starcraft may see you play many more, furthermore everything about the game is controlled and sculpted. Your no going to move things around just to have fun and get jumped by confusion.

Card games like Magic have only a handful of turn and only a handful of actions. You can only play 1-3 cards a turn typically (limited by drawing and available resources). Quite simply its a completely different animal than 40k which allows you to field dozens of units in altogether different combinations. Again think of the limitless ways you can screw up your turn in 40k, especially if your just enjoying it. Even battle reports by tourney players talk about how many mistakes they made, or seeing a mistake their opponent didnt capitalize on.

rubbish. there are thousands of magic the gathering cards. there are a vast amount of ways they interact. saying you only play 1-3 cards a turn is short sighted - units in 40k move/shoot/assault, and have six turns. 40k is not that complex. an assault squad will not function any differently if it is beside a tactical squad than a devestator squad. put two different magic cards together and you have a totally different combo than two other cards. same with warmachine.

 lazarian wrote:

40k simply has more stuff than even other miniature games. Every unit of consequence has a wide latitude of options. Warmahordes has a very easy time in a vacuum for balance since all the characters and main models have no options, simply take X. You cannot stress how easy it is relatively to balance if your chapter master is always a certain way. Those other options, no matter how aweful are taken by a person and seen as viable to someone, someone who may be one of the posters on a forum decrying something. Warmahordes is boring to me without this customization, its a great game, just not a great hobby like 40k
.

40k might have more stuff, but a lot of it isnt worth taking. Not because it cant be balanced, but because GW chooses not to. they have great designers. its just the corporate culture within gw prevents them showing their brilliance. outside of gw, andy chamers, allesio et al have done really fine work. 40k essentially doesnt have choice, it has the illusion of choice.

warmachine might lose out in the lack of customisation, but in many ways it offers far more "valid" choices in game than 40k. a different caster with the same set of units will play radically different to other casters with the same units. warmachine has a huge amount of complexity. fine, you dont have the illusory option of swapping pikes for swords, or a dozen other less than ideal choices, but you have hundreds of warcasters, warlocks, spells and feats. everything stacks. there is a huge amount of complexity in this game. boring? your mileage varies bud. when i played 40k, third ed boiled down to rhino rush, or shoot the rhino rush. fourth was skimmerspam and 6man las/plas. fifth was armourhammer. sixth was flyers and gunlines.

 lazarian wrote:

Look at the endgame tourney scene of 40k. Over half of the armies are currently involved in it, probably more with 7th. Include all the rules like dataslates and almost all armies are in the game. It may be a mess, but with allies your always guaranteed to see 6+ codexes at top tables. There are stronger codexes, however they can and always do seem to be beat when it comes down to it.
.

what is the list variety though? often times its taudar with inquisitors. having six codices in play at the top tables isnt indicative of variety when of those six codices, only a handful of builds are present.

 lazarian wrote:

The game is a random pile, with far to many variable to be balanced. As soon as you have unit interactions there is absolutely no way to determine how much stuff costs. You can shave or add points for some things however this isnt the game were getting. Were getting a game with 20+ units all which have hundreds of different combinations when you compare unit amount, wargear and transport options. You will make a wall of mistakes in making your list, or you will white wash your woefully unprepared opponent.

why not? Quality control. playtesting. its as simple as that. GW simply chooses not to playtest. i had friends back home that were part of the playtesting crowd during fourth and fifth ed. one guy leaked the fifth ed stuff, and GW went ape, and closed down all external playtesting, preferring to do it in house. that said, even when they did playtest, they didnt listen. i remember my buddies telling me how back in the day, with the fourth ed SM codex (the assault cannon spam one) they indicated to GW how assault cannons were OTT. their suggestions were assault 4, or assault 3 rending. not both. what did GW do? they ignored them.

No, GW dont have a playtesting culture. they're not interested in it. Other companies? sure. Look at privateer press. free worldwide beta test of the then "new" mk2 rules set they were developing, with a forum and site built up to receive commends and playtesting information. It allowed them to develop, and balance the game, and catch out any number of loose ends. it did a lot of good for the game, and really built up a lot of good will amongst its playerbase (we felt as though we were a part of something, we were actively contributing). Imagine this scenario with GW. free worldwide beta test. catch all the bugs. It could do a lot of good, but they're simply not interested in either (a) playtesting, or (b) listening to their consumers.

gah! double post. apologies!

I'm a fluff player. I skipped 5th and when I came back into the game in 6th I wanted to try out a "Penitent style" army for my SOB. I had a bunch of Repentia and a few Penitent Engines, got the rule book, went to my local store and got curb stomped to a hilarious level. Yes, I expected to lose, I'm a noob.(sort of) But as I learned the game, I still got curb stomped because half my army turned out to be useless. Repentia and Penitent engines were hilariously awful.

This is imbalance. Do they need to be that awful? Absolutely not. If GW took a moment to look at the rules for those units they could "Hmm...these PE's aren't surviving long enough to get them into combat and no one uses them. (which means no one's buying them.) Maybe we can make them cheaper? Or maybe we can give them scouting or make them MC's." They could do almost anything to make them slightly more playable.(Thus making the game closer to balanced and also more fluffy.) In 5th Repentia sucked, but in 6th they got unnecessarily nerfed and had their FNP taken away. Why? Was this some brilliant game design? No, it just meant that unit wouldn't be played or bought. This limited my already few choices from a small codex.

All that is totally on GW's head.

Many say "you don't like the way GW makes the game, go play something else."

So I have.
As I'm building my Warmachine forces I'm amazed that there are no real "don't take that" units. Some units may be less optimal, but with the right list or warcaster, they work pretty good. I can have a fluffy AND competitive army at the same time. It's not impossible. Balance does not equal sameness. So stop saying that. Balance means that different units have different roles and you can shape your army for different roles depending on how you want to play.

No one should be punished for taking a whole army. "Oh, you play Blood Angels? Sorry, bro." That shouldn't happen. Having an entire army suck is inexcusable.

 MWHistorian wrote:
No one should be punished for taking a whole army. "Oh, you play Blood Angels? Sorry, bro." That shouldn't happen. Having an entire army suck is inexcusable.

Exactly. People can justify GW as much as they want, but nothing will ever justify whole armies being as bad as some in 40k as a whole. That should never take place and noone should ever be able to claim otherwise with a straight face. And it's not because GW cannot fix them, it's because they didn't even try hard enough.

A balanced game is better for all play. Try all the different skirmish games or find communities of them. They don't have this fight 40k communities do... Why? Because their games are balanced and fluffy players and tournaments players can happily coexist.

GW charges the most for rules, nearly quadruple the cost of other games and is the worst written.

Sorry, the onus is on the game company to make a good game. Players aren't the bad guys. The people shaming other players to keep the game company on a pedestal are the "bad guys," as they don't allow change to happen appropriately.

Funny how in the grand scheme of nearly 7 editions now, we still have this argument, but it doesn't exist in other games that are only on their second or third editions.

Deadnight wrote:

amusingly, you contradict yourself. you say the odd oversight is ok, because it can be ignored. you justify this by stating it gives you the "freedom to play the game as you like". quite simply, youre contradicting yourself, as your "freedom" is paid for with the restriction of self policing, restrictions and "gentlemens agreements".despite what you say, thats simply not freedom to play the game as you like. thats "terms and conditions".

I'm pleased to have amused you, Deadnight. I don't agree, of course, but there you have it, we're not going to agree on everything. I don't think it's a contradiction, I don't find agreeing to relatively mild limitations a terribly onerous task. But if you do, you're not wrong. I have fun with the rules and armies as they are, and that's what matters to me. If you're not having fun, then you're absolutely right to think that's a problem and try to address it.

and when everyone wants something different? i like the "idea" of gentlemens agreements, but often find reality is a far different beast.

I'm all for house rules, and custom scenarios etc. but this only works in a small group of likeminded mates. it doesnt work for pick up games. it doesnt work for tournaments. having a well written, consise and balanced set of rules benefits everyone. taking our business elsewhere sadly is a valid response, especially when GW has shown no interest in listening to its customer base.

I can only assume that GW wrote the rules with "a small group of likeminded mates" in mind, since this seems to be the context in which they work best. This is also the context in which I most often play the game, which probably explains why I like the rules as they are a lot more than a lot of other people seem to.

Regarding updating and rebalancing a dozen factions whilst still introducing new models and units - they do this too. at the start of mk2, they updated 6 warmachine factions, and 5 hordes factions along with 2 rulebooks in just over a year. thats a full update for their game. they also release new units and models with each expansion to their game.

it is possible. GW simply choose not to do it.

This may or may not be true (40k is a much larger game than any of the others, and complexity doesn't scale linearly with size). I'm not sure what the solution is to this problem, though, so I'm content to ignore it since it doesn't do me personally much mischief. The game isn't balanced, but it's near enough for my taste and I'm happy to resolve the outstanding issues between friends.

i disagree. casual and tournament games both benefit from the same design philosophy. Just dont use GWs design philosophy as your reference point.

i want flexibility and structured games. amusingly a balanced approach allows for both.

you might not be being unreasonable, but with the greeatest of respect, you're being a little bit naive- especially in seeking a dual approach.

Well, I don't think I'm being naive, but then I suppose naive people never do. I'm happy with the game as it is, for the most part, so maybe in suggesting a "dual approach" I'm trying to address problems that I don't really experience and am therefore not in the best position to try to fix.

I guess my question is this: even if we were to agree that GW is full of terrible, incompetent human beings that don't care about game balance, what do we do about it? Even if we could all agree on what exactly the problem is, how do we go about solving it? I've come up with a solution that works for me, and I'm basically happy with it, so I don't really have a problem. But many others obviously do, including your own good self. I'm just not sure what anybody plans to do about it. Nobody has come on and said "I agree, I have the same issue, and here's how I addressed it." There has been a lot of re-stating of the problem and a fair amount of imputing conjectured motives to the GW design staff (who are, conveniently, not around to explain themselves or their decisions), and plenty of griping in general, but we're short on workable solutions that we can implement to improve our own gaming experiences. This is why I say the "gentleman's agreement" school is more constructive, since at least that allows people to just get on with playing the game and having fun.

1) Its not a dramatically vast tactical game, but it is complex. It is the most complex commonly played miniature game. Well over a dozen factions with 20+ options each, each option also having upwards to 2 dozen micro options. This is a complex game and were not fixing it. GW gives it their best guess and as a whole it largely pans out. Every option has myriad interactions that make it impossible to balance. Farseers are crap when joined to X, but great when allied to Y for instance.

2) Your ignoring my point on the second point. There are limitless magic cards, almost all of them (95%+) are horrible so there isnt much balance there. With that said my point is more to how basic and simple Magics gameplay is. You only have so many actions in a round and these actions practically write themselves depending on your card draw. 40K has too many moving parts in comparison. Any discussion that reaches for card games or video games ignores the structure that seperates these games. In 40k even something as simple as moving a unit 6.2 inches instead of 6 has a profound impact. Every little facet is in the hands of human elements, few human varieties are needed or useful for many computer or card games.

3) The 'Illusion of Choice' doesnt really apply here. In my 20+ years of gaming ive seen virtually every unit played constantly. There are vast skill differences and goals from player to player. Those specific choices are used far more often than you think; especially since that variety allows you to tailor lists to different levels of opponents. I take pyovores with my Tyranids and Bloodletters with my Daemons regardless of internet wisdom if my opponent needs a fighting chance or wants a comical game. With all that said can you even point to an era that was ever balanced in 40k? Ive been playing since Rogue Trader and its always been painfully apparent not all armies are created equal. They have never been about competitive choices and they arent starting now. Warmahordes is more balanced but is 'soulless' to me due to lack of modeling opportunities, caster kills being boring and virtually no customization options for units. To me and to many others 40k is a 'hobby' precisely in part due to the chaotic whirlwind it encompasses, far more than a simple 'game'.

4) Tournament list variety is actually quite wide if you compare lists. Broad units are always taken but they are countered by other options. No two flying circus lists are identical. There are truly few auto includes and even then they wax and wane with various army books. How many Helldrakes are the backbone of a competetive Chaos army for instance? The answer is 1-3, always different list to list. Compare to Magic where only a handful of decks ever get played, or in video games where much less investment in any option leads most people to simply select the current strong option. Flavor of the month is a term used incessantly in computer PVP.

5) Quality control may not help much in the game they have decided upon. You can create lists incorporating 4-6 different armies. Battle Brothers singlehandedly have made heavyweights out of the most random of unit combinations. Yes they might put the work into it however time and again they are pleading with you to not treat their game as a serious tournament simulator. They have a vision and those wanting things from them they cannot have do a disservice to their person by wasting time trying to tease blood from a very obtuse stone. Being able to join so many units together make it an impossibility to balance points in all honesty. What good is a support unit if its attached to its best case scenario, the second best, or the fifth best on their battle brother army? Markerlights are worthless in a marine force yet cost identical. Farseers do less good attached to howling banshees so forth and so on. Balance could only be truly achieved by making specific army parings cost X points, a complexity far out of the real of having your preteen target market in selecting an army.


Your comparison and comment about a 'culture of playtesting' is exactly the point. GW is all about forging a narrative and having GM's run games when able, just like Rogue Trader. Privateer Press is trying to be a hybrid E-Sport and has little room for ambiguity, or even creativity in my experience. Both are awesome games, both are vastly different games. Anti GW posts spend far too much time making this mistake over and over and over again.

office_waaagh wrote:

I'm pleased to have amused you, Deadnight. I don't agree, of course, but there you have it, we're not going to agree on everything. I don't think it's a contradiction, I don't find agreeing to relatively mild limitations a terribly onerous task. But if you do, you're not wrong. I have fun with the rules and armies as they are, and that's what matters to me. If you're not having fun, then you're absolutely right to think that's a problem and try to address it.
.

fair play. I've got no issues with someone who enjoys games - my only comment was you cant talk about "freedom" in the same breath as mentioning the requirement of "terms and conditions" required to play.

enjoy your game - by all means. just be honest about it.

office_waaagh wrote:

I can only assume that GW wrote the rules with "a small group of likeminded mates" in mind, since this seems to be the context in which they work best. This is also the context in which I most often play the game, which probably explains why I like the rules as they are a lot more than a lot of other people seem to.

Not being cheeky here but a cynic could read this as "we're fine, anyone who disagrees can go bugger off". Just because it works for you and a small group of folks doesnt mean its OK on a large scale - plenty of people have a lot of issues with it.I agree with you - thats how GW designed the game. however, one can argue there is a huge gulf between the game GW are trying to design, and the game people are trying to play.

office_waaagh wrote:

This may or may not be true (40k is a much larger game than any of the others, and complexity doesn't scale linearly with size). I'm not sure what the solution is to this problem, though, so I'm content to ignore it since it doesn't do me personally much mischief. The game isn't balanced, but it's near enough for my taste and I'm happy to resolve the outstanding issues between friends.
.

thats a cop out. "im happy to ignore your point with evidence attached because it doesnt fit my world view". fair play, but despite you ignoring my point and being content to "ignore a solution", bear in mind - privateer press did those things when they were preparing Mk2, and this is from a company a tenth the size of GW. the results have been a gaming population that has literally exploded since Mk2 hit the scene, all 40k has done since is stagnate and decline.

office_waaagh wrote:

Well, I don't think I'm being naive, but then I suppose naive people never do. I'm happy with the game as it is, for the most part, so maybe in suggesting a "dual approach" I'm trying to address problems that I don't really experience and am therefore not in the best position to try to fix.
.

you're happy with the game as is. plenty others arent. more and more are walking. the question is, and im not trying to be antagonistic when i ask this - if you dont experience the problems, and dont particularly care about them, then how can you argue your "dual approach" solution has merit?

office_waaagh wrote:

I guess my question is this: even if we were to agree that GW is full of terrible, incompetent human beings that don't care about game balance, what do we do about it? Even if we could all agree on what exactly the problem is, how do we go about solving it? I've come up with a solution that works for me, and I'm basically happy with it, so I don't really have a problem. But many others obviously do, including your own good self. I'm just not sure what anybody plans to do about it. Nobody has come on and said "I agree, I have the same issue, and here's how I addressed it." There has been a lot of re-stating of the problem and a fair amount of imputing conjectured motives to the GW design staff (who are, conveniently, not around to explain themselves or their decisions), and plenty of griping in general, but we're short on workable solutions that we can implement to improve our own gaming experiences. This is why I say the "gentleman's agreement" school is more constructive, since at least that allows people to just get on with playing the game and having fun.

they're not terrible or incompetent. thats hyperbole. GW has a very skilled set of designers. the problem is marketing tells them what to do. they have no design space and have no way of pushing forward creatively and building a better game. since theyve left, gw designers have done some great things - andy chambers, allesio etc. they've been elbows deep in some very solid games.

How do we go about solving the problem? amusingly, i agree with you 100% here in that a gentleman's agreement is a very workable solution. play in a small, like minded group, and house rule/self police. I play in such a group (but not with 40k), and we're happy to house rule, ignore rules and do what we like. and this is the right way of doing it, and its the right way but for all the wrong reasons. our way, and your way works for us, and for you. but it wont work for tims group. it wont work for dougs group. all it does is fragment the community and it ends up with everyone playing a different game. and that is a shame. houseruling works on a small scale, but the game at large suffers hugely. you lose the "common ground" that is so necessary for tournaments and pick up games. and it might not affect you, but it affects a lot of other people out there. a universal set of balanced rules is a good thing, all told. your group still works. mine still works. but i can leave a country, set up shop elsewhere and enjoy a game without needing to know the tedious local customs. as much as our homebrews are great fun, such a style of gaming sucks for pick up games and for tournaments games which require a common framework to be successful.

As to What do people do about it?
personally, i see three practical solutions.

(1) dont play 40k. i dont. i've moved on to warmachine/hordes, infinity, flames of war etc. best gaming decision i've ever made. I enjoyed the mythos of 40k. but sadly, as a game it wasnt offering me what i wanted. fair play if it suits others, but i voted with my wallet.
(2) house rule 40k. get a small like minded group. house rule things. self police. and it can work. bear in mind, it will be incredibly hard to push this beyond your little group, and while it works on a micro scale, on a macro scale there are huge issues with this approach.
(3) deliberately choose to continue with 40k as is, and swallow your frustrations (if any).
(40 complain on the internet. which is a bit pointless. gw wont change the game, and they're uninterested in feedback. they've shown this too often in the past. as you say, talking is pointles, and while there is lots of griping, there are very few workable solutions. Personally i wish people were more "active" about their hobby and making it work for them. i might disagree with you in saying GW is all fine and dandy, but i completely respect how you've made it work for you. i just wish more people would do less talking and more "pro active steps". just bear in mind, like i said earlier this is the right solution, but it is right for all the wrong reasons - there is a bigger world out there and better solutions possible.

for what its worth though, keep rolling 6s!

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Unbound isn't being sold as a "make up any gak you want" ruleset but instead a ruleset for making armies that match the ones in the books or the lore bits in the codexes. To accomplish what can't be done normally inside the FOC.

Like that time Lysander and a bloodthirster teamed up with a hive tyrant and Shadowsun in that one novel?

Seriously, the examples provided in White Dwarf include five separate enemy factions throwing models on the table with each other. There ain't gak fluffy about that. It's a fluff massacre, if anything.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Unbound isn't being sold as a "make up any gak you want" ruleset but instead a ruleset for making armies that match the ones in the books or the lore bits in the codexes. To accomplish what can't be done normally inside the FOC.

When the WD talks bout running a Leman Russ, some demons, a Carnifex, etc (don't remember the entire idiotic example) I'm going to say you're wrong.
It's completely about make up whatever gak you want. Sure, you'll be able to copy the books, but the advertised goal is to use whatever you have,no mTter what codex it's from.

 lazarian wrote:

Your comparison and comment about a 'culture of playtesting' is exactly the point. GW is all about forging a narrative and having GM's run games when able, just like Rogue Trader. Privateer Press is trying to be a hybrid E-Sport and has little room for ambiguity, or even creativity in my experience. Both are awesome games, both are vastly different games. Anti GW posts spend far too much time making this mistake over and over and over again.

No.
'Forging a narrative' and all that is great. If you want to play the game that way then go ahead. But you can't say that because you like playing the game that way then GW shouldn't playtest.
In the same vein just because the game designers at GW like playing that way doesn't mean they should tell the rest of us how to have fun.

I never heard any of this bull about it being a 'narrative' game when I got into the game, I was already heavily invested when 6th landed and this mentality appeared. And what's worse, even RPGs, the most 'narrative' games out there by there very definition, playtest so much better than GW.


Whether or not 40k is a 'narrative' game it is objectively wrong to say that playtesting is bad, all it is doing is creating a level of fairness in the game.

^ Exalted.

Granted, pretty much the only game I've played with worse balance than 40k was D&D 3.5