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.

Again with the bloody 'prefect balance' thing?

Let me try and make this perfectly clear:

NO ONE WANTS PERFECT BALANCE, WE WANT GOOD BALANCE

There are tons of games out there that are well balanced and players don't have to hold back, players won't be penalised for bringing fluffy lists rather than meta lists where there aren't lists that make newbies cry and where player skill and knowing how to use what you have means sooooo much more than what you bring.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Again with the bloody 'prefect balance' thing?

Let me try and make this perfectly clear:

NO ONE WANTS PERFECT BALANCE, WE WANT GOOD BALANCE

There are tons of games out there that are well balanced and players don't have to hold back, players won't be penalised for bringing fluffy lists rather than meta lists where there aren't lists that make newbies cry and where player skill and knowing how to use what you have means sooooo much more than what you bring.

I agree with this, hence why I moved to other games like Warmahordes and Infinity were I can still take something that is not so good (to a point that is) and still manage to get work done with it with the right things with it, or get ostracized for playing 'x' faction and so on (although I never plan to drop a advanced list that is meant to be competitive against someone who is still learning the game because I do not try to be a dick).

Also, I kind of left 40k from the direction it was taking and the outlandish cost just keep the game and the faction up to date for what I believe to be a really sub-par set of rules. Almost left the hobby because of it, but then I realized I still had a small amount of Warmahordes models and was interested in trying it out, and kind of branched out from there.

 Kavish wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
@Wayne, not directed at you at all, but in reference to that WAAC gamer you mentione, why do people let that happen? Where are the veteran players? Where's store personnel who care about the experience someone has at their store? I run one of the larger "garage clubs" in the area (20 members if everyone ever showed up on the same day), and there's two good sized FLGSs that members of our club get PUGs at too.

Between the three, that just isn't allowed. I know that we play permade lists on 40k night. If someone brings a wicked looking list we pair them with someone looking for that game. Newbs get double points and get to go against someone willing to lose a game to teach. Rule disputes are solved before they escalate with rule books out. 40k players need to take some ownership of their community. It's kinda embarrassing.

Exalted. I know I'm going to get e-hate for this but... Get a grip people! You should be ashamed of yourselves! I got the rulebook yesterday, and it's fantastic! If you can't control the urge to build OP lists, or haven't got the guts to tell people their list isn't in the spirit of the game, then it's time to get that sorted!

"But it rapes the fluff!" I hear you cry. No it doesn't. Sure, players can rape the fluff if they want to bring Eldar summoning daemons or something, but they don't have to. I'd tell them how ridiculous it is and tell them I don't want to play against such lists.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
40k has never been perfectly balanced and never will. Games rarely are. One thing I noticed about warmachine is most factions are functionally the same. They just look different. I don't find that interesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you want a perfectly balanced game that is all skill, then buy a chessboard and replace the pieces with 40k models.

I'm glad you enjoy paying a premium price for an inferior product. Not everybody is okay with that and need a little time to scream, cry, rant, and process whether they want to continue being screwed by GW or not. I know it sucks when people hate something you happen to like, but as you say "get a grip".

I take issue with your misuse of the word rape.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Kavish wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
@Wayne, not directed at you at all, but in reference to that WAAC gamer you mentione, why do people let that happen? Where are the veteran players? Where's store personnel who care about the experience someone has at their store? I run one of the larger "garage clubs" in the area (20 members if everyone ever showed up on the same day), and there's two good sized FLGSs that members of our club get PUGs at too.

Between the three, that just isn't allowed. I know that we play permade lists on 40k night. If someone brings a wicked looking list we pair them with someone looking for that game. Newbs get double points and get to go against someone willing to lose a game to teach. Rule disputes are solved before they escalate with rule books out. 40k players need to take some ownership of their community. It's kinda embarrassing.

Exalted. I know I'm going to get e-hate for this but... Get a grip people! You should be ashamed of yourselves! I got the rulebook yesterday, and it's fantastic! If you can't control the urge to build OP lists, or haven't got the guts to tell people their list isn't in the spirit of the game, then it's time to get that sorted!

"But it rapes the fluff!" I hear you cry. No it doesn't. Sure, players can rape the fluff if they want to bring Eldar summoning daemons or something, but they don't have to. I'd tell them how ridiculous it is and tell them I don't want to play against such lists.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
40k has never been perfectly balanced and never will. Games rarely are. One thing I noticed about warmachine is most factions are functionally the same. They just look different. I don't find that interesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you want a perfectly balanced game that is all skill, then buy a chessboard and replace the pieces with 40k models.

I'm glad you enjoy paying a premium price for an inferior product. Not everybody is okay with that and need a little time to scream, cry, rant, and process whether they want to continue being screwed by GW or not. I know it sucks when people hate something you happen to like, but as you say "get a grip".

I take issue with your misuse of the word rape.

I was re-using the word. That's what others on here have been calling it. Apologies if I offended you.

I make no apologies though, for liking the game. I think they did quite well fixing issues with the game. They may have even found the sweet spot on vehicles being not too tough, not too weak. The pendulum has been swinging back and forth for ages now. It is far from being an inferior product. Have you bought any video games lately? New games go for about $100 in Australia. The rulebook is $140. Many games single player modes go for about 6 hours and the multiplayer is garbage or non-existant. By that comparison 40k is a pretty good buy. I plan on getting hundreds of hours out of mine!

This forum is called Dakkadakka for a reason. It's for people who love Warhammer 40,000. If you don't, you don't belong here.

 Kavish wrote:


Exalted. I know I'm going to get e-hate for this but... Get a grip people! You should be ashamed of yourselves! I got the rulebook yesterday, and it's fantastic! If you can't control the urge to build OP lists

Why should people be ashamed? For what? Being critical of a product? For having a different opinion? For disliking something that has many flaws?

Further, its not about the urge to build OP lists, its about the game being poorly balanced that a perfectly fluffy list (think Eldar Wave Serpent mech lists) is looked down upon for being 'WAAC', while an equally, if not less so, list consisting of rough riders, ratlings, and Ogryn for IG is praised for being fluffy and creative. The balance of the game creates this completely arbitrary distinctions within the community.

or haven't got the guts to tell people their list isn't in the spirit of the game, then it's time to get that sorted!

Which spirit of the game? Yours? Mine? Can you define? Can you explain how building a list within the confines of the rules and playing the rules as written is anything other than the 'Spirit of the Game'?

"But it rapes the fluff!" I hear you cry. No it doesn't. Sure, players can rape the fluff if they want to bring Eldar summoning daemons or something, but they don't have to. I'd tell them how ridiculous it is and tell them I don't want to play against such lists.

Great, doesn't change the fact that its clearly poor game design if the rules allow the fluff to be ignored and mutilated as much as you can now.

40k has never been perfectly balanced and never will. Games rarely are. One thing I noticed about warmachine is most factions are functionally the same. They just look different. I don't find that interesting.

Ah, this tired strawman.

No one said perfect balance. You did. Everyone else just wants balance. Normal, plain old, reasonable balance. Something nearly all other companies manage to do significantly better than GW. Just take a look at the day 3 FAQs we had; they very clearly don't proofread or play test and just toss out unfinished products and charge more for them every time.

If you want a perfectly balanced game that is all skill, then buy a chessboard and replace the pieces with 40k models.

What an awful comparison.

Good thing no one is comparing 40k to chess. Or perfect balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kavish wrote:

This forum is called Dakkadakka for a reason. It's for people who love Warhammer 40,000. If you don't, you don't belong here.

You heard it here everyone. If you don't like 40k, you have to go.

Damn, and here I was, enjoying many aspects of the game and background. Its almost as though someone can hold a critical opinion of a product, but still use it for a variety of reasons.

Either way, must be awful living in such a black and white world, where you either love it, or hate it and must go.

 Lobukia wrote:
@Wayne, not directed at you at all, but in reference to that WAAC gamer you mentione, why do people let that happen? Where are the veteran players? Where's store personnel who care about the experience someone has at their store? I run one of the larger "garage clubs" in the area (20 members if everyone ever showed up on the same day), and there's two good sized FLGSs that members of our club get PUGs at too.

That's just it; I don't think the veterans or store personnel care. They're too preoccupied with their own games or their own needs or just don't give a feth it seems because the card players bring in the money.

I've seen it a couple of times; the staff might not even play the game (from what I've heard at the large FLGS the staff are ex-MtG people, zero interest in wargames) so they don't know or care if there's some donkey-cave steamrolling newbies and scaring them off. At least that's what it seems like. A gaming club regulates itself, but when you have a store that just provides tables and random people show up on "minis night" it's a coin toss who you'll get. I've only seen one game store where the staff took interest enough to basically uninvite people who were unfriendly and were causing people to not return. The others, I think, don't care so long as they buy stuff.

I have to confess, while I'm still happy to put the boot in for all the dumb fethery that GW perpetrate, apparently on an almost daily basis, I've reached some sort of zen state with regard to my relationship with 40K.

My desire for the game to be better is still there, but I think the scope of ridiculousness in 7th is so huge, part of me has just gone "well, if they don't care, why should I?" I've played one game of 7th so far, with the random mission objectives, and while I see how that would be hugely frustrating for a competitive game, in a casual setting, it was actually kinda fun.

For those who love competitive play, and those who are in a community with a strong competitive streak or a lot of competitive players, you have my sympathies, but I think this might be the best edition for casual play in some time, as long as you're lucky enough to have opponents you can trust not to take the piss.

There are still inherent problems with the codexes, but I think the core system, in the right environment, is reasonably solid.

 azreal13 wrote:
I have to confess, while I'm still happy to put the boot in for all the dumb fuckery that GW perpetrate, apparently on an almost daily basis, I've reached some sort of zen state with regard to my relationship with 40K.

My desire for the game to be better is still there, but I think the scope of ridiculousness in 7th is so huge, part of me has just gone "well, if they don't care, why should I?" I've played one game of 7th so far, with the random mission objectives, and while I see how that would be hugely frustrating for a competitive game, in a casual setting, it was actually kinda fun.

For those who love competitive play, and those who are in a community with a strong competitive streak or a lot of competitive players, you have my sympathies, but I think this might be the best edition for casual play in some time, as long as you're lucky enough to have opponents you can trust not to take the piss.

There are still inherent problems with the codexes, but I think the core system, in the right environment, is reasonably solid.

Exalted. I'm really thinking of just getting back into 40k and just swearing off competitive play - I won't play in tournaments (not that I did before), won't play the competitive group, won't show up at the store to play when it's mostly the competitive guys (although I might watch). For casual play I think it would be fun with like-minded people. The crazy cost is still a deterrent but I can do things slow, and stop when I have like 1500 points or so. Maybe try to talk the store into running another escalation league or a campaign, something to encourage laid back gameplay and not "This is my list for XXX Tournament just modified".

It might be fun. As much as I hate GW I like 40k for its backstory and rich history. Warmachine is a fun game, but it can't hold a candle to that feel you get with 40k. I'll praise Warmachine but really it feels like games are decided early and once decided there's not much you can do. Granted I've only played like two games, but both ended abruptly out of the blue and kind of caught me off guard. That's not to say 40k would be better if you were facing an army that tables you in Turn 2 (at least with WM/H your opponent tends to not be a jerk about it), but it's definitely a different feel to the game.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Kavish wrote:


Exalted. I know I'm going to get e-hate for this but... Get a grip people! You should be ashamed of yourselves! I got the rulebook yesterday, and it's fantastic! If you can't control the urge to build OP lists

Why should people be ashamed? For what? Being critical of a product? For having a different opinion? For disliking something that has many flaws?

Further, its not about the urge to build OP lists, its about the game being poorly balanced that a perfectly fluffy list (think Eldar Wave Serpent mech lists) is looked down upon for being 'WAAC', while an equally, if not less so, list consisting of rough riders, ratlings, and Ogryn for IG is praised for being fluffy and creative. The balance of the game creates this completely arbitrary distinctions within the community.

or haven't got the guts to tell people their list isn't in the spirit of the game, then it's time to get that sorted!

Which spirit of the game? Yours? Mine? Can you define? Can you explain how building a list within the confines of the rules and playing the rules as written is anything other than the 'Spirit of the Game'?

"But it rapes the fluff!" I hear you cry. No it doesn't. Sure, players can rape the fluff if they want to bring Eldar summoning daemons or something, but they don't have to. I'd tell them how ridiculous it is and tell them I don't want to play against such lists.

Great, doesn't change the fact that its clearly poor game design if the rules allow the fluff to be ignored and mutilated as much as you can now.

40k has never been perfectly balanced and never will. Games rarely are. One thing I noticed about warmachine is most factions are functionally the same. They just look different. I don't find that interesting.

Ah, this tired strawman.

No one said perfect balance. You did. Everyone else just wants balance. Normal, plain old, reasonable balance. Something nearly all other companies manage to do significantly better than GW. Just take a look at the day 3 FAQs we had; they very clearly don't proofread or play test and just toss out unfinished products and charge more for them every time.

If you want a perfectly balanced game that is all skill, then buy a chessboard and replace the pieces with 40k models.

What an awful comparison.

Good thing no one is comparing 40k to chess. Or perfect balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kavish wrote:

This forum is called Dakkadakka for a reason. It's for people who love Warhammer 40,000. If you don't, you don't belong here.

You heard it here everyone. If you don't like 40k, you have to go.

Damn, and here I was, enjoying many aspects of the game and background. Its almost as though someone can hold a critical opinion of a product, but still use it for a variety of reasons.

Either way, must be awful living in such a black and white world, where you either love it, or hate it and must go.

I've been into this kind of thing for almost as long as you've been alive. I can say with quite a bit of authority that the "spirit" of the game is; Having fun, and making sure the other players have fun too!

40k is more like Dungeons & Dragons or something. It's not a competitive sport. I don't understand why people continue to try to force it into one, and then complain when it doesn't work. GW have said time and time again that it's not that sort of game. (Before you say that GW say that to get out of making a more competitive rule set, remember that it was never designed that way in the first place, it was never their intention from the start.)

I realise it's not my place to tell people not to hang out here, but it does seem a little weird that all these people spend so much time on a forum concerned mainly with 40k, and heap sh!+ on it constantly. This forum is supposed to enhance our experience, not bring us down.

Ps: wave serpents aren't that tough really. If my opponent likes them then I'll be sure to bring my land raider and drop pods containing melta guns. And long fangs. All that stuff is pretty standard anyway. I'd bring a list like that to any game. I won't need to buy any new models or anything.

I've also slightly abused my position with the local club to introduce a 40K "charter" and I'm pleasantly surprised with the reaction it has got. I've not banned anything, I've just said "if you're turning up with some models to try and find a game without prearranging one, these are the criteria.."

Games are 1500 points.

All lists are battle forged - allied detachments are allowed.

All codexes and dataslates are legal, digital or paper, but must be available for reference and opponent's information during a game.

While we will maintain our usual relaxed attitude to painting (ie it is encouraged but not compulsory) any models that are not part of the starting list (ie are generated via Malefic Daemonolgy) must be properly represented by an appropriate model, fully painted and based.

Superheavies listed in a Codex are permitted, those featured in Imperial Armour, Escalation are not.

Fortifications are not widely used currently, and with the removal of everything from the ADL up from the BRB, may likely remain not especially popular. For the time being, Stronghold Assault will be allowed in it's entirety. The possibility of revising this is reserved should things get popular and lead to games where one player doesn't enjoy themselves facing off against elements from this book. The book or digital rules must be available for reference and your opponent's information.

Forge World units with the "suitable for 40K" stamp are allowed, but must be supported with rules, either digital or physical. It is strongly advised if an opponent is fielding a unit (FW or otherwise) you are unfamiliar with, that you take a moment to familiarise yourself with those rules before the game.

Not so much a rule as a guideline - 40K in it's current form is not what could be considered a tight, balanced or competitive ruleset. At it's core it remains a game that has the potential to be hugely entertaining, with many units and factions to make interesting lists and to try new and different strategies. But, in order to ensure EVERYONE has fun, it needs a little help from those playing to be responsible and conscientious in their list building. Net lists, deathstars, spamming and loophole exploitation are STRONGLY discouraged. Nobody likes spending an hour picking their models off the table as they're killed by the handful, while simultaneously being unable to do anything to retaliate. Remember, nearly every list has a hard counter out there somewhere, so rather than start a massive arms race with players bringing lists each week to get revenge on the player that shafted them last week, please consider your opponents enjoyment alongside your own when putting together an army.

I/We haven't stopped anyone doing anything, but if you want to bring your 3 Warhound Unbound list, you better make sure you set something up and have an opponent who is prepared for you.

Early days yet, but I'm hopeful that if we stick to this, it should help a lot with some of the issues, without telling people they're enjoying it wrong.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kavish wrote:


This forum is called Dakkadakka for a reason. It's for people who love Warhammer 40,000. If you don't, you don't belong here.

No it isn't.

As is evidenced by the many threads and sub fora that have absolutely nothing to do with Warhammer, 40K or even GW whatsoever.

If you think this is some sort of 40K based board, you don't belong here.

Awesome charter!! Have an exalt for that alone. I might borrow that at some point but it's doubtful my FLGS would adhere to that. Too many people want to field 2000+ games to use all their toys.

 Kavish wrote:

40k is more like Dungeons & Dragons or something. It's not a competitive sport. I don't understand why people continue to try to force it into one, and then complain when it doesn't work. GW have said time and time again that it's not that sort of game. (Before you say that GW say that to get out of making a more competitive rule set, remember that it was never designed that way in the first place, it was never their intention from the start.)

Please stop sprouting marketing spiel like it is actually true. GW actively promoted and held 40k and WHFB tournaments and a competitive meta for over 20 years and only recently stopped doing them and instead turned to this "non-competitive", "forge the narrative" garbage.

GW can try to re-write its history just like its re-writing the game's fluff, that doesn't mean that people will have forgotten what the game was actually like.

Also, both games experienced their periods of greatest growth during their "competitive" period and have been haemorrhaging players ever since the company decided to leave that route behind. That alone should have been an indicator that the majority of their customers doesn't want this... but instead of a return to a more tactical and less random ruleset we get 7th edition...

WayneTheGame wrote:
Awesome charter!! Have an exalt for that alone. I might borrow that at some point but it's doubtful my FLGS would adhere to that. Too many people want to field 2000+ games to use all their toys.

Thanks, it is easier to implement with a club rather than a store. No reason why you couldn't adjust it to 2000 points, but the lower limit does, of course, inherently limit certain shenanigans.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Kavish wrote:

40k is more like Dungeons & Dragons or something. It's not a competitive sport. I don't understand why people continue to try to force it into one, and then complain when it doesn't work. GW have said time and time again that it's not that sort of game. (Before you say that GW say that to get out of making a more competitive rule set, remember that it was never designed that way in the first place, it was never their intention from the start.)

Please stop sprouting marketing spiel like it is actually true. GW actively promoted and held 40k and WHFB tournaments and a competitive meta for over 20 years and only recently stopped doing them and instead turned to this "non-competitive", "forge the narrative" garbage.

GW can try to re-write its history just like its re-writing the game's fluff, that doesn't mean that people will have forgotten what the game was actually like.

Also, both games experienced their periods of greatest growth during their "competitive" period and have been haemorrhaging players ever since the company decided to leave that route behind. That alone should have been an indicator that the majority of their customers doesn't want this... but instead of a return to a more tactical and less random ruleset we get 7th edition...

Do YOU remember what it was like? I played Chaos in 2nd edition and I'm ashamed to admit that I annihilated everyone I faced. Today's 40k is VERY balanced in comparison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kavish wrote:


This forum is called Dakkadakka for a reason. It's for people who love Warhammer 40,000. If you don't, you don't belong here.

No it isn't.

As is evidenced by the many threads and sub fora that have absolutely nothing to do with Warhammer, 40K or even GW whatsoever.

If you think this is some sort of 40K based board, you don't belong here.

I realised my mistake and attempted to retract my statement. Your right. And even though you kinda dissed me, I've given you an exalt for that excellent charter. Here's to keeping the fun in 40k.

 Kavish wrote:
Do YOU remember what it was like? I played Chaos in 2nd edition and I'm ashamed to admit that I annihilated everyone I faced. Today's 40k is VERY balanced in comparison.

Yeah? How'd you manage to do that? Because I played Chaos in 2nd edition too and never felt crazy OP. But then again I fielded a generalist Black Legion army with some squads of Marines, one squad of Berzerkers, one squad of Plague Marines, a squad of terminators, a Dreadnought (that often shot my own guys - guess he was really mad about being stuck in that thing), a single Sorcerer (L2 usually) and a Predator. Outside of broken unofficial Armorcast garbage the main broken things in 2nd were Virus Outbreak (which a White Dwarf issue IIRC even told you to rip it up), Wolfguard Terminators, and maybe a Vortex Grenade because it just oneshot most things.

 Kavish wrote:

I've been into this kind of thing for almost as long as you've been alive.

This is relevant how? No one cares about your 'veterancy'.

I can say with quite a bit of authority that the "spirit" of the game is; Having fun, and making sure the other players have fun too!

You have no authority, and your definition of fun is also subjective. Which is the whole issue people have. I may be having fun playing a wave serpent heavy Eldar list, while my opponent my be having fun playing his rough rider heavy IG list. What people dislike about 40k is that these two lists are incompatible in terms of power level, which means one of those players may not be having fun.

Both players are within the realm of the 'Spirit of the Game', but the game's balance issues means they're notions of fun lists differ greatly in power.

That is not a good thing for the game.

40k is more like Dungeons & Dragons or something. It's not a competitive sport. I don't understand why people continue to try to force it into one, and then complain when it doesn't work. GW have said time and time again that it's not that sort of game. (Before you say that GW say that to get out of making a more competitive rule set, remember that it was never designed that way in the first place, it was never their intention from the start.)

And nowhere has anyone likened it to a competitive sport. You'll also notice none of my points have been about making 40k competitive oriented. I speak purely about the balance, which as a casual player myself, hurts my enjoyment of the game as much as any tournament goer.

Further, GW used to run tournaments, lots of them. Whether or not you wish to argue that it wasn't intended to be used that way, the simple point is that for many years GW ran tournaments using their rules. Excusing the poor balance and game design by touting over and over again that its a 'casual' game is nonsense. There's nothing inherently 'casual' about 40k.

And 40k is nothing like D&D. One is a table top wargame, the other is an RPG. One has a set list of victory conditions where two opponents fight eachother, the other is a cooperative story-telling adventure.

I realise it's not my place to tell people not to hang out here, but it does seem a little weird that all these people spend so much time on a forum concerned mainly with 40k, and heap sh!+ on it constantly. This forum is supposed to enhance our experience, not bring us down.

I can hold a critical view of 40k and still play it. I can still collect 40k models and paint them. I can still immerse myself in the lore.

Disliking aspects of the game and wanting a higher quality product doesn't stop me from being able to roll dice with my friends.

Further, I'd argue that having people with differing opinions does enhance the experience. Imagine a forum where everyone agreed with everyone else. It'd be boring. Accept that people will think differently than you and are as entitled to post here as anyone else.

Ps: wave serpents aren't that tough really. If my opponent likes them then I'll be sure to bring my land raider and drop pods containing melta guns. And long fangs. All that stuff is pretty standard anyway. I'd bring a list like that to any game. I won't need to buy any new models or anything.

The point is that a well rounded Eldar army with a core of Wave Serpents is a very powerful list. I'm using the example for illustrative purposes about bad balance matchups.

 Blacksails wrote:
You have no authority, and your definition of fun is also subjective. Which is the whole issue people have. I may be having fun playing a wave serpent heavy Eldar list, while my opponent my be having fun playing his rough rider heavy IG list. What people dislike about 40k is that these two lists are incompatible in terms of power level, which means one of those players may not be having fun.

Both players are within the realm of the 'Spirit of the Game', but the game's balance issues means they're notions of fun lists differ greatly in power.

That is not a good thing for the game.

This bears repeating, because it's the crux of the issue. In a balanced game, a properly designed game, both of those lists can *work*. Now yes the matchup might be bad and nothing can fix that (sometimes luck of the draw goes sour), but inherently there would not be a huge power game between those lists and even more ideally there would be some way that those lists could work in a game against each other. And, if they really can't, then it should be an extreme fringe situation that almost never happens.

 Kavish wrote:

Do YOU remember what it was like? I played Chaos in 2nd edition and I'm ashamed to admit that I annihilated everyone I faced. Today's 40k is VERY balanced in comparison.

No, I don't remember what it was like in 2nd edition because I only started playing in 3rd. The beginning of that 'major growth' period that I mentioned.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Kavish wrote:
Do YOU remember what it was like? I played Chaos in 2nd edition and I'm ashamed to admit that I annihilated everyone I faced. Today's 40k is VERY balanced in comparison.

Yeah? How'd you manage to do that? Because I played Chaos in 2nd edition too and never felt crazy OP. But then again I fielded a generalist Black Legion army with some squads of Marines, one squad of Berzerkers, one squad of Plague Marines, a squad of terminators, a Dreadnought (that often shot my own guys - guess he was really mad about being stuck in that thing), a single Sorcerer (L2 usually) and a Predator. Outside of broken unofficial Armorcast garbage the main broken things in 2nd were Virus Outbreak (which a White Dwarf issue IIRC even told you to rip it up), Wolfguard Terminators, and maybe a Vortex Grenade because it just oneshot most things.

It probably had a lot to do with Kharn, a Bloodthirster and infiltrated Chosen with heavy weapons and overwatch.

 Kavish wrote:

Do YOU remember what it was like? I played Chaos in 2nd edition and I'm ashamed to admit that I annihilated everyone I faced. Today's 40k is VERY balanced in comparison.

Yeah?

Well I've got 5 years on you, what you gonna do now, noob?

I realised my mistake and attempted to retract my statement. Your right. And even though you kinda dissed me, I've given you an exalt for that excellent charter. Here's to keeping the fun in 40k.

I added an orkmoticon to try and indicate my levity, I can't really do any more than that!

I can't be bothered with all the quoting, but to blacksails: your missing the point. ALL tabletop games are about making sure everyone involved has a good time. That's called being mature. Upsetting other players means no one wants to play with you.

As "veterans" it's our responsibility to teach all new players this principle. THAT is how we save our game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm going to bed now. It's late in Australia. Peace guys. Try to enjoy yourself.

 Kavish wrote:
I can't be bothered with all the quoting, but to blacksails: your missing the point. ALL tabletop games are about making sure everyone involved has a good time. That's called being mature. Upsetting other players means no one wants to play with you.

As "veterans" it's our responsibility to teach all new players this principle. THAT is how we save our game.

I agree to a point, but why accept should those be mutually exclusive? With 40k you basically get told you can have chocolate ice cream or get beaten over the head with a barrel of chocolate ice cream until you agree that chocolate is the best kind of ice cream: You have to agree not to make your opponent miserable, you have to agree not to play a legit army by the rules because it's too good. I'm genuinely curious why that's accepted in 40k when I doubt it would anywhere else. Most games are written with clear rules that don't require you to basically have a gentleman's agreement with your opponent to give him a fun game (and vice versa) because the rules don't allow you to *not* have a fun game.

 Kavish wrote:
your missing the point. ALL tabletop games are about making sure everyone involved has a good time.

I wasn't missing the point because you hadn't made one. This is a point, and I agree. Which my point has always been that the rules of the game are actively working against that aim through poor balance and clunky writing.

That's called being mature. Upsetting other players means no one wants to play with you.

Where did I ever say I was upsetting players? Can you point it out?

Once more; my point has always been that the balance and rules of the game are detrimental to the enjoyment of many players. 40k is the only game I know where people need to be policed on their lists, or accused of not being mature enough to write a list that has suitable levels 'fun', as decided by random strangers.

My point, once again, is that a better balanced game would alleviate most of these issues and benefit everyone. That sprouting lines like 'its casual' or 'Forge a narrative' are awful excuses that hold no water. There is nothing inherently casual or narrative based about 40k.

As "veterans" it's our responsibility to teach all new players this principle. THAT is how we save our game.

Sure, that's part of it I suppose.

But as veterans, how about we demand a better game as well? You know, find the source of these issues and fix it there so all the symptoms go away too?

Every other game I've played doesn't need a 'principle' passed down to mandate how to have fun. All the other games allow you to build a force you like, show up, and play it without being accused of a WAAC cheese mongering douche canoe.

So no, we save the game by saving the game, not creating arbitrary rituals to work around the issues.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Unbound allows TFG to build grossly broken armies that are technically legal. All it takes is for one TFG to ruin a meta and/or brand all Unbound players as jerks.

Battle Forged aren't much better sadly.

Very true; I can't speak to experience as I haven't played 40k in a very long time, but my comment was more with the idea that Unbound could be great for things like an all-Termie army without the restrictions of Deathwing, which you can't (to my knowledge?) do with Battle Forged since you still have to follow some semblance of the FoC.

Some years ago we had an all terminator/dreadnaught throw-down of epic proportion! Two chaos armies vs 5 loyalist ones - all terminators and dreads.. Oddly enough we didn't need GW's approval to forge our own narrative.

Though I'm fortunate enough to play with a circle of people who have divested themselves of GW's latest attempts, I do find it ironic that this is reaffirmed easily as much by the fans of 7th Ed as by its critics.

 Blacksails wrote:

Spoiler:

 Kavish wrote:
your missing the point. ALL tabletop games are about making sure everyone involved has a good time.

I wasn't missing the point because you hadn't made one. This is a point, and I agree. Which my point has always been that the rules of the game are actively working against that aim through poor balance and clunky writing.

That's called being mature. Upsetting other players means no one wants to play with you.

Where did I ever say I was upsetting players? Can you point it out?

Once more; my point has always been that the balance and rules of the game are detrimental to the enjoyment of many players. 40k is the only game I know where people need to be policed on their lists, or accused of not being mature enough to write a list that has suitable levels 'fun', as decided by random strangers.

My point, once again, is that a better balanced game would alleviate most of these issues and benefit everyone. That sprouting lines like 'its casual' or 'Forge a narrative' are awful excuses that hold no water. There is nothing inherently casual or narrative based about 40k.

As "veterans" it's our responsibility to teach all new players this principle. THAT is how we save our game.

Sure, that's part of it I suppose.

But as veterans, how about we demand a better game as well? You know, find the source of these issues and fix it there so all the symptoms go away too?

Every other game I've played doesn't need a 'principle' passed down to mandate how to have fun. All the other games allow you to build a force you like, show up, and play it without being accused of a WAAC cheese mongering douche canoe.

So no, we save the game by saving the game, not creating arbitrary rituals to work around the issues.

This entire thread comes down to this style of argument:

Hate the Players or Hate the Game.

And it's really are you short sighted to think you can change human behavior and live in your own little bubble or realize that everyone has different motivations and having a better made game is more inclusive?

Essentially, "Hate the Player" mentality is always boiled down to finger pointing and toting how their "personal bastion of saintliness" is a shining example for all the community to follow where "Hate the Game" follows the rational logic of pretty much every other game charging less money for rules and has better support from the companies. Paying $135 for rules, minimum, to play the game and needing further house ruling to ensure you and your opponent both compromise on what's fun is asinine. I can't think of anything more ridiculous given you could use your same minis, proxy them for Infinity, and pretend you're playing Kill Team at zero cost. Or just forgo the new editions and continue to house rule armies. Why pay so much money to be an amateur game designer? There's no logic to it.

 Blacksails wrote:


You have no authority, and your definition of fun is also subjective. Which is the whole issue people have. I may be having fun playing a wave serpent heavy Eldar list, while my opponent my be having fun playing his rough rider heavy IG list. What people dislike about 40k is that these two lists are incompatible in terms of power level, which means one of those players may not be having fun.

Both players are within the realm of the 'Spirit of the Game', but the game's balance issues means they're notions of fun lists differ greatly in power.

That is not a good thing for the game.

Well, I'm not really reading into this thread, but I wanted to say something regarding to this thing I quoted. See - in no game I know all units are equally good. That being said if you like wave serpent list(which is really cool imho as it's how I always imagined Eldar tactics to work due to their limited numbers) you're fine, because they're really, REALLY powerful, but now comparing it to a force focused around Rough Riders.. I don't think it's wise. First of all I can't think how could that even be a good match-up even if they weren't as crappy as they are. I mean.. balance is one thing, but a bad match up is another and even in the all-praised Warmachine it's fairly prominent when you run into an army that is a rock to your scissors. Hell, even in Warmachine you have very sub-par units that some people might want to build their armies around but they will almost always lose, like Man-o-War lists in Khador or building your army around Cygnar Trenchers.

Overall I understand that proper internal and external balance could help a bit, but it's still like deliberately building an army using sub optimal units when there would be much better choices for those slots. Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to justify the poor balance in Codexes, I think that everything should get the chance to be viable on the battlefield, but remember that there's also the problem of army building. Fun armies should be playable but some of 'fun army ideas' can turn out to be very bad due to lack of synergy between units that don't really work in that particular combination.

Unfortunately I think that not all 'fun' lists can ever be equal in terms of power as it's simply impossible for the game developers to make stuff equally good in every single matchup people come up with, so it should be a matter of gentleman's agreement to give a fair handicap to the one whose army is weaker. It's best to try out with a couple of friends to find out what kind of handicap(like bonus points) should be granted while playing with various armies. Basically what ETC committee did for Warhammer Fantasy Battles to achieve their idea of balance. Not really good for pick up games, but it's fairly logical, because no matter what you have in your case, the other player might just bring the cheesiest netlist anyway and no amount of effort will give perfect balance between 'some list' and a perfectly tailored for maximum cheesy effectiveness using best units and every single exploit available list(cause that's what netlists are).

Not sure if I expressed myself properly and clearly enough - english is not my main language, so I'll just state that I still think GW should balance everything much more so there would be no such massive disproportion and that fun lists should be more viable, but I still think that it's only natural that they'll never be on par with a list tailored for maximum effectiveness. They still should be expected to lose unless used by a better player with better strategy, but maybe not that drastically.

Rogue Trader Old schooler here... so far I've been loving the 7th edition and it's probably the most fun I've had with 40K since I was a kid when it was all new.

I've seen some online hate for the Maelstrom of War missions/cards but I have to say we LOVED them and our experience so far has been tremendously fun with these.

I think the Maelstrom missions vary depending on your approach.

If you're a competitive player, what you want is a predictable and stable set of objectives, where you can reliably plan for and attain a specific outcome.

If you're a casual player you're likely to be less concerned.

What the MoW missions do is allow clever play to potentially outperform strongest list, and add value to slightly sub par units that may never see table time otherwise because they offer an advantage in gaining some of the objectives.

As a casual player, I heartily endorse this, while I think that a lot of the random could be taken out of 40K and decision making put back in the hands of the player, this isn't part of it that I necessarily think needs to be.

If I were a competitive player, I could see that doing everything right, playing a well thought out and tested list intelligently with minimal mistakes and being fethed over by the turn of the cards and roll of the die would be incredibly frustrating.

 azreal13 wrote:
I think the Maelstrom missions vary depending on your approach.

If you're a competitive player, what you want is a predictable and stable set of objectives, where you can reliably plan for and attain a specific outcome.

If you're a casual player you're likely to be less concerned.

What the MoW missions do is allow clever play to potentially outperform strongest list, and add value to slightly sub par units that may never see table time otherwise because they offer an advantage in gaining some of the objectives.

As a casual player, I heartily endorse this, while I think that a lot of the random could be taken out of 40K and decision making put back in the hands of the player, this isn't part of it that I necessarily think needs to be.

If I were a competitive player, I could see that doing everything right, playing a well thought out and tested list intelligently with minimal mistakes and being fethed over by the turn of the cards and roll of the die would be incredibly frustrating.

As a casual player I still don't like them because its just a random mess that I can't form any kind of overall strategy to the game when my objectives change each turn. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying its not what I like to play. Clearly its subjective but I don't think that being a casual player means an automatic green light.

They don't though, they only change if you complete them or choose to discard them (with a few alterations based on exact mission being played) and the objective markers themselves don't move, and holding an objective is always going to be important (you just can't be certain how important each turn) so you can plan an overall approach, but with the proviso you might have to think on your feet a bit too.

Of course, it isn't for everyone, but at least they left the standard missions in too.