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.

 Ailaros wrote:
Being imbalanced and constantly changing all the time, and adding new stuff means that players are always being given new puzzles to solve and new combinations of stuff to try. If you look at simple, straightforward, balanced, lightweight games, no matter how much "better" they might be, it doesn't change the fact that they sooner or later (usually sooner) get boring, and so then people stop playing them. The only games that last for more than a handful of years before eventually tapering off are ones that emulate the GW model of continually expanding with new content and creating a game that is meta-dependent, and then constantly changing that meta to keep gamers on their toes.

To use the example of my current favorite game, Infinity. The game is incredibly well balanced, to the point where even the units considered 'bad' are still completely worth taking, and there's really only one or two units per faction like this. The motto of 'it's not your list, it's you' is still around, because it's not about how well you built your list, it's about how you as a player use those tools in your list.

I've gotten more variety of lists out of it in just over a year than I ever have out of 40k. Aside from the first handful of gameswhere I was learning the game, I've never used the same list twice. Ever. And not just swapping one model out, I'll usually bring a case of about 20 models including larger TAGs to make lists as I have games. Infinity uses about 10 models per side, so there's quite a lot of variety in just that carry case for making different lists.

Being imbalanced keeps things 'fresh' since every few months something new and overpowered comes out and you are forced to try and adapt to it by buying new models - either the overpowered models if they're for your army or the counters if they're not. Having a balanced game creates a constantly shifting metagame that keeps itself fresh by not needing to release overpowered units to change the game up - players will do it anyway through freedom of choice of good units to bring.

Being imbalanced is just, especially in this day and age, lazy game design.

Because that would be a rational response towards a new edition that you didn't like. The emotional response is to hang around complaining about change.

It is funny, most "legitimate" grumbling of change is when favored models become nerfed and you have few models of the new flavor of the month (=latest codex) so have to go out and buy (or worse, they are written out).

I swear for each BRB change GW should release a NEW race that has all the bells and whistles but will then be nerfed and sold as a form of mercenary group for the next BRB change. New models to sell and the understanding of a limited shelf life = everyone wins!!!!! Oh one min, maybe that is what they are already doing with Imperial Knights...

I really cannot complain, I do not have Tau, Necrons or Eldar but a good variety of Imperial armies so the sum of the parts are pretty cool with the new structure to take on those "favored" armies.

I also dust off Necromunda if I feel a need for smaller squad based battles OR make lists like Inquisitor but at the 28mm scale.

Still will have to come up with a flowchart on how to negotiate a pickup game with the straight-up rules.

The "constantly changing" meme really kind of illustrates to me how ridiculous our community can be... given the entire life span of 40K, 7 editions is not an unreasonable number.

I think the issue with 7th had more to do with an increased price tag and the lifespan of the previous book cut in half. Also, the general opinion that new editions exist to clarify and improve the rules. The idea that a new edition simply changes the rules rather than adding improvements is what gets under my craw. An example of this is the random charge distance- I don't think there is much subjective improvement to the game as there is more so a change in how the game works. When changes are coupled with a big price tag, more people get grumpy.

On a different note, I've been thinking about the idea of going back and playing 3rd some (a previous thread on this is probably what got my mind on it). I play Dark Eldar and Orks, and looking at their old books I'm feeling nostalgic for that older style of 40k. There's also a lot of customization in units! With the existence of the armories, you were really left to build units however you wanted...I mean heck, there wasn't even a Meganobz entry, you had to build them from a Warboss, his boyz and the armory. The newer books may be more intuitive, but I feel like they're actually a bit more restrictive in the options you have, which is saying something for a "forge the narrative" period in 40k.

Assuming everyone had the old rulebooks, old codexes, old FAQs, and all the other stuff that is/was needed (psychic cards, vehicle data cards, vehicle hit templates, etc etc, depending on edition), well, then it would be possible.

Course, the stores might not want to let you play in store, since you're not really drawing attention of walk-ins to the new toys, many of the older units are no longer available, many of the new units are not supported by the old rules, and so on and so forth.

So yeah, move on with the times, play the new version (or pack your stuff till 8th?) or move to a diferent game.

Ooorrr I could just play whatever I want. Since, you know, they're my models.

I'm sorry, I'm just sick of this "play the current stuff or get out" mentality. I happen to really like the art style of the 3rd books, I do enjoy the more competitive feel Andy Chambers was trying to harbor with that edition. Do I think it's the best game ever or flawless? No, of course not, but I do see the more recent editions as more of horizontal shifts rather than improvements to the game.

And if I was playing in an FLGS, then what's the problem? I can still buy the models and play with the old rules, especially since most units are the same book-to-book. Now I'm sure the GW store wouldn't appreciate the idea, but then a GW store wouldn't appreciate you not buying this week's new release either.

So play 3rd. Go for it. Didn't mean to come off as abrupt as I did, sorry. I'm not going to stop you. Just pointing out some of the difficulties involved. So are you going to try to use current codexes? Introduce new units/models? Just curious. Won't work for me, travel too much and play in too many venues.

 don_mondo wrote:
So play 3rd. Go for it. Didn't mean to come off as abrupt as I did, sorry. I'm not going to stop you. Just pointing out some of the difficulties involved. So are you going to try to use current codexes? Introduce new units/models? Just curious. Won't work for me, travel too much and play in too many venues.

It's alright, and I'm sorry if I came off as douchey. The idea of playing 3rd has just been ticking around in my head since I haven't been interested in buying 7th.

If I *was* able to get some people into it, I would most likely just go full-3rd. A lot of the books can be found online easily or purchased for a pittance on eBay. The biggest problem would be for anyone playing Necrons or Tau, but then again the idea is just working through right now. That would have the negative bit about losing units, but it would still be interesting to play an "HD" version of 3rd with all the benefits of newer models.

Jidmah wrote:What has being imbalanced to do with any of that?

Because if the only difference between armies is aesthetics, then there isn't very much depth to decisions on what to bring to the table.

Deadnight wrote:Being imbalanced doesn't help. Variety suffers.

If this were true, then you wouldn't have the giant pile of gamers who complain that they're "forced" to buy new stuff every time the rules change. Tell me you've never, ever tried out a new unit or bought something new just because its power level changed. That your gaming decisions are completely independent of how well something does on the table. And that all players only ever field exactly the strongest list that it is possible to field at any moment to the complete exclusion of others (and that this doesn't balance the game).

In any case, you've got to look at it over time. Because the game is imbalanced, it's meta dependent is the one side, but the constantly changing that meta is the other.

-Loki- wrote:To use the example of my current favorite game, Infinity. The game is incredibly well balanced

... or you just like the way it's imbalanced. Infinity is the exact same way as 40k. It's an imbalanced dice game that's constantly getting new versions of the core rules and bloating up with content.

Which is why it's survived for it's roughly 3-5 years of mainstream popularity so far.

 Ailaros wrote:

Jidmah wrote:What has being imbalanced to do with any of that?

Because if the only difference between armies is aesthetics, then there isn't very much depth to decisions on what to bring to the table.

Deadnight wrote:Being imbalanced doesn't help. Variety suffers.

If this were true, then you wouldn't have the giant pile of gamers who complain that they're "forced" to buy new stuff every time the rules change. Tell me you've never, ever tried out a new unit or bought something new just because its power level changed. That your gaming decisions are completely independent of how well something does on the table. And that all players only ever field exactly the strongest list that it is possible to field at any moment to the complete exclusion of others (and that this doesn't balance the game).

In any case, you've got to look at it over time. Because the game is imbalanced, it's meta dependent is the one side, but the constantly changing that meta is the other.

-Loki- wrote:To use the example of my current favorite game, Infinity. The game is incredibly well balanced

... or you just like the way it's imbalanced. Infinity is the exact same way as 40k. It's an imbalanced dice game that's constantly getting new versions of the core rules and bloating up with content.

Which is why it's survived for it's roughly 3-5 years of mainstream popularity so far.

You misunderstand what balance is. Completely.
And since its been explained several times I have to think you either can't understand or choose not to. Balance does not equal the same. No one is saying that. Since some units are much stronger than others, the weaker ones hardly ever get taken and as a result, you see the same army lists over and over again. CSM and Nids are good examples of this. Take the penitent engine as an example. It's completely useless. I love the model and the fluff, but if I run it, I'll expect to hand over those 80 points to the enemy with no gain to myself. If it was balanced, say, cheaper or some special rules to help it survive long enough to do something useful, you'd see them on the table and thus you'd see a wider variety of SOB armies instead of the same Domminion spam we see now. Thus, balance = greater variety. And that doesn't hurt the narrative at all. In fact, it helps it.

Infinity is a game that manages barely enough models to fill a single UNIT in a 40K game, and yet it is still unbalanced - there are currently TAG's without answer. Like every game, the more variety/choice they add - the less balanced it becomes.

When 3ed wh40k came out i hated it so much that I decided i would keep playing 2nd edition, so I bought another starter box, dark millenium and all codexes that were out and to this day I haven`t played 2nd ed one single time anymore, because it takes 2 to tango and everybody else danced to the newer editions, even thought all my friends keep saying how 2ed was the best and was the much fun times.

40k maybe getting new cool stuff all the time to keep things fresh, but there's actually still a bunch of cool things that you can field with 2nd edition rules that do not exist in 7th edition, nor have they in any edition since they were in 2nd edition. For instance, Eldar Exodites on their dragons.

Those were cool enough that if I get back into gaming with 2nd edition, I will be converting them from new 40K/fantasy models. Not to mention using Mantic Forgefather models for Squats (the new Deadzone ones coming out almost seem purposely-made for doing this), or fielding classic Genestealer cults.

 Ailaros wrote:
... or you just like the way it's imbalanced. Infinity is the exact same way as 40k. It's an imbalanced dice game that's constantly getting new versions of the core rules and bloating up with content.

It's getting it's third edition, which they've confirmed is simply a retranslation and refinement of second edition. Which was mostly a retranslation and refinement of first edition. It will have such a small change that the two expansions will work seamlessly with it.

I don't see how that is 'constantly getting new versions of the core rules'. It's the same game is was in first edition, only refine.

Being 'bloated' with new content? Paradiso added very little to the core rules, and human spheres purpose was to add linked teams. Again, I don't see how this is being 'bloated'.

 Ailaros wrote:
Which is why it's survived for it's roughly 3-5 years of mainstream popularity so far.

9 years. First edition Infinity was released in 2005.

Seriously Ailaros, you could at least try to not look completely ignorant.

 Talizvar wrote:
It is funny, most "legitimate" grumbling of change is when favored models become nerfed and you have few models of the new flavor of the month (=latest codex) so have to go out and buy (or worse, they are written out).

What? No it's not. Most "legitimate" grumbling of change is not that at all, not unless you've only been reading and/or comprehending a very small sub set of arguments.

Most "legitimate" complaining when new codices come out is things like lack of balance. For actual BRB changes, most of the "legitimate" complaints are rule changes that change the face of the game in a way (some) people don't like. Random charge distances, random tables for things that should not be random, in the case of 7th the complete giving up on any structure within army lists, the change to 3rd edition was the removal of save and to hit modifiers and the removal of the movement characteristic.

A certain amount of variety helps but when there is too much the game gets worse.

Consider a game which allows you to put nine units into your army. If the game has 10 different unit types, you are faced with a choice of how much to concentrate on various types of units, leaving your army more vulnerable to enemy units for which you cannot include a counter. Your opponents face the same difficulties.

Whatever you choose, there is the chance of fighting an enemy army that took the one unit you could not counter, because you only have nine selections, but the imbalance should not be too severe and you may be able to deal with it by using tactics.

Now consider the game with 20 different unit types available. Suddenly the amount of variety makes lots of match-ups completely imbalanced on a more or less random basis.

The second condition is where 40K has been going.

Logic would dictate that if you're on the seventh edition of something, you're now only making incremental changes, not large, sweeping ones. You should be refining to perfection, providing clarity and updates, and making the game more solid. Instead we get rules deleted and/or missing with massive changes such as the addition of a complete phase (that was removed long ago).

Most other game companies seem to only go to a new edition with an expressed intent and purpose that is voiced a great deal ahead of time to their customers. Not just "Surprise, new edition in three weeks!" with no real discussion on why it was necessary. Malifaux and Infinity have done it. I wasn't around for Mark II Warmachine so I cannot comment there.

With the option of 2, I would only play 2nd edition or prior (or a hybrid). I have no intention of playing 3rd edition or it's patches prior to what's currently there when I do play 40k (and that is more out of available games than wanting to play newer edition).

If I had the choice, all 3rd edition hybrids (i.e. everything since 3rd) would go out the window entirely.

3 is my favourite option and seems to be becoming more and more prevelent. Everything will crumble and waste away so that something new may be born. Isn’t it wonderful?

The funny thing is when similar questions are asked on placed like boardgamegeek, 2nd edition usually has the majority of people saying they would play it over the others.

I know I would only play a new edition if I was having to bow to peer pressure, as if to stay playing with a gaming group I would have to play the latest edition they are playing. But then again, with 20 years of 40K experience to compare things to, I think the price of the modern rules and codexes would probably see me drifting away from a group that required that to hang with them.

I am only going to see 40K hit the table with a very limited group, which mostly would consist of my buddy, myself, and my wife, with me begging them to play the game with me. In 20 years I have not met any worthwhile group in my area that plays 40K. So as with the last two decades, I will be providing the rules, codexes, and models for any game that I play in, as my other two gaming partners do not paint.

So a switch to playing 2nd edition would not see much of a hit to my gaming collection and the percentage of which would be seen hitting the table. I don't own Tau or Grey Knights, other than an old-school 2nd edition GK Terminator squad that is actually pretty strong in the 2nd edition rules. My Kroot Mercs wouldn't be able to be played as an army, and my Space Wolves 13th Company would have to be relegated to normal Space Wolves rules, which is a bummer because they had some fun unique rules. But they still would be keeping their bikes-only vehicles theme, and their awesome rag-tag armor look, so the main character of the army would still be there to see.

-My Blood Angels counts-as Deathwing terminator army could be used with two different sets of Terminator army rules, as even codex marines could take a Terminator army in 2nd edition, and Terminators were substantially more powerful, too.

-My Legion of the Damned army wouldn't exist as anything other than emo-marines, but at least I could still use one of the squads as a standard Legion of the Damned squad alongside my Ultramarines if I wanted.

-My current Eldar army on the shelf would lose, hmmm... an Autarch on a bike? Instead they would gain the ability to take awesomely powerful Exarchs that outshine the ones of today by a mile, and Shining Spear-wielding Exodite cavalry that I could make from Dark Elf Cold One riders, and even more powerful Farseers. Oh, and Shining Spears on jetbikes would be worthwhile to take again! Fair trade, I'd say.

The only real sorrow would be that my 3rd/4th edition Necrons would be horribly limited to just a Lord, Warriors, standard Destroyers, and Scarabs. But then again, just those 4 types of units very nearly made Necrons an over-powered army in 2nd edition rules!

 TheKbob wrote:
Logic would dictate that if you're on the seventh edition of something, you're now only making incremental changes, not large, sweeping ones. You should be refining to perfection, providing clarity and updates, and making the game more solid. Instead we get rules deleted and/or missing with massive changes such as the addition of a complete phase (that was removed long ago).

Most other game companies seem to only go to a new edition with an expressed intent and purpose that is voiced a great deal ahead of time to their customers. Not just "Surprise, new edition in three weeks!" with no real discussion on why it was necessary. Malifaux and Infinity have done it. I wasn't around for Mark II Warmachine so I cannot comment there.

This is incorrect.

When you do full numbered editions, for example, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, etc., these are major changes to the game, not simple incremental ones. That is why you see a lot of, 6.2, 6.3. 6.4 etc., when it uses denominations like this, these are the incremental changes you are speaking of.

I think he means that logic would normally state that if you are on version 7.0 of something and can draw from 30 years of development , it should be damn near as polished as you can get it.

 Lobomalo wrote:


This is incorrect.

When you do full numbered editions, for example, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, etc., these are major changes to the game, not simple incremental ones. That is why you see a lot of, 6.2, 6.3. 6.4 etc., when it uses denominations like this, these are the incremental changes you are speaking of.

Nothing I said was incorrect. I know you're new to the hobby, so you should really first brush up 3rd -> 5th of 40k, with 6th being the massive hard change for no reason. Second, look at other games who increment past their second edition and see that it's almost always as I stated.

Also, you should look into the history of Warhammer Fantasy and how it went from the dominant game to being a minor player in GW's financials. Hint: it had something to do with edition changes that made major game breakers instead of incremental changes.

Just because GW does it wrong, doesn't mean it's how it works for everyone else. And strategy games aren't table top RPGs, so you cannot make comparisons to their ruleset (I feel a 3 -> 3.5 -> 4 argument coming).