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.

If you are honestly thinking about rejoining 40k, do it. I've played 13 games of 7th, just slightly more than 2 a week since it dropped. I am honestly having more fun with this edition, than any before. Maelstrom of war missions are crazy fun. Yes, it can be unbalanced in those missions, if you roll or draw bad objectives on the chart. That being said the ideas I've been having for battle forged and unbound army lists are funny. I don't think I will a chance to test them all, but jump in.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Anyway it is off topic.

I would have said that 7th was a bit less unbalanced than 6th because they toned down Allies and Escalation units but they introduced Maelstrom objectives and Unbound armies and that restored the kujibiki unbalance.

but that is the BEAUTY that is 40k, those things are optional, extra stuff that some other guy wanted (I personally like them, they add lots of complexity to the game, we houserule it so unobtainable ones are redrawn, and the game is on a new level.)


lots of people dont like the cards, and they are too complex for tournaments, so generally are not used, and thats the whole point of GW giving you a framework and letting you all tailor the niggling details for yourself.



doesnt take much, look at the BAO or a comparable tournaments way of making what is in essence, a army of D&D models with a simplified randomize table so that you can play games with little dudes you painted, into a pretty decent competitive, fun, and well balanced game especially considering the scope of it.

if you want the most competitive and balanced games you want computer games, or *gasp* sports! where there isnt a random table backing your performance.

Its hardly fair to say that 40k is better balanced if you ignore all the parts of it that are poorly balanced.

The core game includes Maelstrom and Unbound, and therefore are factors when discussing the balance issues of 40k.

Claiming its fine if you ignore and/or houserule the game is ignoring the point.

There are plenty of miniature games that are competitive and balanced that aren't sports or computer games. Poor example is poor.

 easysauce wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

if you want the most competitive and balanced games you want computer games, or *gasp* sports! where there isnt a random table backing your performance.

Or play Warmachine or Infinity.

Thekbob - nope, guess you still don't understand, as you missed the point by a mile.as did others.

Design philosophy is X. You want game to do Y. If philosophy does not include Y, you will never be happy, as you're asking for something that they have no stated interest in providing.

Enough with your insults of "swallowing marketing", this comes from talking to the actual people who write the game, and what THEY want of it. Your interest and theirs do not coincide. So leave it; you are opposed to how they want to run, so unless you gave some actual leverage - and you demonstrably don't- you can do nothing but sound bitter, or hateful.

It is exactly like complaining that ferraris philosophy for cars doesnot include gross luggage carrying capacity. Unless you can actually change that through leverage , it is a waste of time to continually berate them for not operating as you want them to. However logical the argument is - and, if you would read more carefully you would note I do not disagree about the balance , or that it would be simpler to have a tighter ruleset - you want something they WILL NOT GIVE YOU. So it is so much hot air, and wasted energy.

It is not a bad analogy, once you understand it.

You haven't explained what 40k is good at, or what design philosophy its oriented to.

And? I'm pointing out the flaw others are making. It is not necessary to say what is good to point out a flawed concept.

Personally I have a good laugh with it, in tournaments, campaigns, pug and prearranged. It is good for some narrative play, and generally having fun with like minded people.

I can see the flaws in it, but as long as I still see value in it, and I do, I don't let them cloud my judgement.

Philosophy is fairly obvious, and has been stated more than once here: games with oeople you know, and can talk to. Even a minute. I seem to be incredibly lucky in my interactions

 TheKbob wrote:
There's a major difference in weight probability through random number generators (RNGs), such as dice or cards, and the straight random of things like warlord traits, pyschic powers, maelstrom objectives, and so on found in Warhammer 40k.

The latter is awful game design. The former is a staple of all games, be it meat space or video game, and controlling those variables in the probability is what makes or brakes many games.

Games are math, whether observed literally or figuratively. Meaning whether you embrace mathhammer or just know tacitly what's good and what's not through play, all games break down to their fundamental mathematical mechanics. And Games Workshops are bad. And truly random is generally not desirable.

I feel that this is one of the things that makes 40k so imbalanced to some degree in the later editions, since some of them are kind of useless or can go against the playstyle of your army or something that might work with what you want at all. This kind of can be said of Maelstrom, in which a person can seem to win turn one by just drawing the right objectives out of luck.

Now for the reason I think 40k is between "Reasonably Unbalanced" and "Unplayable" is kind of two fold: The first being the appalling internal and external codex the armies have, where they can be really hit and miss. Especially in the recent ones, since they seem to have almost little to no playtesting to it. The second ties into the rules overall, where the rules are a complete mess and does not seem to figure out what it wants to be, let alone seems to favor certain armies still still favoring mostly shooting armies and/or able to get into assault with mitigating the chance of a poor charge roll (which was the one thing I still hate to this date. Now all personal feelings aside here....). I am not asking for completely and full balance, it is very hard to attain, but I want it where most everything is playable and I feel I can win or lose with just mostly skill playing a factor in it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Design philosophy is X. You want game to do Y. If philosophy does not include Y, you will never be happy, as you're asking for something that they have no stated interest in providing.

Their design philosophy says one thing, but their implementation is an utter failure. Narrative games are strictly PvE style games with a GM or something like a historical wargame where you are running more a simulation; the history being the GM. There's nothing in Warhammer 40k that creates such an atmosphere. It's PvP through and through. The rules call the other player your opponent. If you're playing a game of PvP, the rules must be designed in such a fashion. So again, their design philosophy is marketing schlock until their actions prove otherwise.

Your analogy continues to be terrible. Stop comparing crap to cars. Strawman argument, thou shall not use fallacies. Games to games, Warhammer 40k is not a functional system without a large amount of hand waving and house ruling.

Though tacit and anecdotal, I've had far more "forge the narrative" moments with Infinity, Malifaux, and Warmachine in the short time I've have stopped Warhammer 40k than I have in 40k. I remember more struggles with the rules than anything. I am quite certain that you could look under the hood, to steal your continued line of thought, to find that GW's "Ferrari" has a straight 4 cylinder for as much glitz and glamour they pour onto the outside. It would be very much like Ferrari saying they have the best sports car on the market and it could barely keep up with the posted speed limits without catching on fire every other trip. (Car analogies are dumb)

I personally haven't found 7th to be particularly well balanced. They've fixed some things, broken others, and thrown the door wide open to everything else.


While GW has a philosophy they seem to be designing from, the playerbase, as I've found it, for "typical" pickup games, has gone completely to yot, and as a result, from a personal perspective, I'm seeing more one-sided games and completely absurd (from a fluff perspective) armies than ever before, largely the opposite of what it would appear GW is trying to do with their ruleset.


It seems most people and events are having to enforce some selective banning of certain things and/or houseruling of others, far more than I've ever experienced before. This seems to reinforce my perception that the game is a mess.

I started playing in just before 6th was released and have found that 7th allows for more creative lists, or more narrative lists. If all you want to do is win then it can be done but there will be someone that with a greater cash flow than you that can bring bigger guns to the field. If you want to just have fun and play the army you like for the sake of playing then you should have fun. Also the new Missions have changed the game greatly, as you can score tons of points by completing objective cards, Vs just waiting until turn 4-5 and trying to rush the other guy.

Of course if you knowingly play a game with a Win At all cost player then expect to get stomped, or play against someone that takes the prize at Tournaments you may have little fun, unless that is your thing.

It really comes down to what kind of gamer/Hobbyist you are, me I have been known to play against cheesy lists just to see how I do, I have been know try out lists that make little sense, but so long as I have fun I keep hobbying.

There are a lot of things they fixed. No more Taudar. No more Buffmander with a riptide. The psychic phase at first kinda pissed me off, but honestly it's not that bad, and makes psychic powers harder to get off, and you cast less anyway, and it's a little more involved, so I've come to like it. Vehicles are actually usable now, which means that my Necron vehicles are harder to kill.

The Maelstrom of War missions were a good concept, but certain game scenarios are more unbalanced than others. Like, Deadlock or the one where you can Complete eachother's objectives. First hand draws can make or break the game, and me and my friends have pretty much decided to make a Mulligan rule, or at least you can discard ones you LITERALLY cannot do. Otherwise, the missions can be fun, especially on a narrative scale.

The FoC is all kinda of messed up. There might as well not even be one anymore. You can pretty much make any army you want, just call it another "detachment".

I'm still upset they didn't change Ordnance, or Ignores Cover, but whatever.

They also nerfed Tau and Eldar vehicles, simply with the new Jink rules, and I'm happy with that.

Overall, it has a lot of issues, but there will always be issues, so we can't escape that.

Thekbob - nope, that's not a straw man. Please look up terms before using them.

You've still cheerfully missed the point, so I will abstain from attempting to engage you on this, as it seems faintly pointless. The analogy is fine, and was easy. Did not need to be cars, a similar complaint would be moaning that pp won't adopt a codex model, as that is what you would prefer. Philosophical difference.

Th point remains that-0: you want X. They will never give you X. You complain that they don't give you X, missing the point that your interests are not relevant to them, unless and until you gain some more leverage than you currently have.

I've had some cool moments in WM, but as a setting I find it much less expansive to 40k. I just don't get on with it as the intensely everything's bollocksed atmosphere of 40k. According to some that makes me stupid, but meh, I ignore ignorant opinions , makes my life simpler

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Thekbob - nope, that's not a straw man. Please look up terms before using them.

You've still cheerfully missed the point, so I will abstain from attempting to engage you on this, as it seems faintly pointless. The analogy is fine, and was easy. Did not need to be cars, a similar complaint would be moaning that pp won't adopt a codex model, as that is what you would prefer. Philosophical difference.

"I'm wrong so I'm taking my ball and going home".

While not totally balanced, with a few TO rules, it could be the best edition yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The option "reasonably unbalanced" amuses me.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Thekbob - nope, that's not a straw man. Please look up terms before using them.

You've still cheerfully missed the point, so I will abstain from attempting to engage you on this, as it seems faintly pointless. The analogy is fine, and was easy. Did not need to be cars, a similar complaint would be moaning that pp won't adopt a codex model, as that is what you would prefer. Philosophical difference.

Th point remains that-0: you want X. They will never give you X. You complain that they don't give you X, missing the point that your interests are not relevant to them, unless and until you gain some more leverage than you currently have.

I've had some cool moments in WM, but as a setting I find it much less expansive to 40k. I just don't get on with it as the intensely everything's bollocksed atmosphere of 40k. According to some that makes me stupid, but meh, I ignore ignorant opinions , makes my life simpler

Still a lame analogy.

It's an illustration of how you can want something, but that doesn't mean your opinion matters one jot.

But hey, don't engage with substance, add no content instead. Much more productive.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It's an illustration of how you can want something, but that doesn't mean your opinion matters one jot.

No.

It's a terrible analogy.

I prefer it to 6th but i seem to be in the minority. I would have classed 6th as unplayable for me, however i will concede that i had quite a long break from 40k, got back in to 6th and by the time 7th came out i've got a bit better with the ole' tactics. I still think if you play an army that wears power armour you're paying way to many points for troops. 3+ and str 4 weapons are now basically the geq of today, whereas in 3rd the marines (and csm) were literally as good as or better than other races' elites.

mind you, i can't talk as i've just bought a de army for the lulz and that seems to be asking for pain (again, quite literally)

Played my first 7th game yesterday. Seems more streamlined and liking the new Psychic phase.

 Grimtuff wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It's an illustration of how you can want something, but that doesn't mean your opinion matters one jot.

No.

It's a terrible analogy.

I'm waiting for him to explain what the current game is good for. It might hold a bit more weight then, but for that to happen the current rules need to have a clearly defined purpose.

Its all well and good to say if you want X then Y is not for you, but what the hell is the purpose of Y then?

Its a lot easier to say that the game isn't delivering X to explain how some people are unhappy with the state of the game. The problem with that is that X isn't defined, so it can be used in poor car analogies and then waved away when people have difficulty understanding the point being made.

If the game isn't made for some of the people in this thread, who is it made for? Its not a good narrative game, or tournament game, or pick up game. Its passable between close friends with like-minded philosophies on gaming, but then again, so is every game. Outside of that, it doesn't do anything other than provide a rough outline for how to play 28mm games in the 40k universe. But if you can only really play with close friends who think just like you, why bother with 40k at all and just play an RPG with models.

To answer the original question; its not balanced. It hasn't been play tested in any meaningful manner, and its overly complicated without adding any real depth.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It's an illustration of how you can want something, but that doesn't mean your opinion matters one jot.

No.

It's a terrible analogy.

I'm waiting for him to explain what the current game is good for. It might hold a bit more weight then, but for that to happen the current rules need to have a clearly defined purpose.

Its all well and good to say if you want X then Y is not for you, but what the hell is the purpose of Y then?

I'm sure they'll say its a great game for hanging with your mates, having laughs and goofing off...which any game would be great for, only the other games would be way cheaper and would have better rules in case a break of soberness allows for a moment of thoughtful play.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Th point remains that-0: you want X. They will never give you X. You complain that they don't give you X, missing the point that your interests are not relevant to them, unless and until you gain some more leverage than you currently have.

They say they make X. Then they make a game that's Y. Players realize that if they actually made Y, it could also be X. But they continue to make Y despite what they say, and do so poorly.

Your analogy sucks. A better balanced game is good for all types of play. It's why every other game, including narrative based RPGs, have forums to discuss rules issues and issue forth FAQs and errata. Which Games Workshop cannot even get correct.

People mentioned it before, but isn't it strange that w40k has HUGE problems with casual vs normal games and at the same time is realy bad as a narrative game stright out of the box.

TheKbob- sigh. Again, dont interject your conclusions as if others have said they are not true, to then argue against them. You love to use strawman arguments, making it significantly more hassle to respond.

I have not stated that a better balanced game wouldnt be better, for some definition of better, for all / majority. At all. I have not said that. Do not write things that imply otherwise, as that is misleading. In case you miss it again, I agree that, as a whole good balance for everything is likely more desirable for more people than the current situation. (The caveats are that dealing in absolutes, as you do, is generally more unsafe than safe, and I'm being precise with it)

You seem to have difficulty accepting that someone pointing out the flaws in your position doesnt mean they disagree with some parts of your argument. Treating everything as too black and white, us vs them. It is entirely possible to enjoy 40k games while understanding their flaws, but still seeing sufficient value in the game to continue. Just because you, and others, have decided that it isnt for you, doesnt mean you are right in that assessment, nor that others are wrong.

Again: I would prefer them to write tighter, adequately balanced rules, however much I enjoy reading and understanding them and debating them currently it would make the game swifter for people to pick up and play. However I am also aware that the aim for them isnt necessarily going to result in what I want, and so I dont expend quite so much energy on something I understand to be mostly a pointless exercise in futility. I cannot make them change. Thats fine, I accept that - I have no leverage over them. However i DO actually enjoy playing the game, across many parts of the UK and in many settings. IT still grabs my interest in ways few games do, and so I@ll keep on playing it.

Grimtuff - good to see your contentless posts continue. Keep at it, its not like the forum has rules against it. I'll file under "cant see the wood for the trees".

 jonolikespie wrote:

I'm waiting for him to explain what the current game is good for. It might hold a bit more weight then, but for that to happen the current rules need to have a clearly defined purpose.

Its all well and good to say if you want X then Y is not for you, but what the hell is the purpose of Y then?

I can't speak for Nos (Though I seem to share a similar viewpoint) but I know what I find the game is good for:

Generating hours of fun for me.

I've played other systems and 40k is the one I find the most fun to play at my local group and with friends. Really what else does a game need to do?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
TheKbob- sigh. Again, dont interject your conclusions as if others have said they are not true, to then argue against them. You love to use strawman arguments, making it significantly more hassle to respond.

I have not stated that a better balanced game wouldnt be better, for some definition of better, for all / majority. At all. I have not said that. Do not write things that imply otherwise, as that is misleading. In case you miss it again, I agree that, as a whole good balance for everything is likely more desirable for more people than the current situation. (The caveats are that dealing in absolutes, as you do, is generally more unsafe than safe, and I'm being precise with it)

You seem to have difficulty accepting that someone pointing out the flaws in your position doesnt mean they disagree with some parts of your argument. Treating everything as too black and white, us vs them. It is entirely possible to enjoy 40k games while understanding their flaws, but still seeing sufficient value in the game to continue. Just because you, and others, have decided that it isnt for you, doesnt mean you are right in that assessment, nor that others are wrong.

Again: I would prefer them to write tighter, adequately balanced rules, however much I enjoy reading and understanding them and debating them currently it would make the game swifter for people to pick up and play. However I am also aware that the aim for them isnt necessarily going to result in what I want, and so I dont expend quite so much energy on something I understand to be mostly a pointless exercise in futility. I cannot make them change. Thats fine, I accept that - I have no leverage over them. However i DO actually enjoy playing the game, across many parts of the UK and in many settings. IT still grabs my interest in ways few games do, and so I@ll keep on playing it.

Grimtuff - good to see your contentless posts continue. Keep at it, its not like the forum has rules against it. I'll file under "cant see the wood for the trees".

And in all of your posts you still didn't explain what exactly is the aim for the design studio, despite having been asked by several posters.

You're the one that isn't adding any actual content to the discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dunklezahn wrote:


I've played other systems and 40k is the one I find the most fun to play at my local group and with friends. Really what else does a game need to do?

What other miniature games have you played and why did you consider 40k superior to them?

Warmahordes, Space Marine/Epic, Infinity, Dystopian Wars, Dropzone Commander, there must be others but off the top of my head over the years.

Each has some nice elements or rules ideas here and there but 40k I find a more enjoyable game. I like how diverse armies can be in 40k compared to other games, infantry, jump troops, tanks, MC's etc. I like the scale of 40k as the first two on the list feels like skirmish combat by comparison.

It's a lot of things including some I just can't put my fingers on, it's just more fun.

How can so many people say 7th is unplayable? You might not like it, but it's certainly not unplayable.