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.

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

It certainly isn't. It fixed a lot of things, but of course brought some other things that need changing.

I think the point is it is possible to have fun with ANY rules set with like minded people .

This thread is specifically about game balance in 7th ed 40k.

Can you use the rules as written to arrive at the intended game play of 40k ,yes or no?
Can you rely on the codex books and point values as written by GW to arrive at balanced and enjoyable pick up games, yes or no?

The answer is no to both of these questions, so the 7th ed rule and codex books fail to perform the basic function they are supposed to deliver.

The rule book is not a clear and concise set of instructions on how to play the game.
And the Codex books do not contain any provable levels of internal or external balance.

if GW plc sold them as a 'rough guide to playing games of 40k',and a 'rough outline of how you could collect citadel minatures'.

Then they would be describing the books more accurately, and people would not complain about the lack of inferred balance.

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

I think the bigger question is: how can anyone think the game actually IS balanced?

 MWHistorian wrote:

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

I think the bigger question is: how can anyone think the game actually IS balanced?

The word 'balanced' wasn't used there at all. 'Playable' was. The two aren't necessarily equal, although they should be.

If you rock up to a game, can you play straight off the bat? Yes, although probably not advisable. Chances are though, that unless you talk it over, your lists are not going to be equal.

40K doesn't work for pickup games. Close groups it's fine. Not a desirable state, but hey, we take what we can.

My $0.02

Farseer Anath'lan wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

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

I think the bigger question is: how can anyone think the game actually IS balanced?

The word 'balanced' wasn't used there at all. 'Playable' was. The two aren't necessarily equal, although they should be.

If you rock up to a game, can you play straight off the bat? Yes, although probably not advisable. Chances are though, that unless you talk it over, your lists are not going to be equal.

40K doesn't work for pickup games. Close groups it's fine. Not a desirable state, but hey, we take what we can.

My $0.02

I was referencing the poll at the top.
And for the "take what we can get," well, we can get better in other places.

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

BRB rules tangent discussion aside, from a balance perspective my group of friends got to the point where the game was essentially unplayable. We have a BA player on a limited budget -- 6th edition made his army complete junk. Meanwhile we have another player who plays Tau and dropped something like $600 when his new codex came out.

It's literally not worth it for them to set up a game using the rules/codices as written. The Tau player simply wants to use his cool new riptide and some of this other new suits -- who can blame him? The BA player has Sang guard, Dante, some Death Company, a Storm Raven. All models he likes, has painted nicely, and would normally enjoy playing. Without any serious effort, the Tau player can absolutely destroy him. Where's the fun in that?

Sure, if they go into pre-game negotiations, they can sufficiently handicap the Tau player and/or buff the BA player to make the game somewhat fair and have a good time. But the point is, there's no reason they should have to for the amount of money and time they've already invested into 40k. That's what makes the game "unplayable." The fact that, as written, it doesn't lead to an enjoyable experience for both players, so why play?

 MWHistorian wrote:

Farseer Anath'lan wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

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

I think the bigger question is: how can anyone think the game actually IS balanced?

The word 'balanced' wasn't used there at all. 'Playable' was. The two aren't necessarily equal, although they should be.

If you rock up to a game, can you play straight off the bat? Yes, although probably not advisable. Chances are though, that unless you talk it over, your lists are not going to be equal.

40K doesn't work for pickup games. Close groups it's fine. Not a desirable state, but hey, we take what we can.

My $0.02

I was referencing the poll at the top.
And for the "take what we can get," well, we can get better in other places.

True enough, and yes, the game is unbalanced beyond anything, without player discussion.
We can get better other places. Warmachine/Hordes, MtG, literally any other game, but 40K is still one of my favourites. It's stupid, over the top, and amazing for a laugh with some mates. The variety is enormous. OK, hardcore tournament style? Awesome, let me write a list. Just two melee armies smashing into each other, just to see how stupid we can make it? Sure. None of the other games quite have that. Just the way I feel.

My $0.02.

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

There comes a point where the rules issues that GW doesn't bother to fix simply make it not worth the effort required.

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

For some people here, not enjoying it is the same as it not working.

In all fairness there are bits that technically dont work though.

Well, most of my gaming group refuses to play it if that's any indication. The only one interested in the game only plays games for the "competitive aspect" of the game, which he says the more imbalanced the game the more competitive the game gets.

I don't get this philosophy myself, but to each their own.

I myself am rather upset that the only opponent I have now is just in the game to go for the throat, and the game to me is now unplayable due to this. FYI this guy is one of the reasons I determined I hated HordesMachine after getting my @$$ handed to me without any ability to fight back. Opponents like this who have no fun unless they're rolling their opponent (and do it through the rules being awful) are, to me, a great reason to hate a game.

Again, FYI I think the game is won and lost based on tables and list building rather than via strategy and gameplay. Give me Malifaux, Infinity, or X-Wing over 40k any day.



P.S. I think HordesMachine is an awful ruleset as well, but that's a thought for another thread.

 Etna's Vassal wrote:


P.S. I think HordesMachine is an awful ruleset as well, but that's a thought for another thread.

Well, don't leave us hanging. Go start a thread.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Etna's Vassal wrote:


P.S. I think HordesMachine is an awful ruleset as well, but that's a thought for another thread.

Well, don't leave us hanging. Go start a thread.

That would involve too much obscenity and swearing to happen. Give me a couple of shots of vodka and that may very well happen.

Not to derail this thread. Back to 40k!

I don't really see any issues I had with 6th ed being fixed.
Battle brothers is removed and reserved almost solely for Imperial forces, so that's not really a fix to me. Saying that only Imperial and Eldar deserve battle brothers based solely on race, from what I can tell, actually seems like more of a problem than it was a fix. Regardless it doesn't seem like an intentional fix, which makes matters even worse to me.

The Maelstrom missions and psychic phase are both poorly thought out and seem unfinished, which is surprising since they are the only real change from 6th.

The psyker phase has mostly been one sided in every example I've seen. GK for example can completely shut down a normal army with only a psyker or two. Not every game is going to be against GK, but the fact that this situation can arise where your 100+ point HQ is rendered useless just doesn't sit well with me.

The maelstrom missions are silly. There are so many quick fixes and balance fixes, but the problem is that none of them are in the book. The games that I have played have been almost entirely decided on the luck of the draw and not on anything that actually happened during the game. Why not just save yourself the book keeping and play the game, then at the each player draws a card from a pack of playing cards and high card wins?

Phantom - actually I have stated so, more than once, but as per form you missed it.

Shocked I am

The game is good for, so far, stupid numbers of hours of fun. Does it need to be more? Not necessarily. Could it be? Of course. This is where the analogy is exactly useful at pointing out that just because you feel entitled to something doesn't mean you'll get it.

 MWHistorian wrote:

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

I think the bigger question is: how can anyone think the game actually IS balanced?

Regardless, the topic is completely subjective. Everyone can have a different opinion, and none of them is wrong.

The game being balanced is in no way subjective. There are units that are objectively worse than others and codices that are objectively worse than others.

 Yonan wrote:
The game being balanced is in no way subjective. There are units that are objectively worse than others and codices that are objectively worse than others.

If it weren't subjective there would be no reason for this thread. The OP gave multiple options implying that he expects people to have different opinions.

I gave 7th a chance, saw the rulebook got sad.

 Random Dude wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
The game being balanced is in no way subjective. There are units that are objectively worse than others and codices that are objectively worse than others.

If it weren't subjective there would be no reason for this thread. The OP gave multiple options implying that he expects people to have different opinions.

People can have different opinions due to a knowledge gap or personal bias, that does not make the topic subjective. You can prove using mathhammer that certain units are objectively worse. A lot of people think with no rational basis that the rapture is coming or that climate change isn't real despite 97%+ of scientsts studies saying otherwise. That does not mean there's a debate on the topic.

 Yonan wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
The game being balanced is in no way subjective. There are units that are objectively worse than others and codices that are objectively worse than others.

If it weren't subjective there would be no reason for this thread. The OP gave multiple options implying that he expects people to have different opinions.

People can have different opinions due to a knowledge gap or personal bias, that does not make the topic subjective. You can prove using mathhammer that certain units are objectively worse. A lot of people think with no rational basis that the rapture is coming or that climate change isn't real despite 97%+ of scientsts studies saying otherwise. That does not mean there's a debate on the topic.

I'm not arguing the game is balanced. I know it isn't, however, I will listen to other people's opinions.

You're arguing that it's subjective - it's not.

 Yonan wrote:
You're arguing that it's subjective - it's not.

Well, now I'm going to stop arguing.

 jonolikespie wrote:
GW are in NO way comparable to Ferrari. Nothing about their business strategys are similar, no matter what GW wants to believe.

Yes, but in principle it's possible to have companies with different strategies that won't fit your needs, and just because they don't fit your needs does not mean they will go out of business. The Ferrari example illustrates how Ferrari is different from other car companies. That's all (I know others tried to bring it further, but I think that's wrong)

GorillaWarfare wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
GW are in NO way comparable to Ferrari. Nothing about their business strategys are similar, no matter what GW wants to believe.

Yes, but in principle it's possible to have companies with different strategies that won't fit your needs, and just because they don't fit your needs does not mean they will go out of business. The Ferrari example illustrates how Ferrari is different from other car companies. That's all (I know others tried to bring it further, but I think that's wrong)

I think the question is more: "Does it fit enough people's needs to stay in business?"
I believe the financial report won't be too awful. It'll probably be "Ok."
But "OK" isn't good either. After drastic cost cuts, Imperial Knights and a new edition they should be soaring. If they aren't, then they have deep seated problems that need to be fixed very soon or they will go under.

 MWHistorian wrote:

GorillaWarfare wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
GW are in NO way comparable to Ferrari. Nothing about their business strategys are similar, no matter what GW wants to believe.

Yes, but in principle it's possible to have companies with different strategies that won't fit your needs, and just because they don't fit your needs does not mean they will go out of business. The Ferrari example illustrates how Ferrari is different from other car companies. That's all (I know others tried to bring it further, but I think that's wrong)

I think the question is more: "Does it fit enough people's needs to stay in business?"
I believe the financial report won't be too awful. It'll probably be "Ok."
But "OK" isn't good either. After drastic cost cuts, Imperial Knights and a new edition they should be soaring. If they aren't, then they have deep seated problems that need to be fixed very soon or they will go under.

Not to mention double didgit growth in the market. Their growth should not be compared to 0, it should be compared to the rest of the market. Breaking even in this situation still nets them a huge loss.

But back to the topic at hand Ferrari are good at what they do, just most people can't afford it.
I'd still argue GW aren't good at whatever it is they are trying to do.

I recognize they aren't making what I am looking for, doesn't get them off the hook though.

Ferrari are bad at what they do though, if you want them to make a car with a carrying capacity of a volvo estate.

Theyre also raising prices (dramatically) while cutting production, as they can sell fewer cars (dramatically reducing aftersales costs, such as warranty, given the requirement to maintain parts for so long) for a higher price. Theyre doing it for a different reason though - exclusivity.

Enough already with the GW = Ferrari delusion.

If your looking for an auto maker analogy then compare to GM.
Why?

Because GM in a near ubiquitous brand that is makes money off of mass production as opposed to limited run models designed to increase product value through exclusivity.

True, GM has "some" high end products like the Cadillac Brand and the Chevy Corvette but those are not the company's central focus. GM's bread and butter is maintaining their position as a market share leader through massed sales of moderately priced vehicles.

This is where GW fails in comparison. If GM followed GW's business model then base models of their Chevy, Opel & Holden brands would cost as much as the Cadillac STS or Avalanche.

GW has a high end brand in Forge World yet have priced their base product to where GW mass produced plastics are often in the same price range as the FW resin pieces.

To the point, people will balk, and rightly so, at paying a Cadillac prices for a Chevy Cavalier.



ON TOPIC!!!

As per the OP's original question and the poll...I rate the game as unplayable.

For myself, a game should not require "verbally" negotiating a "social contract" to play. Such nonsense is GW failing to assume responsibility and leadership for their product.
Imo, this is GW is just being to lazy to put any effort into balancing their game.

There are well designed and balanced games that allow players to engage in a player vs player game where the players involved don't even speak the same language.

All in all, starting with 6th ed, 40k became a labour /chore rather than a pleasurable activity/game. It has become a bloated rules mess that never allows for fluid play.
Immersion in the game is constantly interrupted by rules conflicts/question or just rules that make so little sense that you have those wtf moments.

Can we just drop the car analogies completely? They're really quite stupid. GW are nothing like Ferrari, there's nothing useful to be gained by comparing them to Ferrari, it's absurd. Ferrari make high end sports cars, GW mass produce little toy soldiers.

I really tire of pointless and (in many cases, like this one) spurious analogies.

We are pretty much all wargamers and hobbyists here, how's about we confine our discussion to wargames and hobbies, it's not like using an analogy actually serves to clarify something in all but very rare cases given that we are wargamers talking about wargames.

Comparing GW to any car manufacturer is silly enough that I feel the only fitting reply is:

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:
Reasonable, with a couple of issues. The real broken things come from tournament and WAAC players trying to make power lists. I have played a bunch of games and have yet to have any issues when playing with reasonable, sane people.

If you have to put qualifiers on it (ie when playing with reasonable, sane people), then maybe it's not so reasonable after all....

 Captain Avatar wrote:

For myself, a game should not require "verbally" negotiating a "social contract" to play. Such nonsense is GW failing to assume responsibility and leadership for their product.
Imo, this is GW is just being to lazy to put any effort into balancing their game.

There are well designed and balanced games that allow players to engage in a player vs player game where the players involved don't even speak the same language.

Not sure I agree, on communication being required that is, there are games out there where it works, look at FPS lobbies...
Working however is different to both sides enjoying themselves

Even if you both brought balanced lists if you players players regularly and has for years taking each move with measured and considered care and the other plays once a month for fun and making cinematic situations. If the (lets shorthand this down) "Good" player plays his usual game he'll in all likelyhood roflstomp the new guy.
If he'd taken the time beforehand he could have easily handicapped himself in some way perhaps or played in such a way as to help the newer play learn by imparting knowledge or even (Blasphemy I know) self nerfed his list. Even a perfectly balanced game is improved by communication for my money.
playing at less than your best is disrespectful to your opponent but handicaps are an established part of games.

FPS lobbies are actually a great example of the importance of communication. How many times have you been in this situation:

it's say 10 vs. 10, 4 players on one side are way above the average, very skilled players and their team is winning round after round. Those 4 players proceed to kill the lobby by staying in there and staying together, the other team gets demoralized and leaves en masse after drubbing number 5-10. Instead had 2 of those high skills players changed team they could have created a lobby where everyone had fun, not just 1 team *and* they were challenged into the bargain.
It doesn't happen though does it?
It's the difference between "I played" and "We played" and communication is the key.