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.

The comparison is fine, at least valid enough to merit mention.

As a big Starcraft player (the similarities are actually what brought me to 40k), that game is really well balanced, needing slight tweaking and fixing, but still almost entirely skill dependant, being a very rare situation where a game is decided by balance discrepancies as opposed to player skill and decisions. Being one of the people who DOES complain about the balance issues in Starcraft, I feel I have a right to speak on the topic, as I know when I complain about Starcraft I'm asking for something far different than what I'm asking for on GW. There is minor tweaks to things like a few seconds of duration, or a single point of damage for a specific unit, that is all that is needed to improve a lot of balance, and for very few units is it even necessary. In fact, the game is so balanced that any MAJOR change is guaranteed to destroy balance, and any subtle change is still VERY likely to unbalance more than it fixes, only a select few things need a balance update.

This is however, my opinion on the game, and while Protoss are definitely ahead at the moment and Terran behind, it takes such a tiny issue to tip the scales ever so slightly to have this effect, and if you have a look at Blizzards latest patch, they have not only acknowledged this, but have decided the necessary fix is to lower the duration of one spell on an early game "one-of" unit to last about half the duration of an engagement instead of the entire thing. No, this isn't sarcasm towards the miniscule amount of balancing Blizz deemed necessary to fix an acknowledged major issue, they care very much about the state of their game and being owners of one of the most popular esports in the world (second to dota? Not sure). No, this is just the scale of balancing that they have arrived at, and they literally doing the best they can to fix it, anymore would strongly risk swinging it back the other way even more negatively than before.

Compare this to 40k - I'm not even going to do an in depth description of the current state of balance, we all play it and know how it is.

People need to stop using the Starcraft comparison on a surface level. While the two mediums are similar enough to be compared, just saying "people complain about balance issues with both" is not even scratching the surface. Yes, Starcraft isn't perfected, and yes there will always be people who blame non-existent balance issues instead of their own play mistakes. However, this doesn't make ACTUAL massive imbalances in the similar (enough) strategic medium of 40K any less legitimate. Hopefully we can move away from this comparison now, or at least not use it incorrectly, or without having any real knowledge on the subject.

Yep, I watch hours of SC2 tournaments each week and have for a couple years now. Most imbalance complaints from average players in SC2 are things like banelings or widow mines which are more effective at low skill levels than at high skill levels where a good terran can split well or a zerg knows to have an overseer with their muta flock. Every unit in SC2 is currently balanced to be useful though carriers and motherships... bring on the protoss expansion to reinvigorate these imo! Maps can also be a large source of balance concern in SC2, much like terrain in 40k I guess - wide open spaces for blink stalkers to harass gave rise to brutal blink stalker all ins, just like low terrain in 40k favours gun lines over assault.

If 40k received balance tweaks like SC2 did - +40 points on the vendetta here, +1A to a model there etc in regular updates it would be a much better game. The meta would constantly change, but it would start to approach a much more balanced state.

Wow Yonan, not only are you my random steam bro who appears to share my tastes in gaming judging by your library, you also play Starcraft, share my views on both it and 40k, and you're a good ol Australian like yours truly! We'll have to have a match or two when the NBN guys finally show up to one of their arranged appointments to finish up connecting my internet :(

Look at Starcraft: it's 3 forces, subject to immediate digital updates and played at a professional level. It's community is still filled with these same balance gripes.

Of course it is, because people will always complain about how their favorite thing is too weak and that thing they hate is overpowered. The real question is how justified are those complaints? And we find that in other games they're typically about fine-tuning balance to be absolutely perfect, while in 40k balance complaints are usually about fixing obvious major problems that should never have slipped through playtesting.

40K is imbalanced because of three reasons; firstly that GW don't want to put in the effort to balance it, secondly that the rules writers often write rules that do not fit the framework and break the system, thirdly that in some cases the points values seem to have been picked out of a hat.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
40K is imbalanced because of three reasons; firstly that GW don't want to put in the effort to balance it, secondly that the rules writers often write rules that do not fit the framework and break the system, thirdly that in some cases the points values seem to have been picked out of a hat.

You left out the first & biggest reason:

GW intentionally introduces over-powered & under-powered units and factions to drive sales.

It goes like this:

GW: We want to sell lots of x this edition so we will power up x and nerf y and laterally shift z.

Customers: But that will invalidate our armies and destroy game balance.

GW: So fething what. You guys don't really enjoy or play the game, What you customers love is having the opportunity to buy our crap.


I could go on but the gist of it is there.

Later,
ff

I don't actually believe in that cause, because there are so many examples of really crappy units that no-one would use being introduced. It doesn't make sense that you can drive sales of new models by making them rubbish.

Oversights. GW expected everyone to CtA Orks for Morkanaught allies. Misjudged the necessary price tag to achieve this by a point or two is all.

As someone who has had a passing fancy with Starcraft, it doesn't really compare to well to a meatspace game. The real thing is that the tweaks to Starcraft are minimal. Someone like me, who just enjoys "Forging the Narrative" can enjoy the campaign, futz around with the skirmish, and maybe play a game or two online and never "feel" that. You can't truly be casual with Warhammer 40k unless you have a pool of like minded opponents. And even then, you can see the "crash to desktop" moments and their frequency every time you have to check the rulebook on weird situations.

Warhammer 40k definitely needs balance tweaks, but bug fixes have to come first.

I really want to get back into the game, but the rules are such a disaster I can't see a way to do it without basically writing my own and that's not really a good solution either.

I wish GW would decide to stop trying to make money off of the rules. Make money off of models and fluff and use the rules as a way to draw people in and keep them engaged by balancing them as well as possible. To do this, they should have all rules in an electronic format all being released and updated more or less simultaneously allowing people to print the rules so those without tablets or whatever can use the rules too. Tweak the rules on a regular schedule monthly or quarterly (quarterly is probably better).

Tweaking rules to bring more balance would have the side effect of encouraging people to buy new models also. If a model goes from marginal to useful it instantly becomes something people want to buy. No need to wait years to update the codex to sell the model. Also they could release a new unit every quarter with the update to drive new sales. Perhaps combine it with a real sale on other units in the army to encourage people to collect new armies.

They could probably reprint the core rulebook and codexes (or however you pluralize that word) every 2 or 3 years with the focus being more about collectability, fluff and hobby perhaps adding fun scenarios or missions that are exclusive to the print version for more casual fun. An example is the Dark Eldar special mission in their original codex.

Draw people into the game with solid, balanced rules and then get them to buy the peripheral stuff because they enjoy the environment and feel of the game.

Game is well balanced, play at is it stands. GW did a fine job writing the rules, and sure some of them may seem a bit odd or weird. But even at the highest competitive play level you can 4 up it, or discuss ahead of time. Heck you can even check with T.O.'s prior to going to tournies how they rule something. In the end, the rules are pretty simple and its the metaphysical arguing instead of common sense that makes it terrible in most cases.
Again im a guy who may win tournies sure, but I simply enjoy the game for the game and try to make sure my opponents do enjoy the game against me, of coarse you can never please everyone.

Tsilber wrote:
Game is well balanced, play at is it stands. GW did a fine job writing the rules, and sure some of them may seem a bit odd or weird. But even at the highest competitive play level you can 4 up it, or discuss ahead of time. Heck you can even check with T.O.'s prior to going to tournies how they rule something. In the end, the rules are pretty simple and its the metaphysical arguing instead of common sense that makes it terrible in most cases.
Again im a guy who may win tournies sure, but I simply enjoy the game for the game and try to make sure my opponents do enjoy the game against me, of coarse you can never please everyone.

Nice Post!

 Random Dude wrote:

Tsilber wrote:
Game is well balanced, play at is it stands. GW did a fine job writing the rules, and sure some of them may seem a bit odd or weird. But even at the highest competitive play level you can 4 up it, or discuss ahead of time. Heck you can even check with T.O.'s prior to going to tournies how they rule something. In the end, the rules are pretty simple and its the metaphysical arguing instead of common sense that makes it terrible in most cases.
Again im a guy who may win tournies sure, but I simply enjoy the game for the game and try to make sure my opponents do enjoy the game against me, of coarse you can never please everyone.

Nice Post!

How is it well balanced? Some armies are drastically underpowered compared to others, not to mention builds within those armies. It's so bad that winner can often be determined before the first dice roll. That's not balance.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:

Tsilber wrote:
Game is well balanced, play at is it stands. GW did a fine job writing the rules, and sure some of them may seem a bit odd or weird. But even at the highest competitive play level you can 4 up it, or discuss ahead of time. Heck you can even check with T.O.'s prior to going to tournies how they rule something. In the end, the rules are pretty simple and its the metaphysical arguing instead of common sense that makes it terrible in most cases.
Again im a guy who may win tournies sure, but I simply enjoy the game for the game and try to make sure my opponents do enjoy the game against me, of coarse you can never please everyone.

Nice Post!

How is it well balanced? Some armies are drastically underpowered compared to others, not to mention builds within those armies. It's so bad that winner can often be determined before the first dice roll. That's not balance.

I agree with specifically the last sentence. It's our job as players to try and enjoy the game to the best of our abilities and also help our opponents have fun.

 Random Dude wrote:

I agree with specifically the last sentence. It's our job as players to try and enjoy the game to the best of our abilities and also help our opponents have fun.

It's the job of the company to make a good game worth playing. Not the players. The "blame the player" mentality must stop. If the game was free, like Infinity, you might have a leg to stand on. But when you're paying north of $100 USD for rules, that shouldn't fly if you're at least some form of savvy with your cash. Frugal doesn't mean cheap, it means smart.

And I have never heard any tournament player satisfied with idea of "4+" a rule. If two tournament players, more so near the top tables, is having a rules dispute, it's gotta be a pretty good one as they usually don't bicker about the small stuff. This means it's probably a game deciding situation. To make the game swing on a rules dispute decided by a dice roll would have any reasonable player pretty sour over the affair, win or lose. I'd never want to lose nor win over the decision of some bad grammar and a huck of a d6. This is why tournaments try to have massive, comprehensive FAQs of issues not covered in the poorly written rules. They also ensure that any judgement calls made are consistent. Nothing worse than a waffling rules judge. The good ones apologize. The bad ones throw hissy fits.

The mere state of the 7E FAQs alone is enough to tell you the game isn't functional, let alone balance. As stated, the bugs need to be fixed in 7E prior to any balance patches are issued. Unless you all know the points values for my GK vindicators and whirlwinds?

And that's why I'd always bring Fateweaver or Corbulo so I can reroll one dice roll per game and save it for the rules dispute. /s

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:

Tsilber wrote:
Game is well balanced, play at is it stands. GW did a fine job writing the rules, and sure some of them may seem a bit odd or weird. But even at the highest competitive play level you can 4 up it, or discuss ahead of time. Heck you can even check with T.O.'s prior to going to tournies how they rule something. In the end, the rules are pretty simple and its the metaphysical arguing instead of common sense that makes it terrible in most cases.
Again im a guy who may win tournies sure, but I simply enjoy the game for the game and try to make sure my opponents do enjoy the game against me, of coarse you can never please everyone.

Nice Post!

How is it well balanced? Some armies are drastically underpowered compared to others, not to mention builds within those armies. It's so bad that winner can often be determined before the first dice roll. That's not balance.

Really? Sorry i dont see that. I play a lot of different armies and also witnessed a lot of different armies win across the 3 states i play in a lot of tournies in. I see more of the same player win if anything, not the specific army. At those tournies i see the same people that are always happy, happy to be playing whether win or lose. And i see the same people complaining about how people or armies are broken or complaining all the time....
We can read about the most winning armies. But i have played and placed in 4-5 , 25+ plus player tournies this year that are not reported to torrent of fire or some other site.. Im just sayimg not every tournie globaly reports their results. Not everyone thinks the game is broken. And the people that can find a way to have fun, or build and play well enough to always have a good showing will be hard to convince. Just lile most people who think the game is unfair will never be convinced otherwise... We can disagree on it and avoid having to be redundant with previous post. I guess it sucks for the people that think its unfair or unbalanced. But i enjoy it, i like the competitve level of play. And i specifically play list or use units that others say are terrible or "u cant win with Y or without X" . I like going against the norm. (Well unless we are talking about necron flayed ones, i honestly think of any reason why i would ever or could ever utilize them.)

To summarise, you think the game has always been well balanced and it is ever better balanced in 7th edition.

Hold on, you're saying that the game is balanced on a competitive level, which is contradictory to what actual competitive players say, but can bring up zero evidence to back that up?

Not really at all... 7th is a big improvement of 6th. But even in 6th i played , enjoyed it, and understood there were grey areas. Yet easily worked around.
This seems more like another thread that goads people into speaking their piece, but in actuality is just another opportunity to talk about how terrible GW and 40k is. And if do not think so people will try their hardest to convince you otherwise. I think the game is fine and enjoy it. There is nothing in that book, or in any list that anyone brings that is broken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Im a competitive player and have done about 4 tournies since 7th. Speaking first hand, i simply do not think its unbalanced or there are auto win list. I will say it is a shame that the game has fallen out of favor, for whatever reason, with many people.

I think it important to point out that every major competitive event has put houserules into effect for army construction, what you can and can't bring for certain things, and very often (if not a majority of the time) use their own missions and terrain setup rules. They do not just play straight out of the book, at least not one that I've seen or been to lately.

Tsilber wrote:

Really? Sorry i dont see that. I play a lot of different armies and also witnessed a lot of different armies win across the 3 states i play in a lot of tournies in. I see more of the same player win if anything, not the specific army. At those tournies i see the same people that are always happy, happy to be playing whether win or lose. And i see the same people complaining about how people or armies are broken or complaining all the time....

You travel across 3 states and I travel across the whole country.

So what?

Both of our experiences are anecdotal. Also it is skewed by our perspective which leads to a differing interpretation than what others would/could come to.


Case in point. You say that you see the same people winning and come to the conclusion of balance.
I see the same people winning and take note of the vastly diminished player base(less competitors) and see it as the recent editions as having driven off the player base.

Traveling around the country I have watched as the player base has reduced to a third of what it was in 5th ed.

Where you might ask?

All of the GW stores in Houston.

Average Flgs tournies at store like Fat Ogres and have dropped from 30 entries in 5th to 8-10 in 6th/7th.
Don't worry for the Ogre, though, other games like Warmahordes, X-Wing and Bolt action have more than made up for what GW has driven away.
Asgard Games has seen a similar drop off in 40k.

In Colorado Springs there is no longer a GW brick and mortar location but GW has always had a weak store presence in Colorado.

However the indy stores have always maintained a solid 40k player community until recently. The flgs that has been best about maintaining the 40k community in Colorado is Gamer's Haven I've noted a tremendous shift of the playerbase into other systems.


In Maryland the new Bowie Battle bunker is nothing compared to the old one. The GW locations around Baltimore and Annapolis don't have anywhere near the turn out they did back in 5th ed.

Not much more to say because GW has quite a strong presence in Maryland but do nothing to maintain the community, imo.


Arizona is more of the same. I understand why GW moved away from their location in the Mills Mall location in Tempe (and all across the country). I don't feel that the move away from the over-priced mall spaces was a mistake, I like the Scottsdale location but feel the small 1 man stores with no gaming space are a huge mistake.

Still, imo, the 6th&7th ed rules have done just as much to drive away players as GW's store and pricing policies.


I could go on but I believe the point has been made. I travel and see a shrinking playerbase. You travel and see the remaining players winning over and over. We each interpret what we see differently based upon our perspectives.

Later,
ff

Edit for spacing

Also, what limitations were set by the tournies. Imo, a ruleset that has to be extensively house ruled for casual play much less competitive is definitely not balanced.

7th edition became the best edition for me, as soon as I quit playing in tournaments. It is a ton of fun playing amongst friends with agreed-upon rules.

Honestly, the people who fight furiously to force this game to be balanced have my respect on one hand, but it seems to be so futile that I decided to just walk away from it. There are FAR more competitive games out there, I really don't "get" trying to force it into something it isn't.

I love tournaments, I love competition, and I love 40k. The problem is... one of these things doesn't fit in with the others.

 Moktor wrote:
7th edition became the best edition for me, as soon as I quit playing in tournaments. It is a ton of fun playing amongst friends with agreed-upon rules.

Honestly, the people who fight furiously to force this game to be balanced have my respect on one hand, but it seems to be so futile that I decided to just walk away from it. There are FAR more competitive games out there, I really don't "get" trying to force it into something it isn't.

I come from the opposite end of the spectrum. When I started wargaming (actually started with WHFB -> Epic and then finally -> 40k) I didn't really care a lot about competition, just had games with mates and didn't really give a damn, though to be honest I won most of those early games and if I weren't winning I probably would have become more competitive at that's my nature, lol.

But anyway, after several years of playing like that it kind of started to bore me (growing older probably didn't help). I quit for a long time, and when I came back I found myself pickier about actually playing competitive games.

Now, I could go play other games, but I will admit I'm drawn to the scale of 40k and WHFB more than the typical skirmish games and also drawn more to the sci-fi type thing. There aren't really any other sci-fi games that people around here play that matches the 40k scale but is balanced.

I have always felt WHFB is a better game, partly because it is inherently much better balanced, though 8th kind of killed WHFB for me, haven't been able to get back in to it.

So I'm left wanting 40k to be better than it is. Partly because I like the universe. Partly because I like the scale of 40k games (which is going out the window with fliers and superheavies). Partly because I'm already heavily invested both in time and money. Partly because I think for the amount they charge for rulebooks and models, they SHOULD be able to cobble together a half decent game.

But yeah, that's kind of what keeps me here bitching. Also the fact I still have 40k armies that I'm painting even though I rarely play anymore, I'd LIKE to be able to play and don't really feel like selling the armies that I've spent so much time on already.

I love tournaments, I love competition, and I love 40k. The problem is... one of these things doesn't fit in with the others.

To be honest, I don't really care much for tournaments and tournament players will alllllllways complain about balance because things can get a little too fine tuned. But I still think a game between 2 players played to a specific points value should at the very least have some semblance of competitive balance.

 focusedfire wrote:

Tsilber wrote:

Really? Sorry i dont see that. I play a lot of different armies and also witnessed a lot of different armies win across the 3 states i play in a lot of tournies in. I see more of the same player win if anything, not the specific army. At those tournies i see the same people that are always happy, happy to be playing whether win or lose. And i see the same people complaining about how people or armies are broken or complaining all the time....

You travel across 3 states and I travel across the whole country.

So what?

Both of our experiences are anecdotal. Also it is skewed by our perspective which leads to a differing interpretation than what others would/could come to.


Case in point. You say that you see the same people winning and come to the conclusion of balance.
I see the same people winning and take note of the vastly diminished player base(less competitors) and see it as the recent editions as having driven off the player base.

Traveling around the country I have watched as the player base has reduced to a third of what it was in 5th ed.

Where you might ask?

All of the GW stores in Houston.

Average Flgs tournies at store like Fat Ogres and have dropped from 30 entries in 5th to 8-10 in 6th/7th.
Don't worry for the Ogre, though, other games like Warmahordes, X-Wing and Bolt action have more than made up for what GW has driven away.
Asgard Games has seen a similar drop off in 40k.

In Colorado Springs there is no longer a GW brick and mortar location but GW has always had a weak store presence in Colorado.

However the indy stores have always maintained a solid 40k player community until recently. The flgs that has been best about maintaining the 40k community in Colorado is Gamer's Haven I've noted a tremendous shift of the playerbase into other systems.


In Maryland the new Bowie Battle bunker is nothing compared to the old one. The GW locations around Baltimore and Annapolis don't have anywhere near the turn out they did back in 5th ed.

Not much more to say because GW has quite a strong presence in Maryland but do nothing to maintain the community, imo.


Arizona is more of the same. I understand why GW moved away from their location in the Mills Mall location in Tempe (and all across the country). I don't feel that the move away from the over-priced mall spaces was a mistake, I like the Scottsdale location but feel the small 1 man stores with no gaming space are a huge mistake.

Still, imo, the 6th&7th ed rules have done just as much to drive away players as GW's store and pricing policies.


I could go on but I believe the point has been made. I travel and see a shrinking playerbase. You travel and see the remaining players winning over and over. We each interpret what we see differently based upon our perspectives.

Later,
ff

Edit for spacing

Also, what limitations were set by the tournies. Imo, a ruleset that has to be extensively house ruled for casual play much less competitive is definitely not balanced.

Umm first congrats.

You say so what to my declaration of playing in 3 states. It was a statement of me just expressing first hand. I do not see tournaments losing all that many players in the tournie circuit i play in. Some players quit, and new players take their place.

Also please dont bend what im saying to try to better your argument. I never said I see the same people winning, i said I see more of the same people winning then I do the same armies, doens't mean the same people ALWAYS win... There is a difference. It was my nice way of saying pretty much what my signature says... I see competitive people, being creative and being competitive. I see the hobbiest who do it for fun or theme continue to do it for fun or theme, and I see the complainers at tournies continuously complain. You are entitled to saying whatever you like.. You say you play all over the country and witness X. I play in New England and witness Y. Kudos to us both I guess...
For the game being so bad, and GW "out to get us and our little dogs to"... We sure do spend a lot of time and energy talking about it, time and energy probably best spent doing something we enjoy instead....

@Moktor-

It is that it was competitive in 5th and the playing community was thriving despite GW abandoning all after sales support.

5th ed was balanced, fun and didn't try and force me to endure 3-5 hour pick-up games with some snowflake that is looking for self validation via their creative "narrative" or some "fluffy" player who is rocking a 5 riptide "theme list".


Then there are all of the other things that have been brought in by 6th&7th ed that should never have been. I'm talking about the things that don't scale well like Flyers and Titans.

In 5th I could walk in with my Tau and find a friendly/casual pick up game "if there was table space". In 6th & 7th there is no such thing as a "quick", "friendly" & "casual" pick up game. Which is a shame due to all of the open table space at the games stores.

No, pick-up games are now thoroughly negotiated social contracts to which the remaining players zealously demand adherence. Failure to live up to the others interpretation of the "contract" carries the consequence of being labeled as an "unfun" opponent.

And that last word is proof that this game is supposed to be competitive. The other player is an "opponent". Not a quest member or contributing author...an opponent.


I believe that we can safely say that 6th was a tremendous flop.
7th is very much the same as 6th. I feel that much of any support that 7th will recieve from the player-base will be due to a "Sliding Baseline Effect" or in other words "lowered expectations".

My fondest wish for 8th ed are:

Please fire Kirby,
Bring back Alessio
Reboot with a 5th +4th ed. hybrid that will work with newer codices as the starting point.
And
Faq all flyers and mini-titan and larger models as apoc only unless opponent agrees otherwise. Also, Let flying transports be faq'ed as skimmers.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Wow Yonan, not only are you my random steam bro who appears to share my tastes in gaming judging by your library, you also play Starcraft, share my views on both it and 40k, and you're a good ol Australian like yours truly! We'll have to have a match or two when the NBN guys finally show up to one of their arranged appointments to finish up connecting my internet :(

/hug
If you win it's only because I'm only on 8mbit adsl2 still ; p

 TheKbob wrote:
Warhammer 40k definitely needs balance tweaks, but bug fixes have to come first.

I heartily agree, having an alpha and beta with community testing with bug fixes from their reports would have been wonderful ; / Sadly we'll get neither!

I don't need to make another long post, but I would like to say that given my travels across the US, I have seen firmly what focusedfire has seen and not Tsilber. Colorado Springs? We might have crossed paths! Denver has a great GW store, but GW in the outside community was/is languishing. The store to watch for 40k would be up in Longmont as that's where the Feast of Blades guys play. If it's dying there, then you know things are getting bad. The gentleman who runs that store is prior GW and super awesome. Had I lived closer, I'd probably have gone there more often.

My now local store now has given up on Games Workshop long before I arrived. The other joint I go to has a great diversity of games and events. It's pretty awesome.

 TheKbob wrote:
I don't need to make another long post, but I would like to say that given my travels across the US, I have seen firmly what focusedfire has seen and not Tsilber. Colorado Springs? We might have crossed paths! Denver has a great GW store, but GW in the outside community was/is languishing. The store to watch for 40k would be up in Longmont as that's where the Feast of Blades guys play. If it's dying there, then you know things are getting bad. The gentleman who runs that store is prior GW and super awesome. Had I lived closer, I'd probably have gone there more often.

My now local store now has given up on Games Workshop long before I arrived. The other joint I go to has a great diversity of games and events. It's pretty awesome.

I have to second this, Colorado in general is seeing a diminishing presence of 40k outside of the Denver GW. I have been to three FLGS in the south metro area and all of their 40k fan bases are diminishing and we are starting to see an increase in other war games. I talk to the people in each of the three stores, all almost independent meta's, ask them what they think, and all the stores talk about how the ridiculous balance and the prices are just making the game not worth the time anymore. I have so many armies and so many unpainted models that I will probably stick around 40k for awhile but I am certainly starting to eyeball DZC and have already invested in Deadzone.

The FLGS that I frequent has some fairly decent 40k nights but it is the same 6-10 people ever single week with no new blood or visitors, most of those people have no interest in other games and have played 40k for years. None of them seem to buy many new models, anything they do buy is usually second hand.

Well try new england area i guess.. move on up. Many great players and stores in Ct, RI, MA, NY, and jersey (though i have not been to jersey personally, i played and met some of there tournie players at templecon this year). Lots of great people. Lots of 25+ 1 day tournies. We have the boyz gt and onslaught at templecon.

 Xerics wrote:

Have you ever played MTG or Pokemon or wizkids games like mageknight, mechwarrior, heroclix? They release new stuff and void older stuff. If you don't have the new then you don't win and some of those cards can get pricy ($120 per card and you need 4 in a deck) and the cards don't even last through 2 full years. I play warhammer because in the long run it was cheaper then MTG. I don't support pay to win, but when the new stuff comes out you don't have much of a chouice and GW has to make money somehow. If you already have enough little guys in your collection then its time to get some big ones.

As a MTG player of 10+ years, this is total crap. I can buy a $10 theme deck, grab some boosters, and have a reasonable deck. yes, some cards are WAY better than others, but MTG still has a reasonable price list compared to 40k. I've had decks last me several years with minor retooling. Can anything be said the same of 40k armies? Add that I don't haave to buy a $50 codex and a $50 rulebook every 2 years.