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.

One of the first lists I played against was a fairly competitive Necron list. My marines got walloped pretty hard. Rather than get pissed at the other player (who was more than happy to play without flyers), I realized I have a lot to learn still and need to work on strategy better. That and I really hate Jink.

On the earlier discussion about play-testing, GW does indeed do play-testing for most of their products- the play-testers are listed on the table-of-contents pages.

The problem as far as I can tell is that A)as noted, GW plays the game differently from like... all the rest of us. And B) they don't seem to put a whole lot of logistical effort into their quality-control.

I mean, case in point: the Space Marine codex is the single largest codex they have realeased thus far, in terms of scale of number of units, rules and characters etc. It has 7 play-testers. Taking a quick glance at all the codices I have, the number of play-testers ranges from 6-8 guys.

Compare that to the Warmachine's Khador rulebook, which has... 21 playtesters.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
On the earlier discussion about play-testing, GW does indeed do play-testing for most of their products- the play-testers are listed on the table-of-contents pages.

The problem as far as I can tell is that A)as noted, GW plays the game differently from like... all the rest of us. And B) they don't seem to put a whole lot of logistical effort into their quality-control.

I mean, case in point: the Space Marine codex is the single largest codex they have realeased thus far, in terms of scale of number of units, rules and characters etc. It has 7 play-testers. Taking a quick glance at all the codices I have, the number of play-testers ranges from 6-8 guys.

Compare that to the Warmachine's Khador rulebook, which has... 21 playtesters.

It's their mentality that's the biggest issue. A GW designer would take a bad unit if they thought it looked cool or if it fit the bit of fluff they whipped up for the battle report (even to the point of in the past making "illegal" armies or creating their own rules just to have a cool battle report); for instance one of the early 3rd edition batreps was White Scars vs. Chaos and Paul Sawyer got the studio to make up some quick special rules for White Scars for him to use), regardless of how it performs. So they can't accurately playtest because I doubt they're acknowledging styles beyond "forge the narrative", so they're essentially trying one way of playing, and saying everything works without trying any other ways. A crappy army versus another crappy army can balance out in a sense because neither is good, and that's what GW tends to do.

They could balance with 6-8 playtesters, but something tells me those 6-8 playtesters aren't even considering that Wave Serpent spam makes Eldar super good, or that Mutilators are bad units, because they play what they like against others who play what they like; I also think they play stupidly if it fits the fluff, so dumb play balances out the situation where the units someone likes are also the good ones. If everyone played like that it might not be a big deal, but different people play different ways and that's where the discrepancy comes in.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
"Hate" is probably an inappropriate word for the actual feelings involved.

"feel frustrated by", "annoyed", those are probably more fitting terms than "hate". There's very few people in this world I "hate", there's a whole bunch that piss me right the feth off.

 EVIL INC wrote:

I'll be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and let him slide on that to make peace. Regardless, poorly written rules is hardly a reason for these haters (whoever they are) to have that hard of an emotion towards other human beings. These haters have misplaced their hate as I have been saying. they should hate the rule makers for the rules and the power gamers for the power gaming. Those are two seperate issues. Either way, That all comsuming murderous hatred is a little too much for my taste. Allseeingskink and I seem to have a similer view in that that is too strong of an emotion to have for a game. Frustration, annoyance or something like that would be far more appropriate. Games are for fun and to enjoy, If we experience that sort of hatred towards other human beings over a game of little toy army men we are simply not living healthily (yes that is likely not a real word grammar police)When you see these mysterious haters, maybe pass that along to them.

I've been saying the rules are poorly written for years. Likely for longer than most of the posters in this thread have even been playing the game. That is a given and your preaching to the choir when you say they are poorly written.

If you actually read AllSeeingSkink's comment, it was about your misuse of the word "hate". Not about the players feeling too strongly.

I've been reading this thread for a while and resisted the urge to jump in, mainly because it's slowly going to some dark places.
But seriously, EVIL INC. You are repeatedly making false assumptions and accusing people of hating, which you seem to be doing yourself.
And I'm repeating the numerous people who have said this before me when I say that literally no-one has supported the so-called hating of competitive players and no-one has claimed that the players themselves are responsible for the rules.

If you have opinions you wish to share, by all means do so. But don't come here and present opinions like "there are players who hold "competative players" responsible for the poorly written rules and are hating them for it" as a fact.
And if you do, back it with data, don't just yell at people who don't agree with you.


So, one could say that the game is made for casual players but optimal for competitive ones... huh.
A bit streamlined maybe. But just a tought I had from this discussion.

I don't mind competitive players generally.

What I do mind are competitive players who insist the game should be built to their standards, and that the game should be played to their standards. There are games that are built for and played by competitive players - not every game needs to be that way, and 40k is one of the ones that isn't.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't mind competitive players generally.

What I do mind are competitive players who insist the game should be built to their standards, and that the game should be played to their standards. There are games that are built for and played by competitive players - not every game needs to be that way, and 40k is one of the ones that isn't.

I'm confused - are you opposed to well written rules? To balanced units?

 BlaxicanX wrote:

The problem as far as I can tell is that A)as noted, GW plays the game differently from like... all the rest of us. And B) they don't seem to put a whole lot of logistical effort into their quality-control.

I mean, case in point: the Space Marine codex is the single largest codex they have realeased thus far, in terms of scale of number of units, rules and characters etc. It has 7 play-testers. Taking a quick glance at all the codices I have, the number of play-testers ranges from 6-8 guys.

Compare that to the Warmachine's Khador rulebook, which has... 21 playtesters.

Thing is, it's not just the number of playtesters, it's the mindset.

I mean, however GW's likes to play their game, the goal of any playtester should be the same - try to break the game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't mind competitive players generally.

What I do mind are competitive players who insist the game should be built to their standards, and that the game should be played to their standards. There are games that are built for and played by competitive players - not every game needs to be that way, and 40k is one of the ones that isn't.

Yeah, those terrible players actually expecting well written rules for the hundreds of dollars they've spent, yeesh, what are they thinking. /sarcasm

But really... there's no downside to well written rules. You can be the most non-competitive player ever and well written competitive rules will not harm you at all. It boggles my mind how 7th edition has some of the exact same poorly worded rules as 6th and they have the audacity to charge such a huge price for it.

Not competitive players, but the overly competitive power gamer who brings 3 riptides and 6 missle broadsides to a 2k game. the guy who ignores strategy and fun just to win. that's who most people hate.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't mind competitive players generally.

What I do mind are competitive players who insist the game should be built to their standards, and that the game should be played to their standards. There are games that are built for and played by competitive players - not every game needs to be that way, and 40k is one of the ones that isn't.

Yeah, those terrible players actually expecting well written rules for the hundreds of dollars they've spent, yeesh, what are they thinking. /sarcasm

But really... there's no downside to well written rules. You can be the most non-competitive player ever and well written competitive rules will not harm you at all. It boggles my mind how 7th edition has some of the exact same poorly worded rules as 6th and they have the audacity to charge such a huge price for it.

But GW are not a games company that makes models (Privateer press, wyrd) they're a models company that also make a game. It may seem weird to most people but that shows where their prorities lie. They would rather pay out 100 hrs of sculpting than 100 hours of playtesting. I'm ot saying it's right I'm saying that is their logic behind it. Hell I'd rather they do what wyrd does & just do open beta tests where anyone can download a trial pdf & make comments. it has worked well enough for wyrd and more testers is never a bad thing. It will drive hype & get the community more involved.

Out of curiosity, can you provide some sort of source for the companies you used as examples if they've stated that they're a game company first and a model company second?

Regardless, its a poor excuse on GW's part, and nothing can justify charging the money they do for their rules for such low quality in rules writing.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

But GW are not a games company that makes models (Privateer press, wyrd) they're a models company that also make a game. It may seem weird to most people but that shows where their prorities lie. They would rather pay out 100 hrs of sculpting than 100 hours of playtesting.

I'd have fewer problems with that mindset if:

a) Their rules were cheap or free. As it is, they're charging premium rates for poor quality rules.

b) They actually produced models for their rules, as opposed to just removing the rules that don't have models. For a company trying to sell itself as a 'model company', this just seems backwards to me.

 Brennonjw wrote:
Not competitive players, but the overly competitive power gamer who brings 3 riptides and 6 missle broadsides to a 2k game. the guy who ignores strategy and fun just to win. that's who most people hate.

There is weird logic here. Just pointing it out because a lot of people on this forum seem to share your logic.

If the most competitive list involves bringing 3 riptides and 6 missile broadsides then a good competitive player brings that list. It makes no sense for hating a player who is just playing competitively when the agreement beforehand is to play a competitive game. [Bringing a competitive list to a fluffy game is a different matter altogether]

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't mind competitive players generally.

What I do mind are competitive players who insist the game should be built to their standards, and that the game should be played to their standards. There are games that are built for and played by competitive players - not every game needs to be that way, and 40k is one of the ones that isn't.

Yeah, those terrible players actually expecting well written rules for the hundreds of dollars they've spent, yeesh, what are they thinking. /sarcasm

But really... there's no downside to well written rules. You can be the most non-competitive player ever and well written competitive rules will not harm you at all. It boggles my mind how 7th edition has some of the exact same poorly worded rules as 6th and they have the audacity to charge such a huge price for it.

But GW are not a games company that makes models (Privateer press, wyrd) they're a models company that also make a game. It may seem weird to most people but that shows where their prorities lie. They would rather pay out 100 hrs of sculpting than 100 hours of playtesting. I'm ot saying it's right I'm saying that is their logic behind it. Hell I'd rather they do what wyrd does & just do open beta tests where anyone can download a trial pdf & make comments. it has worked well enough for wyrd and more testers is never a bad thing. It will drive hype & get the community more involved.

No, GW claims to be a model company so they can write whatever crap they want in the game and handwave issues as "We aren't a games company". They can repeat that until the cows come home but it won't make it true.

As others have said, a model company wouldn't charge an arm and a leg for rules. A model company wouldn't remove choices because they don't make a certain model, have no plans to make a certain model, and are afraid that a third party will make said model.

What they claim is a fabrication to justify their actions, a lie told enough times that they believe it.

soomemafia, Hate was the term they use and the term used in the title of the thread and in the original post. Therefore, that is the emotion addressed and discussed.
It is simply too strong of an emotion to be used against human beings over a simple game in my opinion. Disagree with that if you will but your not going to change my mind on it.

We seem to have gone WAYYY off topic though in discussing playtesting and such though. The "frustration" people have is that I have found that people expect others to do as they themselves would do in a situation.
Take for example you have a player who plays "non-competetively" and has a fluffy guard list and find themselves playing against some guy who has a tau/eldar army. They think of the many possibilities that they could come up with and expect their opponent to do the same thing. Much as a girlfriend or boyfriend who accuses their significant other of cheating on them all the time, because if the roles were reversed they themselves would have done so. Before hounding and flaming me, understand this is only a hypothesis using psychology and would not apply to EVERYONE.

Another reason for the "frustraion" (see how much nicer this term is and how more appropriate? Well at least in my case it is closer to the true emotion than hate) would be not because of the rules themselves (that would have a different target and thus be different frustration) but because I knew this particuler player from previous experience or reputation. that reputation might be that they are a mathhammerer who always takes the min/max units no matter the situation. Who always tries to table an opponent so that they can loudly gloat to all who will listen and so on and so forth. In this situation, People you would be frustrated at the person because of their actions and gaming mentality. Then, you would have the separate frustration that the rules allowed them to "get away with it". Not to say the OP is fully in this camp or even partially but going from the post they made and the itle of the thread, it appears to me that they are confusing a "hate towards them and presenting it as something else here in order to try to gain support. Of course, that is just my guess and not to be taken as any slight towards them.

I can see where these two frustrations could tarnish the view of one another
The jerk player causing you to turn away from GW because "it always seems you get stucking playing this sort of guy" and the game tarnishing the player because "the rules let this guy abuse them so he doesnt have to change".

 EVIL INC wrote:
soomemafia, Hate was the term they use and the term used in the title of the thread and in the original post. Therefore, that is the emotion addressed and discussed.
It is simply too strong of an emotion to be used against human beings over a simple game in my opinion. Disagree with that if you will but your not going to change my mind on it.

We seem to have gone WAYYY off topic though in discussing playtesting and such though. The "frustration" people have is that I have found that people expect others to do as they themselves would do in a situation.
Take for example you have a player who plays "non-competetively" and has a fluffy guard list and find themselves playing against some guy who has a tau/eldar army. They think of the many possibilities that they could come up with and expect their opponent to do the same thing. Much as a girlfriend or boyfriend who accuses their significant other of cheating on them all the time, because if the roles were reversed they themselves would have done so. Before hounding and flaming me, understand this is only a hypothesis using psychology and would not apply to EVERYONE.

Another reason for the "frustraion" (see how much nicer this term is and how more appropriate? Well at least in my case it is closer to the true emotion than hate) would be not because of the rules themselves (that would have a different target and thus be different frustration) but because I knew this particuler player from previous experience or reputation. that reputation might be that they are a mathhammerer who always takes the min/max units no matter the situation. Who always tries to table an opponent so that they can loudly gloat to all who will listen and so on and so forth. In this situation, People you would be frustrated at the person because of their actions and gaming mentality. Then, you would have the separate frustration that the rules allowed them to "get away with it". Not to say the OP is fully in this camp or even partially but going from the post they made and the itle of the thread, it appears to me that they are confusing a "hate towards them and presenting it as something else here in order to try to gain support. Of course, that is just my guess and not to be taken as any slight towards them.

I can see where these two frustrations could tarnish the view of one another
The jerk player causing you to turn away from GW because "it always seems you get stucking playing this sort of guy" and the game tarnishing the player because "the rules let this guy abuse them so he doesnt have to change".

What part of the rules are the reason for player hate are you not getting? Lack of playtesting, lack of good rules, lack of balance, all of these things is the reason why there appears to be any kind of "hate" towards a player because those things empower the gulf between playing what you want and playing what wins. You would not see half as much "hate" if the gulf was relatively small.

 EVIL INC wrote:

We seem to have gone WAYYY off topic though in discussing playtesting and such though.

Not really. If GW produced balanced rules, then there wouldn't be this mess of competitive vs non-competitive players.

A good game might have small gaps between units, such that a tournament list may be a little stronger than a fluffy one. However, 40k has chasms between its units in terms of power level. To the point where matches can effectively be won in the list building stage.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't mind competitive players generally.

What I do mind are competitive players who insist the game should be built to their standards, and that the game should be played to their standards. There are games that are built for and played by competitive players - not every game needs to be that way, and 40k is one of the ones that isn't.

Yeah, those terrible players actually expecting well written rules for the hundreds of dollars they've spent, yeesh, what are they thinking. /sarcasm

But really... there's no downside to well written rules. You can be the most non-competitive player ever and well written competitive rules will not harm you at all. It boggles my mind how 7th edition has some of the exact same poorly worded rules as 6th and they have the audacity to charge such a huge price for it.

But GW are not a games company that makes models (Privateer press, wyrd) they're a models company that also make a game. It may seem weird to most people but that shows where their prorities lie. They would rather pay out 100 hrs of sculpting than 100 hours of playtesting. I'm ot saying it's right I'm saying that is their logic behind it. Hell I'd rather they do what wyrd does & just do open beta tests where anyone can download a trial pdf & make comments. it has worked well enough for wyrd and more testers is never a bad thing. It will drive hype & get the community more involved.

£50 for the core rules and £20-£30 for most expansions somewhat undermines that assumption. Nearly every other significant competitor makes some incarnation of it's rules available for free, and I think I'm right in saying that one can purchase the core rules and relevant faction book at RRP for less than the RRP of just the 40K core book. At least, those that don't simply give all the rules away for free.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
They would rather pay out 100 hrs of sculpting than 100 hours of playtesting.

Except GW charge huge prices for both models and rules. If they were selling the models for X dollars and the rules were either free or very cheap (thus the cost of the models subsidises the cost of the rules) you would have a point. But in GW's case, the cost of the 100 hours of sculpting should be covered by the cost of the models and the cost of 100 hours of playtesting should be covered by the cost of the rules (roughly, I'm sure there's some subsidisation one way or the other).

With the amount GW charge and how long 40k has been around, there's really very little excuse.

You have competetive players you do not like to play in ANY game. This is chess, checkers, warmachine or any other game. Many of these games have much better rule that are more balanced. Thats my point of them being two seperate "hates" that interact with one other. By focusing 100% of your attention and totally ignoring that it is a person making the lists and playing the game, doing the trash talking, spilling soda across the table and fingering your models with greasy fingers ect I feel you are making a mistake.
I feel you are doing a disservice to the good and decent players who like to win and DONT exploit the rules and are decent and respectful folks.
Should I say "What part of not all players DONT exploit or abuse the rules dare you not getting?" but that would be highly rude and impolite breaking the rules of the forum so I will not say it. Instead, only typing it up as an example.

 EVIL INC wrote:
It is simply too strong of an emotion to be used against human beings over a simple game in my opinion. Disagree with that if you will but your not going to change my mind on it.

I think you might have misinterpreted what I said on the previous page.

I said "hate" is probably an inappropriate word... but the reason it's an inappropriate word is because I really don't think there is anyone at all who genuinely has a personal hatred for someone else simply because they are competitive. It just doesn't happen. There's no point arguing about a deep personal hatred of another person because no one actually has a deep personal hatred of another person for being competitive.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
It is simply too strong of an emotion to be used against human beings over a simple game in my opinion. Disagree with that if you will but your not going to change my mind on it.

I think you might have misinterpreted what I said on the previous page.

I said "hate" is probably an inappropriate word... but the reason it's an inappropriate word is because I really don't think there is anyone at all who genuinely has a personal hatred for someone else simply because they are competitive. It just doesn't happen. There's no point arguing about a deep personal hatred of another person because no one actually has a deep personal hatred of another person for being competitive.

Thats why I am agreing with you on it. It SHOULD not happen although evidently it does. I'm seeing hatred just talking about the game.

Mayhaps my last post was not read properly...
What I was trying to say is that to me, it is two seperate frustrations. One is at the player because of their actions and one is at the rules. The two overlap in many casesand in these cases the frustration is multiplied.

I'm opposed to balance when it comes at the cost of options. Most balancing proposals I've seen reduce the number of options available to narrative players.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm opposed to balance when it comes at the cost of options. Most balancing proposals I've seen reduce the number of options available to narrative players.

Examples?

Would you be opposed to balancing things if all/overwhelming majority of options remained/were rejigged?

I find that the 40k rule-set attracts a certain kind of player.

Ones that live in "the grey zone", take a rule, abuse it and make an army around it. So they can say "look how clever I am!!!" Who then confuse using a gimmick for being a great tactician.

With the constantly evolving rules and heavy reliance on meta, it is a game favored for those who like to stroke their ego with little effort needed to get skilled at the game. It is so heavily randomized that some skills are rather pointless to develop.

It really is not Competitive player hate, they are fine. It is the WAAC players that they get confused with being an issue.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm opposed to balance when it comes at the cost of options. Most balancing proposals I've seen reduce the number of options available to narrative players.

And what would the alternative be? The crap we have now where narrative players are screwed because some options are better than others? Besides half of the "options" aren't really options.

 EVIL INC wrote:
You have competetive players you do not like to play in ANY game. This is chess, checkers, warmachine or any other game. Many of these games have much better rule that are more balanced. Thats my point of them being two seperate "hates" that interact with one other. By focusing 100% of your attention and totally ignoring that it is a person making the lists and playing the game, doing the trash talking, spilling soda across the table and fingering your models with greasy fingers ect I feel you are making a mistake.
I feel you are doing a disservice to the good and decent players who like to win and DONT exploit the rules and are decent and respectful folks.
Should I say "What part of not all players DONT exploit or abuse the rules dare you not getting?" but that would be highly rude and impolite breaking the rules of the forum so I will not say it. Instead, only typing it up as an example.

Competitive 40K players who don't exploit the rule imbalances won't be very successful.

Not all competitive players are jerks, not all jerks are competitive players, but the two things are often found near one another.

I do not consider myself a competitive player, but if given free choice between winning or losing I would, of course, choose to win. If given the choice between losing a fun game, or winning a game that is no fun for either myself, my opponent, or possibly both? Then call me a loser.

I like to think I'm a fun opponent, but that isn't ultimately for me to say, I do my best to win the game with my list, but I try to avoid lists which would be overwhelming for my opponents. My mantra is strong units are ok, but avoid cheesy lists. (I'll run 20 Fleshounds and a Herald in my Daemons for instance, but would baulk at running three of them) which given my record is roughly 50/50 seems to be about right for my local environment.

Contrast that to players who min/max Dire Avengers in Waveserpents week in, week out, despite requests to tone things down a bit for the fun of everybody else.

Who would you suppose is more well thought of?

 Azreal13 wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
You have competetive players you do not like to play in ANY game. This is chess, checkers, warmachine or any other game. Many of these games have much better rule that are more balanced. Thats my point of them being two seperate "hates" that interact with one other. By focusing 100% of your attention and totally ignoring that it is a person making the lists and playing the game, doing the trash talking, spilling soda across the table and fingering your models with greasy fingers ect I feel you are making a mistake.
I feel you are doing a disservice to the good and decent players who like to win and DONT exploit the rules and are decent and respectful folks.
Should I say "What part of not all players DONT exploit or abuse the rules dare you not getting?" but that would be highly rude and impolite breaking the rules of the forum so I will not say it. Instead, only typing it up as an example.

Competitive 40K players who don't exploit the rule imbalances won't be very successful.

Not all competitive players are jerks, not all jerks are competitive players, but the two things are often found near one another.

I do not consider myself a competitive player, but if given free choice between winning or losing I would, of course, choose to win. If given the choice between losing a fun game, or winning a game that is no fun for either myself, my opponent, or possibly both? Then call me a loser.

I like to think I'm a fun opponent, but that isn't ultimately for me to say, I do my best to win the game with my list, but I try to avoid lists which would be overwhelming for my opponents. My mantra is strong units are ok, but avoid cheesy lists. (I'll run 20 Fleshounds and a Herald in my Daemons for instance, but would baulk at running three of them) which given my record is roughly 50/50 seems to be about right for my local environment.

Contrast that to players who min/max Dire Avengers in Waveserpents week in, week out, despite requests to tone things down a bit for the fun of everybody else.

Who would you suppose is more well thought of?

Exactly. I'm firmly in the unsuccessful competetive player camp. Of course, that makes me a "hated one". Not because I used armies that are no min/maxed or because id rather lose a game because Id rather we both have fun and so forth but just because of the rules.

Right, it all becomes clear.

You self identify as a "competitive player" and despite many people outlining what the term is generally a short form for (someone who exploits the rules and doesn't care about their opponent having fun, regardless of context) and that doesn't really describe you, you've still been waving your standard in defence of those players.

Time to put down that sword and pick up a ploughshare my friend, for you, the war is over.

 Talizvar wrote:
I find that the 40k rule-set attracts a certain kind of player.

Ones that live in "the grey zone", take a rule, abuse it and make an army around it. So they can say "look how clever I am!!!" Who then confuse using a gimmick for being a great tactician.

With the constantly evolving rules and heavy reliance on meta, it is a game favored for those who like to stroke their ego with little effort needed to get skilled at the game. It is so heavily randomized that some skills are rather pointless to develop.

It really is not Competitive player hate, they are fine. It is the WAAC players that they get confused with being an issue.

To me a competative player is someone who sets out to win games. perhaps it is a matter of definition? I know how much WAAC players despise the term WAAC, but to me at least, those WAAC players and competative players are two seperate groups and in this thread, they are being lumped together as one and the same. I do not defend the actions of the players that fall into the WAAC camp but rather those of us who do not.
And yes, the WAAC players ARE an area where the rules DO come into play as it is an area where the two seperate "hates" overlap.