Competitive play is what's ruining 40k.

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.

**Frazzled**

Sir Arun wrote:
Okay. We all know GW is at fault for not being able to produce codexes with perfect internal balance, where each unit is worth considering. But we all know blaming GW will get us nowhere. If we, as a community want to do our part in fixing 40k, aka actually changing stuff, we need to really change our mentality. Because if we dont start with ourselves, how can we expect our opponents to?

When I look at armylists, I realize 4 out of 5 times that people see it as an exercise of putting their grey cells to work in how to maximize damage while not exceeding the points value, rather than seeing it as a framework that allows you to bring some of your collection to the table and show off your modeling and painting progress to your friend you'll be playing against. People tend to forget 40k is a 2 person game, not a 3D equivalent of playing a video game where you develop the mentality of slaughtering all your enemies. Saying that in 40k, both players want to win isnt far from the truth. But more importantly, both players want to have fun. How many of us give thought to that when we spend hours modifying our armylists?

It seems only 3 out of 10 people play games of 40k as an opportunity to see each other's collection. It seems only 3 out of 10 people have "favorite units" in their army based on the way they look, or their background, rather than the amount of damage they inflict on the battlefield.

The reason why you see the same units over and over again in the meta is not (only) because GW sucks at writing balanced codexes, but because we as a community have done our part in powergaming. When we build lists, we think about what causes maximum distruction for its points rather than what unit looks cool/stylish/awesome lorewise and thus include it in our army. When a player starts a new army, he ends up getting advice of what units are must haves based on their battlefield performance rather than what units have the most aesthetically pleasing sculpts. And so, he ends up buying the former and does his part in creating the situation we have today. Advice like "one is none, two is one" subliminally influences people to spend their money more on acquiring an effective armylist than a varied collection. And then they act all surprised and get angry when their codex gets updated and good units become meh and meh units become good (case in point: the Dark Eldar update). We are the reason we see Riptides and Wraithknights, Tigurius and Centurions, Flyrants and Night Scythes instead of Sniper Drones and Harlequins, Cassius and Scout Bikers, Genestealers and Lychguard. We are part of the problem, and part of the reason why the battlefields of 40k dont get to see most of the variety of miniatures in the GW catalogue.

It's kinda like in a traffic jam - everyone hates how he is stuck in a traffic jam, views it as a foreign, blockading entity ruining his day, but doesnt realize he is part of the traffic jam.

Whats awesome is how this title of this thread was probably first used before 95% of the players were even born.

**asdrubeal vect124**

LOL probably true frazzled

**Murenius**

Accolade wrote:
I think people are always ready to quickly point out that they don't care about winning. However, I think when they start losing enough games consistently, this attitude starts to turn around.

Not necessarily. I think it depends on the maturity of the player. I have to admit that in my late teens and early 20s I was pretty WAAC. Now that I am in my 30s I attach more importance to having a good time with people I like.

So alltogether I have to agree to the OP, the problem is partly in the people. This place here is a bad place to discuss this, though, since an internet forum about a game will have a higher-than-average rate of players who like competitive play - those who rather enjoy sitting together are less likely to post in forums about it.

**Makumba**

Sure man. People that want to win in stuff they spend tons of cash on are just not mature enough. Am sure all those people playing sports are playing to lose , because all we mature people know that wining or even wanting to win is bad.

Whats awesome is how this title of this thread was probably first used before 95% of the players were even born.

I doubt it. I seen Andy Chambers talk about the "new" 2ed chaos turning out the way it did, because he wanted chaos to be more streamlined for tournament too. This means at least in 2ed w40k was played the way it is played now. In RT it was based on RPG stats, but I can hardly imagine people played to lose back then.

**MWHistorian**

asdrubeal vect124 wrote:
SilverDevilfish wrote:
asdrubeal vect124 wrote:
and its not really GW fault, its the people who write/rewrite the codex's

That would be the development team, which is an internal team, meaning they are GW employees and thus are representing the company. So yes, as long as Kelly and the Crud (and others) are working at GW it is GWs fault.

oh my apologies then i'm wrong

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Accolade wrote:
I think people are always ready to quickly point out that they don't care about winning. However, I think when they start losing enough games consistently, this attitude starts to turn around.

my win/loss/tie streak below
0/50/2
i'm still same attitude

In order to have fun, I need a good chance at winning. 40k doesn't give that to me as often as I'd like. If I wanted to just show off my models, I'd post pics in the gallery section.
I want a fair game. That's not too much to ask for. And since fair games are rare because GW can't be bothered to balance their codexes. Though they have gotten a little better, there is still horrible internal balance. Auto-takes and auto-leave on shelfs are evidence of poor writing.

**asdrubeal vect124**

not really what was meant, i think..... in MY opinion everybody needs to chill out and just have fun with the game and be fair to other players..

**vipoid**

MWHistorian wrote:

In order to have fun, I need a good chance at winning. 40k doesn't give that to me as often as I'd like. If I wanted to just show off my models, I'd post pics in the gallery section.
I want a fair game. That's not too much to ask for. And since fair games are rare because GW can't be bothered to balance their codexes. Though they have gotten a little better, there is still horrible internal balance. Auto-takes and auto-leave on shelfs are evidence of poor writing.

Well said.

I think it's the difference between losing a hard-fought battle, and losing because you brought rock and your opponent brought paper.

**asdrubeal vect124**

vipoid wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:

In order to have fun, I need a good chance at winning. 40k doesn't give that to me as often as I'd like. If I wanted to just show off my models, I'd post pics in the gallery section.
I want a fair game. That's not too much to ask for. And since fair games are rare because GW can't be bothered to balance their codexes. Though they have gotten a little better, there is still horrible internal balance. Auto-takes and auto-leave on shelfs are evidence of poor writing.

Well said.

I think it's the difference between losing a hard-fought battle, and losing because you brought rock and your opponent brought paper.

so your saying that because you can afford to buy those models and your opponent can't its fair that you smash them into the ground?
or are you saying that if they can't afford the models your going to change your list so that its fair?

from what i understand of what your saying. its that you dont care what your opponent has, just so long as you bring your most competitive army list and are merciless???
correct me if i'm wrong

**pwntallica**

"Competitive play" isn't hurting 40k any. Overly competitive players, WAAC with poor attitude, and bad sports in general are hurting the community.

Any game can suffer from "try-hards, elitists, uber competitive" players. I have played competitive MtG, raiding/pvp in wow, competitive esports (way back like 8-10 years ago), among other things. The thing that any competitive environment has in common is that you have people who will take it too seriously, only care about winning, and develop elitist condescending and rude attitudes. Some people just enjoy a competitive environment, and that's fine. When people take it too far, that's when it drains the fun of others around them. I've seen this in all kinds of games, independent of their balance. These things don't hurt the actual game any, but they do hurt the community. People stop enjoying themselves, stop playing, find other groups, or even develop poor attitudes towards the game themselves.

If I play in a competitive environment, and set up against some uber spam list, against a well spirited opponent, I will still have fun. Playing in a casual environment against a not as optimized list where my opponent is overly competitive or just a poor sport is no fun, even if his list would normally be enjoyable to play.

Yes there are balance issues, and many others, for GW to fix in 40k. But there will always be competitive play, there will always be donkey caves, and this is a separate issue.

**MWHistorian**

asdrubeal vect124 wrote:
vipoid wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:

In order to have fun, I need a good chance at winning. 40k doesn't give that to me as often as I'd like. If I wanted to just show off my models, I'd post pics in the gallery section.
I want a fair game. That's not too much to ask for. And since fair games are rare because GW can't be bothered to balance their codexes. Though they have gotten a little better, there is still horrible internal balance. Auto-takes and auto-leave on shelfs are evidence of poor writing.

Well said.

I think it's the difference between losing a hard-fought battle, and losing because you brought rock and your opponent brought paper.

so your saying that because you can afford to buy those models and your opponent can't its fair that you smash them into the ground?
or are you saying that if they can't afford the models your going to change your list so that its fair?

from what i understand of what your saying. its that you dont care what your opponent has, just so long as you bring your most competitive army list and are merciless???
correct me if i'm wrong

You're wrong.
I'm not even sure how you got that out of what we said. All we said was that we want fair and close battles. As long as we get that, we don't care who wins. No one mentioned affording models, smashing opponents or merciless competitiveness. (Seriously, how did you get that out of it?) It's not about the competition. It's about having an even chance of winning. (barring player skill) No one should lose because they play ___ army or brought ___ units.
I think its sad that 40k players don't understand the concept of fair games. They're so used to paper rock scissors that they confuse fair with WAAC power gaming.

**vipoid**

asdrubeal vect124 wrote:

so your saying that because you can afford to buy those models and your opponent can't its fair that you smash them into the ground?

Eh?

How on Terra did you get that from what I wrote?

That's virtually the exact opposite of what I actually said.

asdrubeal vect124 wrote:

or are you saying that if they can't afford the models your going to change your list so that its fair?

I'm saying people shouldn't *have* to change their lists, just because GW sucks at balance. Nor should people need to by the newest models just to stay competitive.

asdrubeal vect124 wrote:

from what i understand of what your saying. its that you dont care what your opponent has, just so long as you bring your most competitive army list and are merciless???

Are you sure you quoted the right person?

I'm saying that it shouldn't matter what I bring or what my opponent brings. If we both bring 1500pt lists, then those lists should be reasonably balanced - that's the entire point of having point costs in the first place. I'm saying that if one person starts off with a big disadvantage before the game has even begun - because of the list he's using - then that is a serious problem with the game.

I'm saying that I don't mind losing, as long as I had a reasonable chance of winning. When I play, I want to feel that I won or lost because of the choices I made during the game - not because my list was stronger than my opponent's or anything like that.

**asdrubeal vect124**

vipoid wrote:
asdrubeal vect124 wrote:

so your saying that because you can afford to buy those models and your opponent can't its fair that you smash them into the ground?

Eh?

How on Terra did you get that from what I wrote?

That's virtually the exact opposite of what I actually said.

asdrubeal vect124 wrote:

or are you saying that if they can't afford the models your going to change your list so that its fair?

I'm saying people shouldn't *have* to change their lists, just because GW sucks at balance. Nor should people need to by the newest models just to stay competitive.

asdrubeal vect124 wrote:

from what i understand of what your saying. its that you dont care what your opponent has, just so long as you bring your most competitive army list and are merciless???

Are you sure you quoted the right person?

I'm saying that it shouldn't matter what I bring or what my opponent brings. If we both bring 1500pt lists, then those lists should be reasonably balanced - that's the entire point of having point costs in the first place. I'm saying that if one person starts off with a big disadvantage before the game has even begun - because of the list he's using - then that is a serious problem with the game.

I'm saying that I don't mind losing, as long as I had a reasonable chance of winning. When I play, I want to feel that I won or lost because of the choices I made during the game - not because my list was stronger than my opponent's or anything like that.

ok i apologize for the misunderstanding, BUT, if your opponent isn't as skilled at playing as you, or as competitive then he/she isnt going to be looking for specific choices or be hyper critical about his/her choices during the game, in other words... i think a game between somebody who is a casual gamer VS a competitive gamer, is just as unbalanced as GK VS Chaos demons

**Wayniac**

asdrubeal vect124 wrote:
OK guys, i dont believe that competitive play is ruining 40K, I DO BELIEVE HOWEVER that people who waoc are the ones who are RUINING it. honestly i'm an extremely new player, and when i go to my LGS there isnt a single person there who says play with what you WANT, its play with this model or that model.... those will win you games, or USE THIS ARMY you'll win....

point is I DONT CARE ABOUT WINNING, i want both me and my opponent to be able to enjoy showcasing our models, and having fun with the game, i want to be able to laugh about my opponents bad luck... and be able to laugh when the tables turn and i'm having the bad luck.... nobody ever stays for after battle reports to talk the game over and see how hey went or how to better the list or army.

You might not care about winning, but wouldn't you get burned out if you ALWAYS lost? Who wants to always lose because they want to play something that fits their fluff or what they think is cool, and it sucks in the game.

If we all decided to make a list based on fluff and casual play, AS WELL as competitive, then just before you play your opponent ask them "is this a competitive game or just for fun"
everybody wants to enjoy the game.. not be wiped out turn 3(or have one unit left)

and its not really GW fault, its the people who write/rewrite the codex's they dont take enough time for it. like take the DE codex... all they did was remove every single named character except urien, and Drazhar i believe, and urien is in a supplement, fluff is pretty much the same, a few models got moved around(changed battlefield role), and we lost the harlequins, if they're not doing so right now i believe they should take EVERY codex look at it deeply and begin looking at ways to balance the codexes or include more variety for all the codexes... not really fair when alot of armies have named special characters and we're going up with a generic HQ unit.....

ok thats my rant have a nice day

It definitely is GW's fault, because they should still be caring about balance. They shouldn't do stupid things like look and see that everyone is playing a Captain or Chaplain and not a Librarian, so buff the Librarian and nerf the Chaplain, because they haven't in 20 years gotten it through their head that they are designing a game for OTHERS, not a game for themselves. The fact that they play like utter trash or purposely gimp themselves to make a battle report less one sided (which is something they admitted to doing in the past) doesn't mean everyone else does it. Their responsibility is to create a balanced set of rules that everyone can use, from cutthroat tournament players who perfect their gameplay to collectors who bring their models out once a month to narrative gamers who play campaigns to create short stories of their characters.

**vipoid**

asdrubeal vect124 wrote:

ok i apologize for the misunderstanding, BUT, if your opponent isn't as skilled at playing as you, or as competitive then he/she isnt going to be looking for specific choices or be hyper critical about his/her choices during the game, in other words... i think a game between somebody who is a casual gamer VS a competitive gamer, is just as unbalanced as GK VS Chaos demons

The difference is, a casual player can improve by learning new tactics and such - but a bad unit will remain bad until a new edition/codex (and many don't get improved even then).

**asdrubeal vect124**

WayneTheGame wrote:
asdrubeal vect124 wrote:
OK guys, i dont believe that competitive play is ruining 40K, I DO BELIEVE HOWEVER that people who waoc are the ones who are RUINING it. honestly i'm an extremely new player, and when i go to my LGS there isnt a single person there who says play with what you WANT, its play with this model or that model.... those will win you games, or USE THIS ARMY you'll win....

point is I DONT CARE ABOUT WINNING, i want both me and my opponent to be able to enjoy showcasing our models, and having fun with the game, i want to be able to laugh about my opponents bad luck... and be able to laugh when the tables turn and i'm having the bad luck.... nobody ever stays for after battle reports to talk the game over and see how hey went or how to better the list or army.

You might not care about winning, but wouldn't you get burned out if you ALWAYS lost? Who wants to always lose because they want to play something that fits their fluff or what they think is cool, and it sucks in the game.

i understand that, but as i've gotten used to losing, i dont entirely bother with compeititve list making anymore, i make the lists to suit me and only me, which is very pleasing for me, and didnt you look up to see my post of my W/L/T ?? i havent won a single game since playing W40K but i still LOVE it for the models, the painting and just straight-up talking to players who ENJOY the game excluding the tournaments

If we all decided to make a list based on fluff and casual play, AS WELL as competitive, then just before you play your opponent ask them "is this a competitive game or just for fun"
everybody wants to enjoy the game.. not be wiped out turn 3(or have one unit left)

and its not really GW fault, its the people who write/rewrite the codex's they dont take enough time for it. like take the DE codex... all they did was remove every single named character except urien, and Drazhar i believe, and urien is in a supplement, fluff is pretty much the same, a few models got moved around(changed battlefield role), and we lost the harlequins, if they're not doing so right now i believe they should take EVERY codex look at it deeply and begin looking at ways to balance the codexes or include more variety for all the codexes... not really fair when alot of armies have named special characters and we're going up with a generic HQ unit.....

ok thats my rant have a nice day

It definitely is GW's fault, because they should still be caring about balance. They shouldn't do stupid things like look and see that everyone is playing a Captain or Chaplain and not a Librarian, so buff the Librarian and nerf the Chaplain, because they haven't in 20 years gotten it through their head that they are designing a game for OTHERS, not a game for themselves. The fact that they play like utter trash or purposely gimp themselves to make a battle report less one sided (which is something they admitted to doing in the past) doesn't mean everyone else does it. Their responsibility is to create a balanced set of rules that everyone can use, from cutthroat tournament players who perfect their gameplay to collectors who bring their models out once a month to narrative gamers who play campaigns to create short stories of their characters.

^-----------------------------------------^
you have it exactly right there, where it should be balanced from tourny players to collectors who take their models out once a month BUT couldn't GW take players from the world and ask them to come in and "edit" the codexes to be more balanced???

**vipoid**

asdrubeal vect124 wrote:

you have it exactly right there, where it should be balanced from tourny players to collectors who take their models out once a month BUT couldn't GW take players from the world and ask them to come in and "edit" the codexes to be more balanced???

No, because that would require them to leave their happy bubble of complete denial.

**asdrubeal vect124**

vipoid wrote:
asdrubeal vect124 wrote:

ok i apologize for the misunderstanding, BUT, if your opponent isn't as skilled at playing as you, or as competitive then he/she isnt going to be looking for specific choices or be hyper critical about his/her choices during the game, in other words... i think a game between somebody who is a casual gamer VS a competitive gamer, is just as unbalanced as GK VS Chaos demons

The difference is, a casual player can improve by learning new tactics and such - but a bad unit will remain bad until a new edition/codex (and many don't get improved even then).

not if they dont have a chance to get to the point of LEARNING the tactics... but yeah a bad unit will remain bad until a new edition comes out OR a house rule is made for that unit...(happend ONCE xD )

i cant really say much new except that GW has to actually take a look at what they've gone and done with the game... i first got in at 6th edition and the rules seemed confusing, now i'm having to learn 7th edition which has a bunch of new rules which i'll not have a chance to actually use because they dont feel like updating anything from my codex... but they think it's completely fair to remove like 8 special characters, and nerf a bunch of the weapons @_@

**Wayniac**

vipoid wrote:
asdrubeal vect124 wrote:

you have it exactly right there, where it should be balanced from tourny players to collectors who take their models out once a month BUT couldn't GW take players from the world and ask them to come in and "edit" the codexes to be more balanced???

No, because that would require them to leave their happy bubble of complete denial.

Exactly this. GW has this idea that everything they do is great, and if you don't like it then you aren't the kind of customer they want. It goes hand in hand with them proudly saying that market research isn't something that's needed in a niche market, when it's actually needed MORE because you don't reach as many customers in a niche market.

**CalgarsPimpHand**

asdrubeal vect124 wrote:
ok i apologize for the misunderstanding, BUT, if your opponent isn't as skilled at playing as you, or as competitive then he/she isnt going to be looking for specific choices or be hyper critical about his/her choices during the game, in other words... i think a game between somebody who is a casual gamer VS a competitive gamer, is just as unbalanced as GK VS Chaos demons

And this is different from other games how? In any game that involves skill level, matching up an experienced/competitive player versus a novice/casual player can result in a lopsided match. This is what you'd expect from a fair game. The imbalances in 40k actually tend to make this worse by making it so easy (and expensive) to screw up the first very step of the game - selecting and purchasing the models for your army.

**Toofast**

Yes, they could. Will they? No! They have stated time after time that the purpose of the rules is to sell more models, period. They don't care about balance. They don't care about fluffy bunnies being able to play with GT lists. This is why they nerf some things and buff others every edition. It isn't based on in game effectiveness, it's based on which models aren't selling. As long as they make rules to sell models instead of making rules to have a balanced game, we are going to have this problem.

To some people complaining about rock, paper, scissors in 40k, that is balance. That's basically how WMH works. 40k is NOT rock paper scissors balance. 40k is "are you bringing a gun or a slingshot?" That's how widely things vary in power. There are some units that are bad against everything and some units that are great against everything, often for similar point cost to the awful units. I would be happy to have RPS style balance in 40k, it's better than what we have right now.

**asdrubeal vect124**

but then couldnt it be reverse psychology because they think we could go buy EVERY model, then if a model gets nerfed and another gets better then we can just switch them out...... doesnt make sense...... RAGE!!!!! BURN GW TO THE GROUND XD jk jk jk jk

**MWHistorian**

asdrubeal vect124 wrote:
but then couldnt it be reverse psychology because they think we could go buy EVERY model, then if a model gets nerfed and another gets better then we can just switch them out...... doesnt make sense...... RAGE!!!!! BURN GW TO THE GROUND XD jk jk jk jk

That was a meaningful contribution.

**asdrubeal vect124**

MWHistorian wrote:
asdrubeal vect124 wrote:
but then couldnt it be reverse psychology because they think we could go buy EVERY model, then if a model gets nerfed and another gets better then we can just switch them out...... doesnt make sense...... RAGE!!!!! BURN GW TO THE GROUND XD jk jk jk jk

That was a meaningful contribution.

well i was being serious about them thinking we'll just buy every model, so if it gets nerfed we'll switch it out... no need to be sarcastic

**Toofast**

When you cut through the nonsensical way he phrased that, I believe he meant GW intentionally nerfs/buffs things to invalidate your army list and force you to buy a new army when the codex gets updated even if you aren't switching factions. I'm not sure how that's reverse psychology but I believe that's exactly what GW wants you to do. Their own business decisions caused their customer base to shrink which also flooded the secondary market with armies. They're now trying to punish the remaining customers for their own bad business decisions in the past by squeezing them for every penny they can get.

**ImAGeek**

Toofast wrote:
When you cut through the nonsensical way he phrased that, I believe he meant GW intentionally nerfs/buffs things to invalidate your army list and force you to buy a new army when the codex gets updated even if you aren't switching factions. I'm not sure how that's reverse psychology but I believe that's exactly what GW wants you to do. Their own business decisions caused their customer base to shrink which also flooded the secondary market with armies. They're now trying to punish the remaining customers for their own bad business decisions in the past by squeezing them for every penny they can get.

Except there's as many examples of new models being very underwhelming too. Never attribute to malice what could be down to stupidity I feel very much applies to GW.

**Wayniac**

Toofast wrote:
When you cut through the nonsensical way he phrased that, I believe he meant GW intentionally nerfs/buffs things to invalidate your army list and force you to buy a new army when the codex gets updated even if you aren't switching factions. I'm not sure how that's reverse psychology but I believe that's exactly what GW wants you to do. Their own business decisions caused their customer base to shrink which also flooded the secondary market with armies. They're now trying to punish the remaining customers for their own bad business decisions in the past by squeezing them for every penny they can get.

It's mostly just not testing in meaningful ways, I think, since new things can suck just as much as old ones, but I do think that they deliberately shift things around from time to time. Just they aren't good at it.

**MWHistorian**

WayneTheGame wrote:
Toofast wrote:
When you cut through the nonsensical way he phrased that, I believe he meant GW intentionally nerfs/buffs things to invalidate your army list and force you to buy a new army when the codex gets updated even if you aren't switching factions. I'm not sure how that's reverse psychology but I believe that's exactly what GW wants you to do. Their own business decisions caused their customer base to shrink which also flooded the secondary market with armies. They're now trying to punish the remaining customers for their own bad business decisions in the past by squeezing them for every penny they can get.

It's mostly just not testing in meaningful ways, I think, since new things can suck just as much as old ones, but I do think that they deliberately shift things around from time to time. Just they aren't good at it.

They don't understand their own game enough to make shifts an any kind of meaningful way.

**asdrubeal vect124**

is it possible to BUY enough shares of GW to "OWN" the company? or does it not work that way?

correct me if i'm wrong i'm not a financial person i dont have a clue how stocks work

**Wayniac**

MWHistorian wrote:
WayneTheGame wrote:
Toofast wrote:
When you cut through the nonsensical way he phrased that, I believe he meant GW intentionally nerfs/buffs things to invalidate your army list and force you to buy a new army when the codex gets updated even if you aren't switching factions. I'm not sure how that's reverse psychology but I believe that's exactly what GW wants you to do. Their own business decisions caused their customer base to shrink which also flooded the secondary market with armies. They're now trying to punish the remaining customers for their own bad business decisions in the past by squeezing them for every penny they can get.

It's mostly just not testing in meaningful ways, I think, since new things can suck just as much as old ones, but I do think that they deliberately shift things around from time to time. Just they aren't good at it.

They don't understand their own game enough to make shifts an any kind of meaningful way.

Well they have said that they basically decide stats based around what they think it should be, and go from there. I think a large part of the problem is that they don't playtest enough or in meaningful ways. Their "playtest" probably consists of just a regular game with the model with the stats they think it should have, and they tweak it based on that. So if they play utterly stupid in the game, they might think something is too weak and buff it but it ends up being too strong, or vice versa. They don't playtest specific occurrences or setup specific conditions to really test things in the real game (also maybe because they aren't good enough to consider doing it) so that's why I think a lot of things suffer.

Even in the old battle reports, you would see them doing absolutely stupid tactics for whatever reason, either they just didn't know any better, or were trying a gamble or what. After all it used to be a running joke that any battle report that Jervis played in, he would lose (although according to Andy Chambers, Jervis actually was a good player). However they also said a few times that they would refight a battle report if things went too lopsided, so chances are they would do the same thing in playtesting, and that also means that they aren't testing specific combinations or maneuvers to see how they work out, they're basically taking the thing and using it how they want to. While there's nothing wrong with that as far as how to play, it's a terrible way to playtest because when you playtest you should be trying to break it or do strange combos so you can be aware and fix it.

**Azreal13**

asdrubeal vect124 wrote:
is it possible to BUY enough shares of GW to "OWN" the company? or does it not work that way?

correct me if i'm wrong i'm not a financial person i dont have a clue how stocks work

Yeah, that's pretty obvious.

That is the entire essence of what a PLC is, if you own one share, you get one vote at the AGM on various issues (such as new people to be in charge, etc)

GW have approx 33m shares in circulation, so if you bought say 3.5m, you'd have a good say, if you wanted control, then you'd need at least half in theory, but in practice you can effectively have control with less depending on how the rest of the shares are owned.

GW shares are currently around £5 each, so it isn't small potatoes, even though they're a small company by publicly traded standards.