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.

bearseamen wrote:
They say they like the competitive play, yet they complain about every under average dice roll, every new codex release and every stupid meta that emerged solely from the drive to win as much and has hard as possible.

First of all, I don't see this trend of competitive players complaining about under-average dice rolls. In fact, in my experience, it's the exact opposite: competitive players understand their armies and the math behind them (because they've done all the math to optimize their choices) and therefore aren't surprised when dice roll below average. The worst dice whining I've experienced has been from apparent "casual" players who have no clue how probability works and start crying when their terminators fail saves against a bucket of lasgun dice.

Second, the complaints about codex releases are because GW is publishing garbage. Liking competitive play does NOT mean that you have to accept inferior products.

Because someones gotta be at fault (it couldn't possibly be them) all the hate goes towards GW and even individuals in management.

You know why all the hate (if you can call entirely justified complaints "hate") goes to GW? Because their product sucks. The rules are inexcusably bad, yet GW sells them for obscene prices. And yet somehow when you look at the communities for other games you don't find the same level of "hate" from competitive players. Why? Because those companies at least try to publish decent rules instead of making idiotic statements about how "our customers love nothing more than giving us their money" and acting like all they have to do is keep milking the cash cow and the fanboys will keep buying everything.

What they just don't realize is the simple fact that you cannot balance a game of such a scale and scope.

Nonsense. Other games manage to have much better balance than 40k. For example, MTG is far more complex and yet somehow WOTC manages to keep things pretty well balanced at every level from casual kitchen table games to pro tour tournaments with $50k cash prizes. The problem with 40k isn't that the game is too big, it's that GW doesn't care enough to even try.

GW knows that and so they smartly try do drive the game in a different direction, namely a shared and positive gaming experience where the focus is strictly not on winning.

No they don't. GW does very little to support casual/narrative play. They just publish garbage that is barely playable in any other environment and throw in a few token "pretend your space marines are telling a story" statements as an excuse for why the rules don't work.

Just let it go man.

Oh good, now we're back to the classic "if you don't unconditionally love GW then STFU" argument. It's still just as laughably bad as it has always been.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bearseamen wrote:
What it boils down is that "balance" becomes a subjective term.

No it isn't. You can look at objective data from win rates, how often units are chosen, etc. For example, WOTC does extensive internal playtesting for MTG and collects hard data on how cards are being used to fine-tune the final product. And when, based on the hard data of tournament results, a card or combination of cards proves to be a game-breaking balance mistake WOTC fixes the problem. GW could do the same kind of thing, but the idiots running the company have apparently decided that nobody should get paid to play games and "playtesting" is limited to people screwing around on their lunch breaks occasionally.

The game has been setup by GW in a way that it allows for changes where ever deemed necessary.

No it hasn't. 40k has no more ability to allow third-party changes than any other game. The only reason 40k sees more third-party changes is that it needs more changes to work properly. Better games don't have this problem and are functional "out of the box", so third-party changes are limited to customizing the game experience instead of trying to fix problems that the publisher didn't care about.

If you step back from 40k and look into other nontraditional competitive sports it becomes very obvious that balance / "tight rules" is most likely a pipe dream. StarCraft:Broodwar has been a competitive "sport" for almost two decades, with leagues, tournamemts and large price pools. The game has never been truly balanced, with lots of lopsided matchups, maps or tournament formats. Modern games such as SC2 or League of Legends do not have the slightest chance of achieving global balance by virtue of their relative youth and grand scope.

And now you're using the "perfect balance" straw man. Do other games have balance issues? Sure, but those issues are relatively minor compared to the ones in 40k. The fact that "perfect" balance might not be possible should not stop us from expecting better balance than the current state of the game, where units/armies are blatantly overpowered/underpowered and GW makes idiotic statements like "we had to buff psykers because everyone was using melee chaplains instead".

I didn't say I would be able to balance it. Although given time I probably could, but my point is there's people who work there who's job literally is to write these games. They get paid to write games. They should be able to write a balanced game, and if they can't, they shouldn't get paid for it.

Yes a tournament organiser can change rules but they shouldn't have to change them. They should be balanced already.

Balance testing would be a hell of a lot easier if they did any kind of market research or reached out to their community in any way. They could collect data then, or have people play test (something they clearly don't do, definitely not enough of.)

You can balance a faction without giving it stuff other armies have. Adjust points costs. Bring those other armies/units down in power/up in price. Change what equipment they have. Of course you can have better balance than what there is now without making everything the same. Again, we aren't asking for perfect balance. That's unrealistic, and you may as well play chess. Just more balanced than it is now.

I'd say 40k isn't even that much larger than other games now. Most of its factions are Space Marines anyway. WMH has like 12 factions with at least as many units in the game as 40k. It's much better balanced. Infinity has tonnes of units in each faction. Again, much better balanced. Even Fantasy is better balanced, and thats a similar sized game. Yes, it's still not perfect and there is imbalances, but it's quite a bit better.

And yes GW clearly isn't trying to make a balanced sport. The point is, if they wrote a balanced ruleset, it would still be perfectly usable in a 'fluffy' way, whereas there's literally no upside to just making a 'fluffy, cinematic' ruleset. The game could be just as fluffy, cinematic, fun, etc, with a solid, balanced base, and then competitive players would be happy too. Everyone wins.

Also, everyhing Peregrine said. He said it better than me.

 Peregrine wrote:
Second, the complaints about codex releases are because GW is publishing garbage. Liking competitive play does NOT mean that you have to accept inferior products.

I disagree. I think a small number of the codices are garbage (like Imperial Knights), and most of the codices feel expensive. However, mostly, the codices are quite well written, and 7e codices are an improvement over 5e/6e codices.

Feel free to disagree with me, or even say that you feel that all of the codices, ever, have always been poorly written. However, I'm entitled to my opinion, which is that generally, codices have gotten better from one edition to the next, with some that are real standouts, like Space Marines. I'm happy to buy them, and I'm excited with each new print, which I also enjoy reading. I have already pre-ordered the Blood Angels codex from my FLGS.

I also happen to like many factions ("A Galaxy at War" should feel like many races with different levels of friction), and although some of the factions don't have as much lore as I'd like, I understand that everything can't be written overnight.

 Peregrine wrote:

You know why all the hate (if you can call entirely justified complaints "hate" goes to GW? Because their product sucks.

See, this is what I don't get. How can you state that "their product sucks" as a statement of fact, when obviously, some people like it -- to the tune of a hundred million dollars a year of sales? Obviously, some people don't agree with you. Why don't you say, "I like to bash on GW because I don't like their product", instead? At least, then, it'd be honest.

I've said this before too -- if you dislike GW so much, you should stop buying their stuff. Forgeworld is a GW company. Yes, if you say "their product sucks", that includes Black Library and Forgeworld. Don't believe me? Go to forgeworld's home page and scroll down to the bottom and look at their copyright, and ownership of trademarks (spoiler: Games Workshop Ltd.). Still don't believe me? Click on the FAQ, which asks if Forge World is a part of GW, and the answer is Yes (it's a separate division).

 Peregrine wrote:


Nonsense. Other games manage to have much better balance than 40k. For example, MTG is far more complex and yet somehow WOTC manages to keep things pretty well balanced at every level from casual kitchen table games to pro tour tournaments with $50k cash prizes. The problem with 40k isn't that the game is too big, it's that GW doesn't care enough to even try.

You're usually the guy who doesn't like to introduce MtG into the mix >.< But hey, if you want to go there: MtG is a HORRIBLY internally balanced game. Each card takes 1 slot in your deck; some cards are just plain better for no reason other than that fewer were printed. Friendly players and competitive players, never should they meet at the field of battle, because it's hopeless for the casuals.

 Peregrine wrote:

No they don't. GW does very little to support casual/narrative play. They just publish garbage that is barely playable in any other environment and throw in a few token "pretend your space marines are telling a story" statements as an excuse for why the rules don't work.

What exactly would you call Shield of Baal: Leviathan? It's a campaign. Can't get any more narrative than that.

Again, you might think it's garbage, but enough others buy the literature that it was sold out 2.5 hours after it appeared online for preorders. I'm pretty sure they didn't buy it, thinking it was garbage too.

Sanctus Reach, too. Fantastic stuff.

 Peregrine wrote:

Oh good, now we're back to the classic "if you don't unconditionally love GW then STFU" argument. It's still just as laughably bad as it has always been.

Not at all, dude. Feel free to express your dislike of GW, but please do so in a manner respectful of other people's preferences. Everyone is allowed to love or hate a company, but why go into a board for their fans just to spout, "everything they make is garbage" several times, every day? You consistently state your own opinion of rules or models or prices, on a topic which is subjective anyways, as a fact, when clearly, it isn't.

If you don't like the way 40k is balanced, don't play it! If you want to spout off how horrible a blight it is unto mankind, be prepared for some people to disagree with you.

Either way, you should probably stop buying and modelling Forge World stuff, so that GW goes out of business faster. You know what their markup is on those?

And here I was thinking that..

a) A constantly changing rulebook that isn't play tested thoroughly is released apparently yearly now

b) Seemingly monthly price hikes that mean anyone who isn't in the top 15% wage bracket will have to re-mortgage to afford.

c) Excessive holes in codices that allow rule abuse

d) People behaving like children abusing those in order to win at all costs and then trash-talking and insulting others as if a win actually means something in the real world.


But sure, it's purely the competitive aspect of the game



In short: GW created the loop holes and Neckbeards abuse it. Human nature, they're a dumb species

 ImAGeek wrote:
I didn't say I would be able to balance it. Although given time I probably could, but my point is there's people who work there who's job literally is to write these games. They get paid to write games. They should be able to write a balanced game, and if they can't, they shouldn't get paid for it.

If a company truly just writes junk, people won't buy it. The company will go out of business.

However, if they write something, whether or not you think it's good or balanced, and there is a market for it -- absolutely, they should be paid for it. Who else should get paid for the stuff they create, that people buy $100+ million dollars a year to buy?

Talys wrote:
If a company truly just writes junk, people won't buy it. The company will go out of business.

You're right.

I mean if they were putting out crap rules, you'd expect a pretty big drop in their profits.

Oh...

Wait...

 Wulfmar wrote:
And here I was thinking that..

a) A constantly changing rulebook that isn't play tested thoroughly is released apparently yearly now

b) Seemingly monthly price hikes that mean anyone who isn't in the top 15% wage bracket will have to re-mortgage to afford.

c) Excessive holes in codices that allow rule abuse

d) People behaving like children abusing those in order to win at all costs and then trash-talking and insulting others as if a win actually means something in the real world.

a) 6e was the only rulebook that cycled quickly. And now, you can get 7e rules for almost nothing, because it's bundled with so much stuff. Also, 7e did not fundamentally change the game; it improved on 6e.

b) This is a two-part statement: There are not monthly price hikes -- I mean, that's just not factually accurate, and I'm not even sure how it can even feel that way (unless you accidentally click on CAD or AUS ). However, you are right that the game isn't for people who don't have a high disposable income. 40k is a luxury game best enjoyed by people who are willing to blow at least hundreds of dollars on the hobby every year. There are cheaper ways to get into it (like eBay), but hey, no matter how you cut it, it's not a cheap game.

Let me state my opinion very clearly: If you look at GW prices and think, "wow, that's really expensive... I don't know if I should go there", 40k is probably not the right game for you, because if you like it, whatever you initially thought? You will spend multiples of that. If your budget is tight, getting into 40k is probably a mistake. There is just too much cool stuff that comes out, and if you're a fan, it's hard to resist.

c) I'm not sure what you mean by holes. There is some ambiguity in some codices (but that doesn't lead to abuse... it just leads to a waste of time arguing if you're playing the wrong person), and there are units and combos that feel overpowered to play against, if one is playing a less powerful army.

d) In what game does this NOT exist?

Talys wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
I didn't say I would be able to balance it. Although given time I probably could, but my point is there's people who work there who's job literally is to write these games. They get paid to write games. They should be able to write a balanced game, and if they can't, they shouldn't get paid for it.

If a company truly just writes junk, people won't buy it. The company will go out of business.

However, if they write something, whether or not you think it's good or balanced, and there is a market for it -- absolutely, they should be paid for it. Who else should get paid for the stuff they create, that people buy $100+ million dollars a year to buy?

Okay I should maybe reword it a little. Erm... Well obviously people are buying the books so yeah I guess they are doing their job in that sense, I just feel the Codexes could be written a lot better and the rules could be a lot tighter, clearer and more balanced, so in my opinion they aren't doing a great job. I wouldn't pay them, I guess is what I'm saying. I'd pay someone who can do the job better. Like I wouldn't pay someone if they badly wired my house.

Erm, I'm kinda struggling to word my point here. My point is, there are people who get paid to write rules for games. If they're getting paid, and we're paying 30 quid at least for the books they churn out, the least I'd expect is balanced rules.

Sorry that's really rambling but I think I got there in the end.

 vipoid wrote:

Talys wrote:
If a company truly just writes junk, people won't buy it. The company will go out of business.

You're right.

I mean if they were putting out crap rules, you'd expect a pretty big drop in their profits.

Oh...

Wait...

And yet, they still sell tons and tons of stuff. If they sell more stuff in a subsequent year, will you have a different opinion?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ImAGeek wrote:

Okay I should maybe reword it a little. Erm... Well obviously people are buying the books so yeah I guess they are doing their job in that sense, I just feel the Codexes could be written a lot better and the rules could be a lot tighter, clearer and more balanced, so in my opinion they aren't doing a great job. I wouldn't pay them, I guess is what I'm saying. I'd pay someone who can do the job better. Like I wouldn't pay someone if they badly wired my house.

Erm, I'm kinda struggling to word my point here. My point is, there are people who get paid to write rules for games. If they're getting paid, and we're paying 30 quid at least for the books they churn out, the least I'd expect is balanced rules.

Sorry that's really rambling but I think I got there in the end.

Alright, I get what you're saying, I think You're trying to articulate that if you owned Games Workshop, you wouldn't pay the writers -- or you'd fire them and hire new ones, who could write tighter, more balanced rules.

Fair 'nuff (though I think you still have to pay them, even if their work is substandard, before you fire them... much like the crappy contractor hehehe)

Yeah pretty much that. Although I'm sure they are capable of writing better rules. I'd probably give them a chance at that first haha. I imagine a lot of decisions are made more by the management than the writers, because I feel like the game used to be a lot better.

Talys wrote:
Again, you might think it's garbage, but enough others buy the literature that it was sold out 2.5 hours after it appeared online for preorders.

Which is fairly meaningless without knowing how many copies were actually sold...

6e was the only rulebook that cycled quickly. And now, you can get 7e rules for almost nothing, because it's bundled with so much stuff. Also, 7e did not fundamentally change the game; it improved on 6e.

Actually it pretty much did fundamentally change the game, psychic phase = huge change, unbound= enormous change, shoving super heavies and formations down our throat huge change. Basically including things that were previously optional in the BRB changes the game quite a lot.

Beyond that to all that say balance is unachievable, sure that is probably true for perfect balance. But as others have said it could easily be way better. Like I said before it is called beta testing, release free beta rules to the public (or some group of external people, Malifaux does this with their stuff, and often to their henchman), and let people go to town. Will it result in perfect balance heck no. But might people come back and say, hey this 2+ re-rollable save thing is kinda dumb and unfun, and super powerful, maybe you should tweak it, and give a suggestion? Or maybe on a wave serpent come back and say, "firing this shield is way too powerful...tweak it", or "this Tzeentch Chariot thing, you guys do know it does not function right?" or even "Hey this pyrovore guy is awful, he needs a boost." Things could still be very different from one another but at least be in the same realm of power, and all models could be useful for their purpose. The problem is GW cares more about keeping things in house, than producing a good game. But hey if they are too concerned with that they could even make playtesting into a for profit thing, players order an early release digital beta codex, which will be updated on release, and with tweaked rules.....it is not as good an idea but better than what they have now, and might encourage more people to buy the codices.

But GW would rather force players to balance the game, and for those that say...well organizers can just ban stuff....yeah sure if I want to risk my own personal money to run an event for others (which I already do) and lose even more money on the altar of balance when people don't agree, or cannot run their army so don't come, yeah lets do that cause the organizers should all lay out cash to try and balance the game, when they don't make any....you know instead of the people who do get paid for it, and would only profit from more balance.

 insaniak wrote:

Talys wrote:
Again, you might think it's garbage, but enough others buy the literature that it was sold out 2.5 hours after it appeared online for preorders.

Which is fairly meaningless without knowing how many copies were actually sold...

It also sold out at my FLGS instantly.

The latest release, Shield of Baal: Deathstorm, was being carted off in 2s and 3s from preorders at my FLGS. One store received about a dozen copies (allocation) of the $150 box, and all were spoken for. For a long time, Glotkin and Nagash also sold as fast as the store could get them in.

Neither here nor there, just passing on what I observed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

6e was the only rulebook that cycled quickly. And now, you can get 7e rules for almost nothing, because it's bundled with so much stuff. Also, 7e did not fundamentally change the game; it improved on 6e.

Actually it pretty much did fundamentally change the game, psychic phase = huge change, unbound= enormous change, shoving super heavies and formations down our throat huge change. Basically including things that were previously optional in the BRB changes the game quite a lot.

Psychic was the only significant structural change. Unbound isn't really a change... it's an optional format that most people tried by both players agreeing, at some point, anyhow. And most people do not play unbound armies.

The superheavies are just new units. They would have had the rules for them in a book (like escalation) anyhow.

I do agree that some balance tweaks would be helpful to address units that are too good.

Completely disagree with the idea that competitive play is what is "ruining" the game, just because some people want to bring their A game and play against someone else bringing their A game does not automatically make them WAAC type players. I am an advocate of changing up your list to make it more fun when playing someone who is a fluffy player or looking for a more friendly game, but other then that saying competitive players are the ones ruining the game is kind of silly.

Psychic was the only significant structural change. Unbound isn't really a change... it's an optional format that most people tried by both players agreeing, at some point, anyhow. And most people do not play unbound armies.

The superheavies are just new units. They would have had the rules for them in a book (like escalation) anyhow.

I do agree that some balance tweaks would be helpful to address units that are too good.

But the move toward multiple detachments was made more solid in 7e (not in BRB other than allies for 6e), same with a new unit type (I feel like people would say flyers and FMC were big game changes from 5e to 6e and they are unit types) The inclusion of Superheavies in the standard game outside a supplemental book is a big change, which started in 6e with escalation and Knights, but has increased with their inclusion in 7e Codicies, and is a large change to how the game is played, their inclusion flat out makes some lists non-viable for an enjoyable game...and that did not need to be the case.

What it boils down to for me (and why many people complain)

1.) Lack of balance, that could easily be better.
2.) Wholesale changes to the game from one edition to another. If you bought in at an earlier edition and enjoyed how it played, and then the game changed, it can be frustrating. I think many of us would like to see tweaks to rules from edition to edition, clear up old issues, maybe add some new mechanics or more likely change some old ones.

In the end for me it seems like 40k is no longer the game I bought many years ago....and for me it is not as enjoyable. Which after spending thousands of dollars, and hundreds of hours....is extremely frustrating. There is something to be said for consistency in rules...which GW lacks. There is also something for being able to play the models you like, and have a fair game...which is something GW fails at horribly.

While I completely agree with the original poster's position and outlook on the game, I don't agree that this should be forced on anyone. The great thing about this hobby is that so many people like it for a multitude of different reasons. I love building and converting models, painting them and getting to see them together on a table chock full of amazing looking scenery/terrain. The 'game' part of it is secondary to me....but that's ME. There are so many people out there that love crunching numbers and optimizing army lists for the current meta. To fault them for enjoying that part of the hobby over the aesthetics or fictional background is unfair. The rules and army books are made to be a framework to get these amazing figures/models on the table and play a game. If the 'game' part of it is messed up, broken, unbalanced...then it starts to erode the very purpose for collecting the pieces to play that game. What GW doesn't understand, is that they can say they are a 'plastic model company' all they want...if the game doesn't work right, and no-one wants to play it anymore, they wont be selling any more models. If they truly mean what they say, that the rules and game are secondary to the design, production and sale of models, then license the design of the rules and the army books to Fantasy Flight Games.....and/or let the experienced community of dedicated fans and players provide meaningful and well tested feedback that actually engenders positive change...ultimately resulting in a well designed and balanced set of game rules.

I'm just going to cut out all of the pointless whining about how I'm not allowed to have an opinion or how my occasional purchase of GW products is somehow relevant to my criticism of GW. It's completely off-topic and not worth wasting time on.

Talys wrote:
However, mostly, the codices are quite well written, and 7e codices are an improvement over 5e/6e codices.

Well written by what standards? Is it the options GW removed out of paranoia about third-party companies making 40k parts/models? Is it the fluff sections that keep getting shorter and shorter? Is it the way GW has replaced a lot of the old art with copies of the catalog photos? Or is it the horrible randomness and laughably bad balance that has defined 7th edition so far?

How can you state that "their product sucks" as a statement of fact, when obviously, some people like it -- to the tune of a hundred million dollars a year of sales?

Sales =/= quality. First of all, McDonalds/Walmart/etc make obscene amounts of money selling low-quality products, so making lots of money doesn't necessarily mean that a company is producing a good product. Second, we're talking about the rules here, not GW products as a whole. A customer who buys models primarily because they love the fluff should not be counted as a vote of confidence in the rules, nor should a customer who buys some GW paint to re-paint their X-Wing models. And even customers who buy the rules may be motivated less by how much they love the rules and more by factors like GW being the only wargaming option in their area.

MtG is a HORRIBLY internally balanced game. Each card takes 1 slot in your deck; some cards are just plain better for no reason other than that fewer were printed.

This is just laughably wrong, for two reasons:

1) Much of the "poor balance" in MTG is actually very good balance, it's just balance that is built around sealed/draft instead of constructed. Each set contains a lot of cards that are only intended to be used in sealed/draft games, where doing the best you can with limited resources is a big part of the challenge. When you only consider constructed-format cards the balance in constructed games is much better.

2) Cost and power are not the same. Are there powerful rare cards? Of course there are. But there are also powerful commons and uncommons, and trying to build a deck with nothing but the most expensive stuff is the best way to waste a lot of money on a deck that will never win a game in a competitive environment.

What exactly would you call Shield of Baal: Leviathan? It's a campaign. Can't get any more narrative than that.

Of course you can get more narrative than that, because "it's a campaign" is the bare minimum. You have to look at what the campaign consists of, and when you do you discover that it's little more than "buy this product and play with it exactly how we tell you" with no room to personalize it. Technically there's a story about the specific models you have to buy in the starter set, but it's not your story about your characters. Then when you look at other "narrative" products GW has published they're also a disappointment. Planetstrike and Cities of Death should have been the kind of product that narrative players love, but they were both huge steps back from their previous editions.

And the sad thing is that some people at GW have figured it out. FW's most recent 30k book has a campaign system that makes a sad joke out of "main" GW's recent narrative products. But GW seems to be content to treat this kind of thing as a niche market product that doesn't need much presence in the "core" game.

Again, you might think it's garbage, but enough others buy the literature that it was sold out 2.5 hours after it appeared online for preorders.

GW's ability to sell out every product seems to have way more to do with them printing ridiculously tiny numbers than huge demand. Successfully using artificial scarcity as a marketing strategy does not mean that you've created a great product.

why go into a board for their fans just to spout, "everything they make is garbage" several times, every day?

This is not a board for GW fans.

Competitive play isn't what's ruining 40k. It's GW's lousy policies that are ruining 40k. They're reducing points cost while raising prices making the game harder to get into. They're making poorly written and bloated rules. They're slowly ruining the one good asset they have, their IP, through crappy fluff and novels.

Maybe this was answered somewhere in this thread and I missed it, but how does one play non competitvly? Is there a passive mode to 40k where you...deliberatly choose the weaker options without synergy or plan to the army? Decided you are beating the other guy too much and decided only shoot half your army?

don't forget bad computer games, like power-armoured cats vs ork dogs.

Uncle Fester wrote:
Maybe this was answered somewhere in this thread and I missed it, but how does one play non competitvly? Is there a passive mode to 40k where you...deliberatly choose the weaker options without synergy or plan to the army? Decided you are beating the other guy too much and decided only shoot half your army?

Mmkay, here is TheCustomeLime's Custom guide to not playing 40k competitively. You should get a notepad and a pencil because these tips are important. You should also wear some oven mitts because these tips are hot!

Never synergise your army. Why is an army that is mostly in drop pods taking a Vindicator and a captain on foot? Hell if I know! Fluff!

Never take Plasma or Meltaguns. Especially if you're Imperial Guard. feth those guns, srsly.

Play a Codex that isn't Eldar, Daemons, Necrons or Tau. I don't even think I need to explain this.

Have your marines running up on foot. Bonus points if they're Terminators.

Put all of your points into a beat stick HQ. If you're playing Imperial Guard.

Put on your sense of self satisfaction shirt and get on your high horse. Looking down on other players for their silly ways is an integral part of not playing competitively.

Uncle Fester wrote:
Maybe this was answered somewhere in this thread and I missed it, but how does one play non competitvly? Is there a passive mode to 40k where you...deliberatly choose the weaker options without synergy or plan to the army? Decided you are beating the other guy too much and decided only shoot half your army?

This. I mean if OP wants to not play competitively. Don't play. It's a game. Why do you play poker, or chess or monopoly or Axis and Allies or beer pong or golf or tennis or cricket, or drag racing or a spelling bee? Seriously?

Now if I could play a co-op version of 40k like a campaign vs AI or D&D that'd be cool. I'd be into that.

The thing about this stupid expensive thing called table top war gaming is that it's bigger than just the game. The value is added more by the consumer than the manufacturer.

Regardless of how badly your own models are painted you value them more highly than NIB. Their YOURS.

So @ OP: you can try to branch out. I have an idea that I've been wanting to do.
-Sports Cast style 40k batrep like Stomping Grounds.
-Narrative style bat rep with fluff and effects. Tell a story.

This hobby is bigger than GW now. It shouldn't be (poor corporate decision making). But there can be more than 5- 7 turns and min/maxing. But at the core (despite what GW thinks) it is a GAME.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Their =they're

This post is silly.
People get on here to see tips. Everyone here is competitiive , you will get bashed for calling them out.

Just play with local friends, or a group. Most of the time they will just play units they love and not a"must have".

Competitive players won't understand , they have lost that train of though long ago.

DaKKaLAnce wrote:
This post is silly.
People get on here to see tips. Everyone here is competitiive , you will get bashed for calling them out.

Just play with local friends, or a group. Most of the time they will just play units they love and not a"must have".

Competitive players won't understand , they have lost that train of though long ago.

Why does competitive mean you suddenly can't play with friends? Why does it mean you can't play with models that you love?

No, what's ruining the game is the schismatic player base that's occurred because people would rather blame their fellow players mindsets than the root of the problems within the game.... GW.

This shouldn't be a game where it's competitive vs 'fluffy' players, it should be a game where it's competitive and fluffy players.

Someone actually made this thread. I'm impressed.

It boils down to this.

If you're one of those competitive types that sneers at casuals and whines about their preferred trend of games being more centered around non-competitive themes, you're an idiot.

If you're one of those more casual types that are wildly declaring most/all competitive players are ruining everything, sociopaths, various other generalising garbage included, you're an idiot.

If they're an donkey-cave that takes it too far, they're a donkey-cave. Don't play them, don't put up with their gak. Stop pretending they're the vast majority of the spectrum they're closer to.

The spectrum being, using common net terms, minus the extremes like WAAC:

Friendly ---> Casual---> Balanced <----Competitive <----Tournament

Friendly being having little care about what you take, casual being wanting to win but taking sub-standard units, competitive being taking the best units, and tournament meaning using any legal and fair means to make a winning army.

There's nothing wrong with any of the people in that spectrum inherently. As for the whole load of trash about competitives being the root of problems of 40k, well I'm lost for words. I'm not going to bother explaining what a blind and unfairly judgemental prick you'd have to be to make such a claim.

 Mr.Omega wrote:
Someone actually made this thread. I'm impressed.

I'm pretty sure the OP was trolling. He made this thread, gave ONE single liner reply on the 2nd page and hasn't been back since. I think he just lit a fire so he could watch Dakka burn.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Mmkay, here is TheCustomeLime's Custom guide to not playing 40k competitively. You should get a notepad and a pencil because these tips are important. You should also wear some oven mitts because these tips are hot!

Never synergise your army. Why is an army that is mostly in drop pods taking a Vindicator and a captain on foot? Hell if I know! Fluff!

Never take Plasma or Meltaguns. Especially if you're Imperial Guard. feth those guns, srsly.

Play a Codex that isn't Eldar, Daemons, Necrons or Tau. I don't even think I need to explain this.

Have your marines running up on foot. Bonus points if they're Terminators.

Put all of your points into a beat stick HQ. If you're playing Imperial Guard.

Put on your sense of self satisfaction shirt and get on your high horse. Looking down on other players for their silly ways is an integral part of not playing competitively.

My favourite is the beatstick-HQ one.

Nothing is "ruining" 40k. 40k is what it has always been: A casual game with great models and background, but with ambiguous rules and no semblance of balance. And for many, many years, it has also been the most popular tabletop game in the world.

As the old adage goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." GW has never had much of an incentive to completely rewrite their rules and invest money and time into extensive play testing. GW is a business, so it does not do things out of the goodness of its heart; it does things to make money. If they don't need to spend the time and money to create balanced rules to make money, or don't think the returns on their investment will be good enough, they won't do it.

Obviously, many of us would argue that it IS in fact "broke," but enough people buy the models and books anyway that GW still obviously feels that writing a balanced rule set isn't worth their time. This may totally suck for those of us that love the background and want 40k to be better, but there's honestly nothing we can do to make that happen other than to not buy what GW puts out and hope that others do the same. That being said, some people actually do enjoy 40k for what it is, because they are casual players who care more about the models and background than the rules.

My recommendation to those of you who do not like the state of 40k or GW games in general to stop buying their products. This is the only thing you, as a consumer, can do to influence Games Workshop. Look into one of the other miniatures games out there, or play with what you currently have without making any more purchases. Maybe if GW's sales drop enough, and they see the sales of other miniatures games rise, they will see that an investment in play testing and rule writing is necessary to stay competitive in the market.

The issue is that their sales are still down, I personally haven't bought any GW products in come time. Also they do have incentive....they could sell more. They just choose not to put in the effort to do so.

As for casual being fun....it just isn't, some of the least fun games of 40k I've ever played have been casual. Like the time I wanted to field my shiny new heldrake in a team game....and it decimated the opposing armies....it was terrible. Where as my most enjoyable 40k memories are all from tournament games (perhaps the best being a charity team event where the final table turned into a mini apoc battle, tons of laughs, bluffs, jokes, all while competing to win)

Now you can say, well you shouldn't have taken the heldrake in a casual setting, at which point I would say...the game then isn't casual when I cannot use my cool new models because it sucks for the other guy.

 Nate668 wrote:
That being said, some people actually do enjoy 40k for what it is, because they are casual players who care more about the models and background than the rules.

Well, not really. Some generalisation there. Most of my games are played on the competitive - tournament level and I enjoy 40k. Models and background and gaming are all equally important to me.