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.
2015/04/07 17:18:28
Subject: Re:Complaining about codices in a stand-alone context, 3 viable codices in the entire game?
"it would only take a number of relatively small changes to make this game much better, why the feth don't they pull their finger out and do it and build a game that people are excited to play again?"
Well said. Couldn't have said it better myself.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/07 17:18:51
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2015/04/07 17:24:00
Subject: Complaining about codices in a stand-alone context, 3 viable codices in the entire game?
Yoyoyo wrote: Look at the point about Warmachine above. 40k isn't designed the same way.
As you say, "40K still works, essentially, in a casual environment amongst a regular social group who are free to select which items from the "menu" they do or don't want in their games."
What makes it so hard to read the writing on the wall when you yourself understand this?
Essentially, I have.
I haven't quit, I still keep up to date on rules and releases, I still spend most of my painting time on 40K army projects (I'm more at the painting end than gaming end of the spectrum anyways) and I still consider myself a 40K player.
That said, I've been gaming exclusively with X Wing since before Christmas and I've only really played 40K against one chap who I've known for 20 years and have such a similar approach to that I can be fairly sure of a close and challenging game for around 6 months.
That doesn't mean that my enthusiasm for the 40K is diminished so much that I wouldn't wholeheartedly and enthusiastically jump back in with both feet if things improved, I know I'm not alone in that, just as I know that I'm not alone in the fact that if the game doesn't improve I'll ultimately, and reluctantly, leave the whole thing behind and give all my hobby monies to a competitor company that's doing it right.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/07 17:25:07
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
TheKbob wrote: Bringing up Warmachine without properly addressing the context is asinine, as in the example software Runic et al. The game is designed, ground up, with the competitive context in mind.
And yet it is always treated as a fine example of a game where every kind of army you throw together can win, when infact a competent list will get crushed against the proper counter.
And why is this so offtopic? The topic was about judging codices on a mono level in a game inwhich the time of mono codices is ancient history, and complaining that a unit is bad when someone else makes it work just fine, and in a tougher enviroment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yoyoyo wrote: You guys are going down a rabbit hole because game balance is not uniquely about units. As Martel said, "many game systems break down when optimizing players start doing their thing". Most online competitive games need to track performance closely and implement both flash and scheduled balance tweaks. GW won't have the same digital statistics available to track performance, 40k doesn't produce the same volume of games to create a sample size, the game is not oriented towards the competitive scene, codexes are released as one-shot deals entirely out of sequence rather than being updated holistically, there's no standardized boards to use as a baseline, etc.
Yes, GW could do better. But you're not ever going to reach an e-sports level of competition as a tabletop game and I'd question why even bother. There is already a functioning competitive scene that's (dare I say) well-managed. You can already put up or shut up if you want to play competitively. Top players are throwing curveballs with outsider units like Lictors and Scouts. Those models still regarded as "extraneous" even when they make up 700-ish points of an 1850 list. RunicFN is right when he said most players don't get it. 99% of us are casuals, and our issues are within the casual scene. Go lurk in the tournament subforum if you want to debate this, nobody there is too worried about Decurion. To make the point even more academic where every unit becomes "competitively" viable, GW needs to change the way they publish. They would also have to change their focus, from putting out new models like Skitarii and popular new rulesets like Detachments. Do you see this happening? Hell no. Do you see players buying these? Hell yes.
Anyway, winners adapt and overcome, losers complain and accomplish nothing. You want to play in the current 40k meta? Suck it up. TO's already are changing what they want to. Example? Two-source armies aren't a GW rule. Limited rerolls, invisibility nerfs, etc. It's been customized already. You don't want to play in the current 40k meta? Well, adapt and overcome by making some friends, changing what you want to, and ensure you get the best out of your experience as possible. Dota started off as a fun custom game for Warcraft 3 that "competitive players" dissed, and ended up outliving it's parent. There's absolutely nothing wrong with innovation or doing your own thing. Maybe your "classic" 40k format ends up more popular than the vanilla ruleset. If your ego is keeping you shackled to one negative game experience after another... well, maybe stop? I personally am not going to cry all over my keyboard like some spoiled toddler because GW didn't write the rules I wanted. I will either tailor games with a buddy like my brother since we both know it's only for fun, or I simply walk away if I'm not having fun and not metaphorically throw good money after bad. Life is short and time is valuable. I am certainly not going to bash my head against a brick wall like a dumbass and then blame GW for it.
Your game experience is ultimately going to be decided by the kind of people you play with. This basic fact is not getting enough attention in this thread. /rant
Couldn't have articulated that better. Suck it up. I like that. The game is what it is right now and will probably be for the long future.
Either accept it, or don't. Everything inbetween is your face, and a concrete wall as I mentioned before, so why make things hard for yourself. Why linger in the limbo. That is the most useless choice.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2015/04/07 17:31:09
I do suck it up. I bring Cent star every game. Usually at least 1 knight too. Or 3 DK.
Doesn't mean the game couldn't easily be more balanced. Just by looking at what units never see play and ether making them have more appealing stats or reducing their costs or in some cases just changing their FOC.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/07 17:31:40
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2015/04/07 17:32:12
Subject: Complaining about codices in a stand-alone context, 3 viable codices in the entire game?
So then should 2000 points of sentinels, chosen out of personal preference, have a 50/50 vs 2000 points of Stormswords, chosen out of personal preference?
Yes.
Should light recon companies really have a 50/50 vs superheavy tank companies?
Yes.
Gameplay is more important than fluff. If the opposite were true, marines would never ever lose.
I am unsure about that - the fluff on Marines is wildly all over the place. We could certainly have a fluff discussion about that though if you would like!
A 2000 point army should be able to defeat another 2000 point army and vice versa, determining factors on who wins should be primarily based on player skill and whom the dice favors. rock paper scissor is an entirely different beast when it comes to balance...
I would not play this game, then. If 2000 points of (insert anything here) can beat 2000 points of (insert anything here), then my immersion would be totally broken.
It'd be like if 2000 points of armored cars beat 2000 points of King Tiger tanks in Flames of War. My immersion would be totally crushed.
I would be the one complaining about 40k, then, and I think theme (and therefore fluff) should precedence over balance.
Thats fine you don't want balanced games at all, you prefer games that are highly skewed in your favour so atleast be honest about it, this was your example afterall, and using your example as an example.
If 2000 points of shadowswords are dominating 2000 points of sentinels, im going to keep it simple for simplicities sake here, then the shadowswords are to cheap for what you pay for them and thus they are overpowered for their cost and that has nothing to do with immersion.
If you throw a 4000 point worth but (2000) point cost army and crushes a 2000 point cost army it has nothing to do with balance and nothing to do with immersion.
Your immersion is to utterly devastate an opponent that payed an equal amount of points for his army as you did yours.
Actually, I am usually the sentinel player in this scenario. I have been playing tank company since 3rd, and while it's had its ups and downs, my priority has never been to laugh maniacally as my opponent cries tears over his crushed army.
I'm quite offended that you think that of me.
2015/04/07 17:40:21
Subject: Complaining about codices in a stand-alone context, 3 viable codices in the entire game?
Because Warmachine was brought up. And it is a better designed game, no doubt. You can have a much better chance at success if you understand the context of the rules. Where as with 40k, and the loss of actual factions and army composition rules (bringing back on topic) has exacerbated the issue and leading to the nose dive of the game.
Making factions have defined rules empowers player choice in army composition and design. The allies in Warmachine (mercs, minions) are intelligently chosen which parent factions they can work with versus the slap dash of "do whatever, I guess?" that is 40k.
Allies could work, but you would still need rigid structure to make a solid game. Since GW has chosen quite literally the opposite as a valid option, the only choice is to now balance every unit in the game with each other versus within factions (plus associated allies). It's completely within the confines of the rules to build a cherry picked army of only the best options across all factions with the only inhibitors being your opponents "feelings".
And that's obviously terrible game design.
There's nothing inherently wrong with having or not having mono-dex builds as a requirement. But factions exist in games to both have an army identify in appearance AND game play traits. GW has effectively destroyed this with sixth and seventh editions. It's one of the reasons fifth edition is still favorable in the polls on these forums when asked "what's your favorite edition?" It was the peak of that with the closest thing to overall balance for 40k with a skew towards armor/MSU (Same as Warmachine has a meta skew towards insane armor values right now, this naturally happens as games evolve).
Shine on, Kaldor Dayglow!
Not Ken Lobb
2015/04/07 17:42:52
Subject: Complaining about codices in a stand-alone context, 3 viable codices in the entire game?
Xenomancers wrote: I do suck it up. I bring Cent star every game. Usually at least 1 knight too. Or 3 DK.
Doesn't mean the game couldn't easily be more balanced. Just by looking at what units never see play and ether making them have more appealing stats or reducing their costs or in some cases just changing their FOC.
It's easy to balance it among friends/family with house rules and alt formats. Example of restricting FOC choices when you're limited to the Dark Vengeance box. The hard part is getting player buy-in from the uncooperative as Azreal described above. Any single one of us could write a classic unit restriction/costing list to play old-school skirmish games in 40k. The hard part is dealing with troublesome dudes who play the "it's not official GW rules policy" card.
Look at the YMDC forum, it's not hard to find people who will leverage every bullsh*t technicality out there to win. Even without that you have optimizers as Martel said. 40k's strengths are it's size and scale and that doesn't lend itself to tight design. So I think if you are not willing to suck it up and play within the messy rule set, you need to apply your own restrictions to manage the experience.
2015/04/07 17:51:06
Subject: Complaining about codices in a stand-alone context, 3 viable codices in the entire game?
There's a huge chasm between "sheer size and scope makes it tough to balance" which is a fair comment and GW's "feth it, do what you like, we can't be arsed" approach though.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Couldn't agree more. However, with GW's incompetence to balance codices ( ah well, the newest ones are actually fairly balanced against eachother before the Necron mistake was made ) I think the situation would be even worse if you couldn't use allies to plug the holes. I am fairly confident that if Necrons were fixed a bit, and Eldar and Tau updated to the level of the other new codices and the allies matrix then removed, there might actually be something resembling balance. And yeah, the few big BRB bloopers fixed.
Anyway, I'd say the improvement would be vast.
They have already decided a game of theirs is way too broken and clunky, and decided to relaunch. GW has shown they actually have the spine to do such a thing ( ofcourse it's a way steeper cliff with 40K which is their flagship. ) We have to remember the designers have mostly been working on an engine that is what, 20 years old, and haven't probably been given permission for a complete overhaul or something resembling that. I actually wish they would give 40K the clean slate treatment, but even more I hope they would do it right. Or for the very least, better.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/07 17:55:04
Yep, when I mentioned "a few small changes" a few posts back, it was that sort of thing I had in mind.
I do wonder if, because GW think they're selling to teenagers and only teenagers, there is some policy against rules with drawbacks?
I mean "gain benefit of X at the detriment of Y" is about as standard a rules paradigm as you get, but those sorts of rules are very rare in 40K, either overtly or implied.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I really hate it when you edit your posts when I'm composing mine, now mine doesn't make sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ignore everything after "improvement would be vast" in Runic's last post for mine to make more sense!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/07 17:56:06
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
The white background makes my eyes bleed and I often realize something needs to be articulated better afterwards to avoid misundertandings which are more common than I'd like.
Your post makes sense to me.
GW has stated they sell to teenagers, but I doubt there's many people employed who actually think that, aside from perhaps some customer care personnel who might not undestand anything about the game, its roots, its history, rules, and playerbase. Or perhaps the management. Somehow I have a feeling the designers and most of the people inbetween have a clue.
But that's just a guess like any. I like your new style Azreal, let's get married.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/07 18:02:03
The day they fix the statline issues and remove the reliance on tables and random charts will be the day I consider coming back.
Or when weapon skill matters, I'll be waiting with cash in hand.
I still love the "glow" of 40k, that intangible thing that makes it so appealing in a juvenile, care free sense. It's just the cost of and construct of the game itself that had me sell it all off.
(and I'm glad I sold nearly all my Skaven and Bretonnia more so...)
Shine on, Kaldor Dayglow!
Not Ken Lobb
2015/04/07 18:01:53
Subject: Complaining about codices in a stand-alone context, 3 viable codices in the entire game?
This is always my style, we just seem to be on the same side for once!
Try a different theme if white makes your eyes bleed, I'm using Dakka 2012 myself.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Plus Ken Lobb will never let us be together.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/07 18:02:41
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
I don't think we should have to make up rule for our gaming communities to enjoy the game. Like I posted before, in respect to the OP, it's not the codex that are the problems I think.
Keep all the codex the same as currently. But imagine the same game now with a restrictive CADS that actually worth taking and restriction on Ally. 1 ally max, can't be the same faction. Add more consequenece to playing ally that fall under Come the Apocalypse, etc.
I don't see how hard it would be to balance the game after those change. If everyone bring 1 HQ, 2 Troop, Max 3 Elite, 3 fast and 3 Heavy (can actually make it 2 if you want a more infantry-ish game, but whatever) with an ally that can give you 1 HQ, 2 troop, 1 elite and 1 heavy maximum. Enforce bonus to bringing an army from a mono-dex maybe (using only 1 chart). those are little change that wouldn't be much trouble for anyone, that would help bring on par mono-dex with actual competitive list, and normalise the type of game and spam people will do, hence making it easier for GW to compare each troop together, each elite together and each heavy together, to ensure that they are balance.
RunicFIN wrote: I like your new style Azreal, let's get married.
But...I wanted to marry Azrael.
The white background and eye bleeding is just a part of Dakka's charm. I keep a box of kleenex on hand for just such an occasion. Well, and, you know.
*Edit* And to be on topic, while I have gripes with a lot of larger themes in 40k's design, I'd be sufficiently happy with a number of small changes to points cost on units and wargear, specifically for the IG so that Sentinels and the like are more functional and what not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/07 18:08:36
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
2015/04/07 18:07:46
Subject: Complaining about codices in a stand-alone context, 3 viable codices in the entire game?
As a gamer, I find I want my collection to grow so I can play a large variety of army types. And then I branch out into different factions to try the types my chosen cannot do. I went from one, maybe two lists in Warmachine to six competitive builds in Legion, two in Trolls, and owning nearly the entire faction of Cryx including almost max FA on banes.
I'd say appealing to collectors is a poor choice since gamers will buy models above and beyond simple shelf ornaments to have a multitude of viable options to tailor lists to there whim.
Shine on, Kaldor Dayglow!
Not Ken Lobb
2015/04/07 18:09:09
Subject: Complaining about codices in a stand-alone context, 3 viable codices in the entire game?
Azreal13 wrote: I do wonder if, because GW think they're selling to teenagers and only teenagers, there is some policy against rules with drawbacks?
Not so sure that they think they're selling to teenagers as a "primary" market, although I certainly think that's an important demographic. Frankly, I'm not sure how many teenagers can really afford to play 40k or afford 40k collections. You basically have college nerds and younger teens who have well-to-do families.
2015/04/07 18:12:24
Subject: Complaining about codices in a stand-alone context, 3 viable codices in the entire game?
Which confirms a lot of suspicions, but at the same time, it means you shouldn't expect any kind of balance solutions coming anytime soon from GW.
A couple of things to temper that with, firstly, with all due deference to Rick and his immense contribution to 40K, he hasn't worked at GW for some time, and while he still has links (it's a small community) there's every chance he isn't privy to every single thing that goes on (but most of it probably.)
The second thing is that GW have experienced significant falls in revenue over the last 18 months, and it's this sort of thing which will precipitate change beyond anything else. While I remain skeptical that they will try and reverse the trend by improving the game and talking to their customers, there could be a difference between the was Rick is taking about and the is of GW at this moment.
Azreal13 wrote: I do wonder if, because GW think they're selling to teenagers and only teenagers, there is some policy against rules with drawbacks?
Not so sure that they think they're selling to teenagers as a "primary" market, although I certainly think that's an important demographic. Frankly, I'm not sure how many teenagers can really afford to play 40k or afford 40k collections. You basically have college nerds and younger teens who have well-to-do families.
I'm not sure of the genesis of that thought, but if you view much of GW's activity through that filter, the whole "two birthdays, one Christmas" philosophy, it makes more sense. I still don't think it's a good idea, but it makes more sense.
But it boils down to the arrogance of GW (which, in turn, I think comes from having Kirby in such control for so long, and he seems an arrogant character) where they expect us to buy what they deign to make, and they sell to teenage boys because they SAY that's who they're selling to, regardless of reality.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/07 18:16:01
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
As far as rules with drawbacks goes, there seems to trend in all gaming to move away from that. Outside a few niche games, many series have steadily gone towards a sort of simplification or bonus stacking design rather than a trade off/role defined design. The first thing that springs to mind is the Elder Scrolls which went from the fairly detailed skill and attribute system of Morrowind to the skill only system that offered perks for each point invested. Before, you had to make some meaningful choices on your attributes to define your playstyle, but now you can just max out a bunch of things and be awesome at everything.
Gaming in general is growing in popularity, and I suspect many people enjoy games that are simple to learn and play, yet offer some sort of depth/replayability, which can still be done using a bonus only design. Trade offs require that little bit extra analysis and work to determine if its worth it for a given goal, and are that little bit harder to balance as well, so I'm not surprised many designers do away with it.
I'm personally a fan of trade offs because I enjoy defined roles and themes in all my games, but I can see how some people may be put off by it.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
2015/04/07 18:20:04
Subject: Complaining about codices in a stand-alone context, 3 viable codices in the entire game?
TheKbob wrote: As a gamer, I find I want my collection to grow so I can play a large variety of army types. And then I branch out into different factions to try the types my chosen cannot do. I went from one, maybe two lists in Warmachine to six competitive builds in Legion, two in Trolls, and owning nearly the entire faction of Cryx including almost max FA on banes.
I'd say appealing to collectors is a poor choice since gamers will buy models above and beyond simple shelf ornaments to have a multitude of viable options to tailor lists to there whim.
As a casual gamer (2-4 nights a month) and fanatical collector/hobbyist (25-31 nights a month), I would disagree. I buy almost every single new release from for 40k, and more than half the PP new releases, the odd WHFB model, everything for Infinity as a collector, but paint a fraction of those models. I play with an even smaller fraction. Even though I have 20 finished Retribution models and 40 Circle models, neither is not a cohesive army; it's just the models I think are cool (which ends up being a lot of warjacks). Most of what I buy stays brand new on the sprue (maybe a bit gets stolen here or there), because I'm only capable of painting about $300 of models a month, but spend three times that... or more. Some people ask why I buy all that stuff, and it's really pretty easy -- It's like a library... when I feel like modelling something, I can just do it. Also, when I do use up a kit (or even when I use a key part that I bit really like), I buy another to stock on my shelf so that if I want that <insert part> I'll have it within reach.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/07 18:22:07
2015/04/07 18:31:46
Subject: Complaining about codices in a stand-alone context, 3 viable codices in the entire game?
I would say you're an exception to the rule. Do you also buy thirty Bane Knights? Forty McThralls? How about eight Griffons for Ret? Or thirty Mage hunter strike force? Seven units of Runeshapers?
The same with 40k in six or more Flyrants or the Imperial Knights or elventy billion wave serpents. The collector would buy one, two of this an that. A committed gamer will buy as many as he can fit in a list and typically have multiple lists for variety sake and adaptation.
I'm sure there are spend heavy collectors. But having a purpose beyond simply a dopamine rush of spending money will drive more people to purchase. It's why this new "collectors driven" GW continues to see declining financial statements. Gamers make the money.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/07 18:33:18
Shine on, Kaldor Dayglow!
Not Ken Lobb
2015/04/07 18:42:48
Subject: Re:Complaining about codices in a stand-alone context, 3 viable codices in the entire game?
Another thing to keep in mind guys, those dusty Tac Marines and Terminators can be sold second-hand to new players. GW makes no margin on that transaction except for updated rules and codexes.
It's somewhat in their favor to keep the best units relatively new so they can keep producing and moving new stock.
Anyways it all gets very complicated, but the easiest solution to avoid the bullsh*t is still to play with friends and a ruleset/format that you can enjoy.
2015/04/07 18:47:30
Subject: Complaining about codices in a stand-alone context, 3 viable codices in the entire game?
TheKbob wrote: Bringing up Warmachine without properly addressing the context is asinine, as in the example software Runic et al. The game is designed, ground up, with the competitive context in mind.
And yet it is always treated as a fine example of a game where every kind of army you throw together can win, when infact a competent list will get crushed against the proper counter.
And why is this so offtopic? The topic was about judging codices on a mono level in a game inwhich the time of mono codices is ancient history, and complaining that a unit is bad when someone else makes it work just fine, and in a tougher enviroment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yoyoyo wrote: You guys are going down a rabbit hole because game balance is not uniquely about units. As Martel said, "many game systems break down when optimizing players start doing their thing". Most online competitive games need to track performance closely and implement both flash and scheduled balance tweaks. GW won't have the same digital statistics available to track performance, 40k doesn't produce the same volume of games to create a sample size, the game is not oriented towards the competitive scene, codexes are released as one-shot deals entirely out of sequence rather than being updated holistically, there's no standardized boards to use as a baseline, etc.
Yes, GW could do better. But you're not ever going to reach an e-sports level of competition as a tabletop game and I'd question why even bother. There is already a functioning competitive scene that's (dare I say) well-managed. You can already put up or shut up if you want to play competitively. Top players are throwing curveballs with outsider units like Lictors and Scouts. Those models still regarded as "extraneous" even when they make up 700-ish points of an 1850 list. RunicFN is right when he said most players don't get it. 99% of us are casuals, and our issues are within the casual scene. Go lurk in the tournament subforum if you want to debate this, nobody there is too worried about Decurion. To make the point even more academic where every unit becomes "competitively" viable, GW needs to change the way they publish. They would also have to change their focus, from putting out new models like Skitarii and popular new rulesets like Detachments. Do you see this happening? Hell no. Do you see players buying these? Hell yes.
Anyway, winners adapt and overcome, losers complain and accomplish nothing. You want to play in the current 40k meta? Suck it up. TO's already are changing what they want to. Example? Two-source armies aren't a GW rule. Limited rerolls, invisibility nerfs, etc. It's been customized already. You don't want to play in the current 40k meta? Well, adapt and overcome by making some friends, changing what you want to, and ensure you get the best out of your experience as possible. Dota started off as a fun custom game for Warcraft 3 that "competitive players" dissed, and ended up outliving it's parent. There's absolutely nothing wrong with innovation or doing your own thing. Maybe your "classic" 40k format ends up more popular than the vanilla ruleset. If your ego is keeping you shackled to one negative game experience after another... well, maybe stop? I personally am not going to cry all over my keyboard like some spoiled toddler because GW didn't write the rules I wanted. I will either tailor games with a buddy like my brother since we both know it's only for fun, or I simply walk away if I'm not having fun and not metaphorically throw good money after bad. Life is short and time is valuable. I am certainly not going to bash my head against a brick wall like a dumbass and then blame GW for it.
Your game experience is ultimately going to be decided by the kind of people you play with. This basic fact is not getting enough attention in this thread. /rant
Couldn't have articulated that better. Suck it up. I like that. The game is what it is right now and will probably be for the long future.
Either accept it, or don't. Everything inbetween is your face, and a concrete wall as I mentioned before, so why make things hard for yourself. Why linger in the limbo. That is the most useless choice.
I think this "suck is up, scrub" mentality is really, really bad for the community. 40k is ever looking more like an elite club with a (decreasing) community that spends their time looking pridefully at their game (not that different than the yes-men working at GW) and sneering at the other gamers as inferior. All this will do is drive players faster away from a game that is suffering from its owners employing TSLR tactics to the sales of 40k. Look at WHFB- it used to be a huge, thriving game and is now reduced to being re-born into something entirely different (and whose future is definitely questionable).
I suppose this doesn't matter too much for those telling others to suck it up; they can just keep playing with their particular groups, but 40k as a whole isn't doing any better for it. Things have changed quite significantly since the days when 5th was around and 40k was becoming a more ubiquitous concept to peoples outside the TT gaming community. I'm personally not a fan of the hobby moving back into obscurity.
2015/04/07 19:02:39
Subject: Complaining about codices in a stand-alone context, 3 viable codices in the entire game?
It's easy to say "suck it up scrub" if you're in the same situation that GW designers seem to be in: That is you play with a close-knit group that generally has the same members consistently and where you can add/remove rules to your liking and have a gentleman's agreement to not spam units or bring FW units without advance notice and where most of your games are long drawn out brisk affairs where you laugh and joke and take breaks to have dinner or a pint or a cup of tea.
For everybody else though, the game breaks down the minute you show up to "miniatures night" at the shop and play against someone who doesn't adhere to your house rules (maybe because they aren't aware of it) or wants to play something that you don't like. Then immediately there's a disagreement and it's likely neither person is going to have fun at the end.
That's not how a healthy game should be. It shouldn't be a game where you can only enjoy it if you play it in a specific way. The selling point of 40k for the longest time used to be that it was ubiquitous; you could go to any game shop that had a 40k community and get a pick up game against someone new. That was the original appeal of 40k compared to say historical gaming where there's dozens (if not hundreds!) of rules and homebrew game systems out there and each club might have their own preference or even use their own entire system if they've been around long enough; 40k's main selling point was that you got everything from one company and you could play the same rules and same figures in a multitude of locations without being tied to a specific gaming group.
I don't think that statement is true anymore. 40k more and more has gone back to the old "gaming club" style mentality where different groups have their own ways of playing, so it's no longer a ubiquitous set of rules that you can use anywhere.
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2015/04/07 19:43:01
Subject: Complaining about codices in a stand-alone context, 3 viable codices in the entire game?
MWHistorian wrote: "Suck it up or leave" they say as GW's finances go down and down.
This - people can argue that 40k "is what it is" all they want, but the fact of the matter is, at the end of the day, GW is bleeding income and the only way they've been able to appease shareholders is by raising prices. This is NOT a viable long-term strategy, even given a community that has a great deal of disposable income.
I don't know that a better rules set would save GW. I do, however, know that producing molds for models is very expensive, while producing rules can be very cost-efficient depending on the medium. I'd happily go a year without a new model release if it meant getting a full rules overhaul. Hell, I might even buy models from GW again instead of relying primarily on [things we can't discuss] and 3rd party minis.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/07 19:55:45
MWHistorian wrote: "Suck it up or leave" they say as GW's finances go down and down.
This - people can argue that 40k "is what it is" all they want, but the fact of the matter is, at the end of the day, GW is bleeding income and the only way they've been able to appease shareholders is by raising prices. This is NOT a viable long-term strategy, even given a community that has a great deal of disposable income.
I don't know that a better rules set would save GW. I do, however, know that producing molds for models is very expensive, while producing rules can be very cost-efficient depending on the medium. I'd happily go a year without a new model release if it meant getting a full rules overhaul. Hell, I might even buy models from GW again instead of relying primarily on [things we can't discuss] and 3rd party minis.
Yeah good luck. GW isn't a game company remember? They'd never in a million years take a year to write a proper set of rules and not sell new big shiny nonsense to hordes of GWombies every week+
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2015/04/08 13:07:39
Subject: Complaining about codices in a stand-alone context, 3 viable codices in the entire game?
RunicFIN wrote: I disagree about the focus being lost on gaming, as I don't draw conclusions from a single official statement made by someone who is heavily business oriented and most likely not very well in touch with the game design department of the big company that is Games Workshop.
Thier first sentance speaks volumes, nothing about thier games or game design as part of thier profit model.
They only mention they make the best, high quality models and miniatures. several times they point that out.
They mention 'thier games' twice. In one sentance they define the true function of thier hobby centers, which are for recruitment not sales. The other sentance states the games are a 'key part', but they never state they make or design them. Nor is thier any mention on quality of the games they make.
So, I agree with Tigramans and apparently GW themselves, the focus on gaming is lost, it is a part but alas that is it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/08 13:42:23
22 yrs in the hobby
:Eldar: 10K+ pts, 2500 pts
1850 pts
Vampire Counts 4000+
Ahriman + 1 TSons squad: Painting in progress. Will gift them to my bro at Xmas!
2000+ Tau: Painting in progress. 
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
2500 pts
1850 pts