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.

 master of ordinance wrote:
But look at te power disparity betwixt the codexes.
I can bring 2000 points of my Guard but if the other guy brings Tau or SM then he is getting a lot more for his points than I am.

But, again, it's at least roughly the same. If we agree to play a 2000 point game your 2000 points of IG are not going to be orders of magnitudes weaker than my 2000 points of Tau. You might be facing 3000 points of value, or even 4000 if the game is really badly balanced. But you won't be facing 20,000 points, or 200,000 points. And that's what can happen in AoS. If both players just dump their collections on the table you could easily have that 2000 points vs. 20,000 points game.

 master of ordinance wrote:
But look at te power disparity betwixt the codexes.
I can bring 2000 points of my Guard but if the other guy brings Tau or SM then he is getting a lot more for his points than I am.

Yeah but you are aware of the discrepency and can fix it with house ruling or self policing. Also the difference in power is marginalized so its not such a huge power gap.

In AoS their is literally no baseline to determine what power levels are what so its just random luck a match is balanced or not and how unbalanced it is can be by a much larger margin

The above is not a new problem though, and with the ramp up in releases eventually it will even out. Yes, Guard isn't in a great spot right now but you have an old book. Even the oldest books in the game are only a few years old right now though. This is worlds better than 4th or 5th when codexs might not be touched for a decade. With in a year or two at GWs current rate chance are nearly every book will probably be brought up to 7.5 status.

 Jancoran wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:


Most of us still like the models and background but can't stand the game anymore.
.

Whose "us".

I hope you mean the people in your local circle because I am pretty sure thats not how a lot of the other "us" feel.

The guy asked me why people come into the 40k general if they don't play the game and feel it's horribly broken because of GW's decisions. That's the group I was identifying with. The "vocal few".

If you'd read my earlier posts in the thread, you would know I don't have a local group, which is why I say with such commitment over and over again that the game is broken. I have been traveling constantly across the USA for 2 years. EVERY GROUP IVE MET IS DIFFERENT. Different house rules, different 'accepted' playstyles, different points limits, some even have entirely banned armies, etc. People say "oh the 7.5 codexes are balanced against each other, just wait a while an all be balanced." You know where I've heard that before? 5th and 6th, where they'd do that for a while, then randomly go back to crap codexes. Mark my words, another stinker will be out in the next few months and that light of hope will be gone again.

I also play flames of war and X Wing. You want to know how much " compromise" and discussion I had to do for getting a game of either of those in the 8 or so states I was in? Here, I'll post the longest conversation.

"Hey, want a game of X Wing?"

Other guy "yeah, I'm new though and only a few ships, is it OK if we play something lower than a 100? Say 75?"

"Sure, although you're also welcome to borrow some of mine if you'd like"

"OK, I'd like to try out X, Y and Z if you have it."

"Sure thing."

Bam, conversation was over and we were playing. Literally took a minute. Flames of war takes even less. Points are very standard based on what the world toruney uses that year, so its usually just asking what era they play.

Trust me, travel outside of your local group, or even just try out some different games. Flames of war and X Wing ain't perfect but they're a damn sight better than GW. Both actively listen to their communities and will actually admit that yes, that rule was terrible, they should fix that, like naval gunfire support in flames or Munitions in X Wing. Not to mention unified communities where I can expect the same game in Fargo ND, Denver Colorado, St George Utah, or Lexington Kentucky with no "culture shock" whatsoever. You know, signs that a ruleset isn't so crap that every community has to patch it themselves.

But there's an old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." I've posted my reasons, cited experience and evidence from a lot of traveling across the USA, and tried my best to explain my point of view. It's pretty clear that further arguing at this point is meaningless, as I'm essentially having to make the same post over and over to prove that it's not an opinion that 40k as a game is broken, its an actual fact.

I'm out. Feel free to say you "win" if you want. I'll be waiting for the "age of Roboutte" edition to break 40k even more so people will realize that 40k could be better, so much better, similar to what fantasy has going on right now and make their own fan version. FCan't be worse than 7th.

Edit: forgot to state that I couldn't wait for age of roboutte to break 40k, sounded like I thought age of sigmar was a good ruleset originally, which ain't the case.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:


Most of us still like the models and background but can't stand the game anymore.
.

Whose "us".

I hope you mean the people in your local circle because I am pretty sure thats not how a lot of the other "us" feel.

The guy asked me why people come into the 40k general if they don't play the game and feel it's horribly broken because of GW's decisions. That's the group I was identifying with. The "vocal few".

Je Suis MrMoustaffa!

"Hey, want a game of X Wing?"

Other guy "yeah, I'm new though and only a few ships, is it OK if we play something lower than a 100? Say 75?"

"Sure, although you're also welcome to borrow some of mine if you'd like"

"OK, I'd like to try out X, Y and Z if you have it."

Only in X Wing would one be able to fulfill that request literally!

I don't know how you can say there are few auto-includes.
Scatbikes, Warp Spiders, Hawks, WK, Dragons are very much auto includes in the newest eldar dex.

Stormsurge seems like an auto include, and that new formation they have is also an autoinclude.

For SM, Gladius strike force is an auto include if you have the models. Cent star is also very auto include.

Necrons, Wraiths are an auto include. You can easily say Decurion is an auto include.

Nids have FMC as auto includes.

There have always been auto includes in 40k, but let's not pretend the current dexes have amazing internal balance. They still have auto includes.

The problem is that the weaker dexes auto includes can't handle the strongest dexes auto includes.


I do not think newer dexes will fix the problem. This has been something I've heard for a long time in this game. A few dexes in a row will be roughly the same power level, everyone will claim it's a new era of balance, and then something like Cruddance's Nids will drop and destroy that idea. Heck, at the start, people were claiming that with Orks and Chaos, and look where we are at now!

We have no guarantees that any of the new codexes will be at the same power level. As someone who owns Chaos Marines, I don't expect they will ever have a good codex.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sorry, but this is just laughably wrong. 40k isn't "collaborative" because it's some ideal paragon of two players working together to build a story

Did you see that Orkingrad batrep? Or the one where the Tau were evacuating a LZ overrun by Tyranids, and VPs were awarded by how many units successfully escaped? 40k's core ruleset seems to work more or less fine in those situations, or in a more casual environment between friends where the social contract is stronger.

40k will always break down under min-maxing players. You know what they say... live by the sword, die by the sword!

You understand the difference between players collaborating and a collaborative rule set?

I can make a narrative game out of chess with a willing opponent and a good idea, that doesn't mean there's anything inherent about the rule set that encourages it.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Did you see that Orkingrad batrep? Or the one where the Tau were evacuating a LZ overrun by Tyranids, and VPs were awarded by how many units successfully escaped? 40k's core ruleset seems to work more or less fine in those situations, or in a more casual environment between friends where the social contract is stronger.

Those things aren't possible because of 40k's rules, they're happening despite 40k's rules. They would also happen the same way in a better version of 40k which is suitable for competitive tournament gaming.

40k will always break down under min-maxing players. You know what they say... live by the sword, die by the sword!

The point is that it shouldn't break down like that. It breaks down because the rules are garbage and GW's rule authors are incompetent, not because breaking down under min-maxing players is an inherent property of miniature wargames.

40k has always had their rules scattered everywhere. I remember thinking that trying to figure out the current rules to my armies was like researching a college term paper. (and this was 3rd edition!)

If your not into the things you mentioned: Super heavies, flyers, D weapons and a few other things - you don't have play with them in casual games. People playing competitively are going to bring that stuff, so just find a few people interested in your style of game. Most of my 40k games I play with one friend and we come up with a campaign, a storyline and play it out. We have a lot of fun without all that stuff you mentioned disliking.

 Peregrine wrote:
Those things aren't possible because of 40k's rules, they're happening despite 40k's rules. They would also happen the same way in a better version of 40k which is suitable for competitive tournament gaming.

So is that an admission that the ruleset isn't broken, it's just broken for "competitive tournament gaming"?

40k is not a simple and universal game like chess, or a "competitive gaming" exercise like Magic or an RTS where the developers encourage a tournament scene and monitor balance.

On GWs side I think they don't want to be associated with the vibe that extremely competitive people bring to "the hobby", so I wouldn't expect it to change either.

Yoyoyo wrote:
So is that an admission that the ruleset isn't broken, it's just broken for "competitive tournament gaming"?

No, it's broken for everything. I'm just countering this idea that a competitive version of 40k would somehow be terrible for narrative gaming.

40k is not a simple and universal game like chess, or a "competitive gaming" exercise like Magic or an RTS where the developers encourage a tournament scene and monitor balance.

You're right, it isn't. And this is a failure by GW. They could monitor balance, ensure that the rules work with no ambiguity, etc, they're just too lazy and/or incompetent to do it.

On GWs side I think they don't want to be associated with the vibe that extremely competitive people bring to "the hobby", so I wouldn't expect it to change either.

And this is one of GW's biggest failures: they've decided that they have their target market and anyone else is not welcome. Contrast this with WOTC, where the competitive market is a primary focus but there's still lots of effort dedicated to appealing to less-competitive players and everyone can enjoy the game. GW's idea of Causal At All Costs, as reinforced by certain obnoxious elements of the community, is not something that successful businesses do.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Those things aren't possible because of 40k's rules, they're happening despite 40k's rules. They would also happen the same way in a better version of 40k which is suitable for competitive tournament gaming.

So is that an admission that the ruleset isn't broken, it's just broken for "competitive tournament gaming"?

40k is not a simple and universal game like chess, or a "competitive gaming" exercise like Magic or an RTS where the developers encourage a tournament scene and monitor balance.

On GWs side I think they don't want to be associated with the vibe that extremely competitive people bring to "the hobby", so I wouldn't expect it to change either.

1) Its not broken for tournament gaming. It doesn't work as a competitive game at all however.
If anything the game works well in a WAAC tournament environment, since the really powerful combos are obvious and the only counters are the other few obscene combos. It's hard to imagine the amount of gameplay required to overcome a gladius strike force, or a MSU eldar list, or a Tau formation without the ITC ruling limiting them.
This isn't a tactically deep game where you have to stress a ton of match ups, counters, abilities, and learn skills such as movement and placement. List building, knowledge of the rules, and target priority is usually just fine.

2) 40k is a much simpler game then chess in terms of strategy. In terms of rules, it is much more complex than chess, true.

3) Gw didn't seem to have a problem with this "vibe" for a large chunk of their history. I am unsure what vibe you are referring to. Why would you want to exclude any part of the player base anyway? Is it the failing revenue?

Akiasura wrote:
Why would you want to exclude any part of the player base anyway? it the failing revenue?

I think that's a more interesting question. Maybe this helps explain? From the comments here:

http://quirkworthy.com/2015/10/04/a-few-thoughts-on-age-of-sigmar/

The numbers of people that participate in tournaments compared to the overall sales of a game makes their numbers extremely small, generally well under 1% from the examples I could find numbers for. Even assuming that you multiply this up to count people who are this competitive and don’t ever attend a tourney, it’s still a small minority. However, these are usually passionate and enthusiastic players who are more active online than the majority of casual gamers who just play round their mate’s house with a few friends.

I know this from over 30 years of gaming and working within the industry, talking to thousands of other gamers, parents and traders, having access to sales figures for a number of products, and running tournaments and other events. While I was at GW I did a project to look into the impact/noise of tournament players, and found that while it’s impossible to be entirely exact (too many fuzzy variables), and while it was probably not as much of a swing as the urban myth version, it was still true.

 master of ordinance wrote:
But look at te power disparity betwixt the codexes.
I can bring 2000 points of my Guard but if the other guy brings Tau or SM then he is getting a lot more for his points than I am.

Not true with Tau but pretty obviously you're referring to the Battle Company here and yeah: Tons of free transports is no laughing matter. It was ill advised to do. The War Convocation equally so. I'm still kind of trying to figure out what the idea was there. The old Blood Angels thing was essentially giving them the same thing if you recall only less restricted on what they could take. Maybe they figured that a "Rolling Thunder" army wouldn't be so bad if all you're delivering is Marines, but I have to say: Grav Gun hurt and you can pack an awful lot of them in there.

Compare the Space Marines Battle Company to my Adepta Sororitas. holy crap. That disparity grew big time.

Having said ALL that, i still mostly like what they've done. A couple key mistakes KEEP taking what is otherwise a fine situation and forcing the ITC to step in on a thing or two. But the players have self legislated a ot the last three years so I sort of anticipate that to continue.

 Cieged wrote:
I'm always blown away by certain posters and what they choose to say in regards to 40k. Here we are on a miniatures forum, explicitly in the 40k subdirectory, explicitly in a 40k post. Yet, somehow, some who claim to have "burnt all bridges" or "quit years ago" or "eBayed their beloved Kharn conversion for the god-send of Infinity whilst burning the Games Workshop emblem" are apparently still on the active 40k forums and - more importantly - feel the need to post.

Why do you do this? Are you so angry that you lurk in the digital shadows waiting to inform others of how crappy the game you *used* to play is? Or ... are you lying, because you do still play the game but your point is better made if you claim to have done more aggressive quitting strategies to properly demonstrate your hatred?

Playing the game or building the hobby is about fun. Somewhere between the story, the sculpts, the rules, the dice, or the players you find something fun and apparently wish to share in that discussion or fun with others online. You should pursue this dream of entertainment, spend your money and time on what you believe is worth doing. something that makes you happy.

If you're posting only to convince strangers on the internet, you should let it go. One, because it most certainly can't be fun. Unless it is and you should have that professionally addressed. Two, because of the game is as bad as you claim it is, it'll die a natural death without your 'end is neigh!' billboard. Meaning it's a waste of time, if you're right your voice won't be needed, if you're wrong your voice definitely isn't needed and could prevent others from having the fun they're pursuing.

This makes a simple and plain sense to me, which makes me wonder if those criticizing here are being fictitious.

Or, just maybe, you're looking for someone to convince you that you're wrong about 40k and it actually is a fun and interesting game. Hm. A thought.

I think you're the one forging the narrative too hard here. DakkaDakka is a forum that have many subcategories and if there's nothing new on the Infinity and News & Rumors categories, it's not really that uncommon to just browse the 40k general forum, especially when you're used to being engaged with that hobby and forum for many years. This isn't some kind of conspirancy, were people specifically target 40k forums to troll with fictional stories.

Yoyoyo wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
Why would you want to exclude any part of the player base anyway? it the failing revenue?

I think that's a more interesting question. Maybe this helps explain? From the comments here:

http://quirkworthy.com/2015/10/04/a-few-thoughts-on-age-of-sigmar/

The numbers of people that participate in tournaments compared to the overall sales of a game makes their numbers extremely small, generally well under 1% from the examples I could find numbers for. Even assuming that you multiply this up to count people who are this competitive and don’t ever attend a tourney, it’s still a small minority. However, these are usually passionate and enthusiastic players who are more active online than the majority of casual gamers who just play round their mate’s house with a few friends.

I know this from over 30 years of gaming and working within the industry, talking to thousands of other gamers, parents and traders, having access to sales figures for a number of products, and running tournaments and other events. While I was at GW I did a project to look into the impact/noise of tournament players, and found that while it’s impossible to be entirely exact (too many fuzzy variables), and while it was probably not as much of a swing as the urban myth version, it was still true.

That doesn't invalidate the idea of a ruleset designed for tournaments also being used for non-tournament games.

WRG Ancients was specifically written for the Society of Ancients competition, but it was such a good set it became the de facto standard for all ancient/mediaeval non-skirmish games.

Given that wargames are inherently competitive, and people generally like fairness in competitions, the idea that wargame rules should not make a proper attempt to be fair because not many people go to tournaments, is rather strange.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That doesn't invalidate the idea of a ruleset designed for tournaments also being used for non-tournament games.

No worries there. But if tourney players are less than 1% of the total sales, it would explain why GW isn't especially concerned about competitive balance. The company is guided by executives after all, and there is only a limited number of projects they would assign to a team at one time.

Yoyoyo wrote:
No worries there. But if tourney players are less than 1% of the total sales, it would explain why GW isn't especially concerned about competitive balance. The company is guided by executives after all, and there is only a limited number of projects they would assign to a team at one time.

Except competitive balance is good for casual/narrative/etc games as well as competitive tournaments. GW doesn't care about it because the company is run by incompetent morons, not because it's something they don't need to worry about. A better company wouldn't have this problem.

Well hey, here's your chance to convince them you're right...

http://jobs.games-workshop.com/2016/01/20/citadel-rules-writer-book-box-games-nottingham-uk/

 jonolikespie wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I think what people are missing is just how scaled up things have become in 7th. Back in 5th, I could actually win games with nothing but guardsmen and Leman Russ tanks. Not vets, infantry platoons. And we didn't have aegis lines or anything like that either (old man mode activated)

I could actually do a bayonet charge across the board with a wall of tanks behind them, and have a halfway decent chance. No, it was not the most competitive list in the world, but I always felt like I had a chance. At the very least i could bloody a n optimized list a bit before i went down. In 7th, I could have them completely fortified behind aegis lines and whatnot and lose 2/3rds of them by the end of turn 2. There's so much ignore cover, gmc's, special rules, and absolutely horribly bizarre combos that bringing normal infantry is literally pointless. I would spend more time getting my guardsmen out of the case than I would to put them back.

The game has scaled to the point where basic infantry are pointless. Who takes infantry platoons anymore? How about boyz mobs? Tactical squads? Fire warriors? Etc. Etc. It's all MC's and GMC's and invisible deathstars and jetbikes and knight titans. It's to the point where people will literally call it a "troop tax" because they don't want to use troop units.

We didn't need that in 40k, that's what APOCALYPSE was for. So you could go nuts with the crazy stuff and not completely destroy the normal game. Why GW thought it was an even remotely smart idea to introduce that stuff to a normal game is beyond me from a balance perspective. You'd have to be insane to think a Knight titan or the eldar titan thing belongs in a standard game. They're perfect for apocalypse, and if that's what they'd been advertised as, apocalypse only, I would have been fine with it. But it destroys the average game and makes the core troop units of many factions pointless. Not to mention for newbies starting out, or old vets coming back after an edition, they have very little to fight this kind of stuff.

It's just an all around bad idea and should never have happened

Basically sums up my thoughts on the topic. I'd love to play the game again at a scale where 50 guardsmen is an infantry spam list, a single land raider is an almost unkillable juggernaut, and an average list is 1 HQ, 20 or so infantry, and a vehicle or two.

Bolt Action says Hi !

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That doesn't invalidate the idea of a ruleset designed for tournaments also being used for non-tournament games.

No worries there. But if tourney players are less than 1% of the total sales, it would explain why GW isn't especially concerned about competitive balance. The company is guided by executives after all, and there is only a limited number of projects they would assign to a team at one time.

Why on earth are we assuming toruney players only make up 1% of sales?

It was.in the link I posted.

I believe it’s true.

The numbers of people that participate in tournaments compared to the overall sales of a game makes their numbers extremely small, generally well under 1% from the examples I could find numbers for. Even assuming that you multiply this up to count people who are this competitive and don’t ever attend a tourney, it’s still a small minority. However, these are usually passionate and enthusiastic players who are more active online than the majority of casual gamers who just play round their mate’s house with a few friends.

I know this from over 30 years of gaming and working within the industry, talking to thousands of other gamers, parents and traders, having access to sales figures for a number of products, and running tournaments and other events. While I was at GW I did a project to look into the impact/noise of tournament players, and found that while it’s impossible to be entirely exact (too many fuzzy variables), and while it was probably not as much of a swing as the urban myth version, it was still true.

Yoyoyo wrote:

40k will always break down under min-maxing players. You know what they say... live by the sword, die by the sword!

I mean, even balanced games can be broken from min-maxing players. Take X-wing for example. I've seen people running dual Firespray's in tournaments. That gaks on the fluff, soooo much. But they did it. I've also seen people do nothing but spam K-wings with TLT. And of course all of the "Whisper"s you see in competitive lists.

I will agree it's still harder to pull off, but no matter the game, people are going to do it. 40k is no different. (Though easier to do so)

The link where the guy states his opinion without any data to back it up? Just because someone has an opinion and claims to be an expert doesn't mean he's right. The article reads like he is defending age of sigmar, which is fine, but from every piece of evidence I've seen (stories online, personal experience, sales figures) the game was a giant flop.

GW doesn't do market research, they've stated as much, and I can't see how you would track competitive players purchases versus casual player purchases without a very intensive round of market research. You'd have to identify who are competitive tournament players and who are casual players, somehow track their purchases within a certain time frame...it'd be really difficult to do, especially for a company that doesn't do any research at all.

What we do know is that GW is currently trying to alienate competitive/tournament goers both in 40k and Fantasy. While other games are coming out of the woodwork, they also tend to appeal to more competitive gamers (or ones with less capital to spend, although it should be noted that these types of games have had a upward trend lately). Ever since that has happened, GW has experienced a falling revenue that has steadily declined.
While correlation doesn't equal causation, it's not unreasonable to extrapolate that the alienation of a certain subset of the community can be a factor. The opinion of one game designer (someone who doesn't even do market research...) doesn't invalidate anything.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

40k will always break down under min-maxing players. You know what they say... live by the sword, die by the sword!

I mean, even balanced games can be broken from min-maxing players. Take X-wing for example. I've seen people running dual Firespray's in tournaments. That gaks on the fluff, soooo much. But they did it. I've also seen people do nothing but spam K-wings with TLT. And of course all of the "Whisper"s you see in competitive lists.

I will agree it's still harder to pull off, but no matter the game, people are going to do it. 40k is no different. (Though easier to do so)

A) Have those people been sweeping those tourneys, because none of those sound like 'meta' lists to me.

B) How on earth is dual firesprays unfluffy? You know they are other pilots for it than Fett right?

Bartali wrote:

Basically sums up my thoughts on the topic. I'd love to play the game again at a scale where 50 guardsmen is an infantry spam list, a single land raider is an almost unkillable juggernaut, and an average list is 1 HQ, 20 or so infantry, and a vehicle or two.

Bolt Action says Hi !

+1 to this. Bolt Action is pretty damn amazing and most armies only have around thirty Infantry plus a few supporting teams and a tank on the table.
And tanks are bloody hard to kill unless you come prepared!

 jonolikespie wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

40k will always break down under min-maxing players. You know what they say... live by the sword, die by the sword!

I mean, even balanced games can be broken from min-maxing players. Take X-wing for example. I've seen people running dual Firespray's in tournaments. That gaks on the fluff, soooo much. But they did it. I've also seen people do nothing but spam K-wings with TLT. And of course all of the "Whisper"s you see in competitive lists.

I will agree it's still harder to pull off, but no matter the game, people are going to do it. 40k is no different. (Though easier to do so)

A) Have those people been sweeping those tourneys, because none of those sound like 'meta' lists to me.

B) How on earth is dual firesprays unfluffy? You know they are other pilots for it than Fett right?

A. You're right, I forgot to mention all the Poe Dameron's flying around. My bad.

B. Well, I would make an argument, but I remember that the EU is no longer Canon, so I guess it doesn't really matter anymore. Though seeing Boba flying with another Firespray still doesn't feel right with me.

 Peregrine wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:
No worries there. But if tourney players are less than 1% of the total sales, it would explain why GW isn't especially concerned about competitive balance. The company is guided by executives after all, and there is only a limited number of projects they would assign to a team at one time.

Except competitive balance is good for casual/narrative/etc games as well as competitive tournaments. GW doesn't care about it because the company is run by incompetent morons, not because it's something they don't need to worry about. A better company wouldn't have this problem.

Exactly, balanced and unambiguous rules benefit everyone. It doesn't matter how casually you play or how much you like to houserule - starting with clear, balanced rules makes it easier and more fun.

With that said, GW have put themselves into a difficult position. The sheer variety of unit types and the range of customization for those unit types makes achieving balance very difficult. Would the game be better if that variety and customizability was sacrificed for balance? I'm not sure that it would be. Certainly for myself, that variety is why I come back to 40K when other games start to get samey. That doesn't mean it can't be much better than it is now.

And there is no excuse for the way the rules are written. Consistent and unambiguous rules writing doesn't even appear to be a goal as far as we can tell. Refusing to issue FAQs to correct ambiguous rules is the icing on the cake (and issuing errata to fix balance issues is unthinkable apparently...)

 krodarklorr wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

40k will always break down under min-maxing players. You know what they say... live by the sword, die by the sword!

I mean, even balanced games can be broken from min-maxing players. Take X-wing for example. I've seen people running dual Firespray's in tournaments. That gaks on the fluff, soooo much. But they did it. I've also seen people do nothing but spam K-wings with TLT. And of course all of the "Whisper"s you see in competitive lists.

I will agree it's still harder to pull off, but no matter the game, people are going to do it. 40k is no different. (Though easier to do so)

A) Have those people been sweeping those tourneys, because none of those sound like 'meta' lists to me.

B) How on earth is dual firesprays unfluffy? You know they are other pilots for it than Fett right?

A. You're right, I forgot to mention all the Poe Dameron's flying around. My bad.

B. Well, I would make an argument, but I remember that the EU is no longer Canon, so I guess it doesn't really matter anymore. Though seeing Boba flying with another Firespray still doesn't feel right with me.

So.... People like Poe? Unless you can explain how he is OP and breaking the game rather than just saying people take him (of course they are, he's the one new big name character currently playable from that record smashing movie that just came out), or explain how there is anything wrong with a pair of firesprays (I can't think of a reason why Bobba wouldn't work with another bounty hunter, nor why they can't just be 2 generic pilots) then I'm sorry, but you're talking out your ass.