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.

I don't think perfect balance is achievable with any game, and the larger and more complex the game is the further away from perfect balance you will be.

However, I don't think 40k is as complex as people say it is. Most of the equipment is standard (Most imperial armies have PG, Melta, Flamer, etc etc) and the xenos armies don't have nearly as many options on their units (look at eldar or dark eldar).
The game is on a 1-10 stat system, so the disparity in units is small for most armies. Most orks have a similar profile, most marines have a similar profile, etc etc (Nids being the exception but that is their whole thing).

The game where it is now, where it has 1k Sons and Gravcents in the same game, is crazy to me. The god of magic having some of the worst psykers in the game, and the worst powers, is also crazy to me.

There's too many factions in 40k tbh.

Akiasura wrote:
However, I don't think 40k is as complex as people say it is. Most of the equipment is standard (Most imperial armies have PG, Melta, Flamer, etc etc)

That assumption of standardization is actually a good example of where GW go wrong.

A meltagun on a guardsman is not worth the same points as a meltagun on a marine. The former is much more fragile and has few options to deliver him to melta range making him much less effective. Plus, a single meltagun in a squad is much less valuable than a meltagun in squad that can take three or four special weapons - this is why units that can take multiple good weapons get used far more than those that can't.

Akiasura wrote:
Just because someone has an opinion and claims to be an expert doesn't mean he's right.

Well... once again:

"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."

So, he did conduct research.... just throwing that out there. Have you?

 jonolikespie wrote:

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?

He doesn't say that, he says they make up 1% of players.

Doesn't mean they don't spend a disproportionate amount on stuff. Neither does it exclude people, such as myself, who find no enjoyment in cheese, imbalance, min/maxing or any other buzzword for things that make 40K no fun for me any more, and sent me into a 40K hibernation of sorts.

 master of ordinance wrote:

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!

Can I duck in here and recommend One Page 40k as a potential replacement ruleset?

It has exactly what you're looking for. Building restrictions for games up to 1500 points (a large game; small is 750) is 1 "Hero" unit, 2 "Special" units (any combination of Monster, Walker, and Vehicles). It feels a lot like 5th Edition.

It's actually got me building a small Tau force when I can get the miniatures at a good deal, like a box of the new Crisis suits for 50% off.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


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.

This. Actually, a solid core ruleset [by which I mean balanced units and well thought out restrictions on lists] increases the options and the scope for trying out new things, and therefore increases the fun. With Infinity I can play ITS if I want a highly tactical game with an emphasis on list building, or 20x20/YAMS if I want a bit more freedom and to take my badass TAG. Negotiation needed before the game? "Fancy trying out 20x20 at 300 points?" "OK". It also encourages me to try out different units as there are no auto-includes and pretty much everything is equally valid.

I found that with 40k there was a reluctance to deviate from what you considered the 'right way' to play as it had the potential to so heavily skew the game one way of another. I also found myself taking the same units over and over, with others sitting on the shelf collecting dust.

In my experience, a tighter ruleset increases the options for different types of games rather than decreases it, and vice-versa with a loose ruleset. YMMV.

Yoyoyo wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
Just because someone has an opinion and claims to be an expert doesn't mean he's right.

Well... once again:

"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."

So, he did conduct research.... just throwing that out there. Have you?

He never once mentions what the research entailed, when or where was it done, or really any information about it what so ever. Which I mentioned is the problem with people on the internet and using them as resources without evaluating their methodology.

But, given that standard, I have done research

Akiasura wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
Just because someone has an opinion and claims to be an expert doesn't mean he's right.

Well... once again:

"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."

So, he did conduct research.... just throwing that out there. Have you?

He never once mentions what the research entailed, when or where was it done, or really any information about it what so ever. Which I mentioned is the problem with people on the internet and using them as resources without evaluating their methodology.

But, given that standard, I have done research

While I wouldn't want to dismiss it entirely out of hand, I too find it... dubious.

A fair interpretation of what's written there could be that they had no idea about the numbers but their gut feeling said X.

Or that if they looked at the amount of people participating in GW tourneys and decided tourney players are a minority are they counting non-GW run tourneys? Are they counting the amount of tourney players who have quit the game over the years because it was not good for tourney play, but are potential customers none the less?

It just reads like someone's opinion who has worked in the industry. As a game designer, not marketing. I mean, the article is defending Age of Sigmar, so the guy probably has some kind of bias or agenda.

As someone involved in research that often involves the FDA, I am always suspicious of claims of research. The word gets thrown around a lot nowadays and doesn't mean what it once did. You have to carefully analyze how the sampling was done, what questions were asked, when did the research take place...none of these are answered here.

Without any kind of methodology, supporting information or details, the fact he did research for GW at some point is worthless. It's, at best, an appeal to authority because it backs up someone's opinion, but the standard is so incredibly low I can't take it seriously. Especially given GWs current financials, and how that reflects poorly on the non competitive 7th edition and Age of Sigmar. For all we know, the guy did his research during rogue trader or 3rd edition, and it has no bearing on the current market.

The article clearly isn't defending AoS. He's obviously dubious about many elements, but has adopted a more "wait and see" attitude than many others. If one reads between the lines, as he's clearly being politic because he's a games designer and he's making a public post about people that have been his employers and given the small pool of people in the area, may well be again one day, he's far more critical than anything, especially about the idea of abandoning the old world.

Equally, and I'm saying this again, he didn't claim 1% of GW sales were to tournament players, he said that about 1% of GW's customers were tournament players, and that the 1% were disproportionately vocal online.

I'm beginning to think I read a different article!

While he is somewhat critical of AoS, considering how many people feel about AoS, a wait and see approach is defending it. At least, imo. I have seen little defense of AoS and much vitriol. He does mention he wishes he could have designed something similar in the studio I believe, which to me is an endorsement, although backhanded.

The political mention is interesting and something I hadn't considered, but that really just makes his claims more suspect.

How do you define a tournament player? Someone who has played in 1 tournament ever? Or someone who travels and goes to many tournaments?
If the former, I have a hard time believing it's 1%. If the latter I'm not surprised it's 1%. Since he never defines the term, it's impossible to say, and using his "research" to support an opinion a dubious proposition at best, which is all I'm claiming.

What's truely worrisome is what was mentioned above: this research could easily have been a series of loaded questions to people frequenting GW stores. Given that they rarely if ever hold tournaments, it would not be surprising few people mention Going to tournaments. Then they look at sales for AoS, taking in sales for all fantasy models and the terrain and the books, and probably comparing them to sales Before end times, as most (likely biassed) estimates show that end times made fantasy sales skyrocket compared to the stagnation beforehand. At the store I frequent, for example, the fantasy section was 4-6 boxes at the start. End times made it rise up to 20 boxes maybe, with them circling out every week or too. This scaled back to maybe 10 boxes, and when AoS released the store had a 50% off sale for the day of release. After the news of how awful the system was the fantasy section has disappeared after the sale, getting no new models. The same seems to occur with factions in 40k.Eldar were the new hotness, they sold for a week, then nobody bought then again. A friend of mine plays tau, and when the release hit he got a ripetide and ghostkeel box. Now those models are beginning to vanish and aren't being restocked. Thats how a successful hype train. But then you get to the updated rules for blood angels and impguard..and it didn't sell at all. Not even the dedicated players of those armies bought, as the new rules were easily found online and took a page or two of space, and the new models were just rehashes of older models...notice how that's so similar to AoS xD

Akiasura wrote:
While he is somewhat critical of AoS, considering how many people feel about AoS, a wait and see approach is defending it. At least, imo. I have seen little defense of AoS and much vitriol. He does mention he wishes he could have designed something similar in the studio I believe, which to me is an endorsement, although backhanded.

Yes, he expressed his desire to have been able throw out the old system and start from scratch, not to have designed AoS as it stands.

The political mention is interesting and something I hadn't considered, but that really just makes his claims more suspect.

Not really, he says exactly what he intends to say, you've just got to allow for the fact that as a known "face" in the industry and assuming he wishes to keep working, overtly stating "what a bunch of gak" isn't a good idea and would actually be hugely unprofessional.

How do you define a tournament player? Someone who has played in 1 tournament ever? Or someone who travels and goes to many tournaments?
If the former, I have a hard time believing it's 1%. If the latter I'm not surprised it's 1%. Since he never defines the term, it's impossible to say, and using his "research" to support an opinion a dubious proposition at best, which is all I'm claiming.

I've honestly not got too much of an issue with that number. He also goes on to describe them as some of the most passionate, and I don't feel he's critical of them as a group, more that because GW feel they're a small number that they're not interested in them, and regardless of what % you attach to it, active tournament players almost certainly are a small minority in the context of all the home and club players, 12 year old 2 Christmas and a Birthday players, I know probably close to 2 dozen 40K players, or those who could play if they wanted, and I know only one of them who has attended tournaments in the past. If anything, I'd say he disagrees with this, as ignoring your most passionate and vocal fans is potentially damaging, especially if you rely on customer networking as a keystone of your business strategy.

Have an exalt

Exalts for the exalt throne.

2016 is MY year.

 krodarklorr wrote:
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)

You seem to be confused about the difference between "this breaks the game" and "this list doesn't follow my personal opinion of how the fluff should be". Dual Firespray lists are not even close to game-breaking. It's a mid-tier list, at best, and certainly not something that the average player is going to struggle excessively with. The fact that you don't like its fluff is irrelevant.

To be honest, though, I don't care if tournament players are only 1% of the total number. I still prefer a balanced game to one that's all over the place.

In response to the OP, you have to find a specific playgroup that wants to play the game in the same manner you do. If you like or don't like LOW/D-Weapons/Deathstar of the week, make sure that your opponents feel the same way and are willing to make lists that are on the same competitive level. Personally, I think that D-weapons and LOW were HORRIBLE additions to the game - and were made worse by the huge disparity in the power level of each army's options - so I only play if my opponent feels the same way. I don't own a LOW and I don't see myself spending that much money on a model just to keep up with the Joneses. Needless to say, I don't play very often. When I started in 2008 or so, the playgroup I joined was about 10 people and we actually added more plus there's a shop about 20 minutes from my house; now it's 2 of us and the move to 6th/7th, precipitated a good portion of that player loss. I won't even go to a shop to play anymore as I don't want to have a 1/2 hour discussion about what units and rules and detachments and blah, blah, blah before we discuss points and missions. I haven't quit, I haven't sold my models, as I haven't found a system whose models and fluff excite me as much as my Tyranids and CSM, but I also haven't touched my models since November and, where once I would have been begging someone by now for a game of 40K, I just find myself saying maybe we'll get a game sometime. It's sad, really; I used to have a passion for the game, but I feel it's gotten so out of bounds as to be ridiculous.

In the meantime, I've started playing X-Wing and I love it. I really believe this game is going to get a lot of the time I used to pour into 40K and I know a number of people that are playing the game.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I've honestly not got too much of an issue with that number.

Regardless of the accuracy of that number, I imagine he's still shedding some light on the design practices and beliefs at GW. The weird thing is that in contrast, FW is fairly responsive to emails about rules questions. I mean, isn't that potentially the same rules team? So I'd think the lack of client engagement at GW is probably top driven, though I don't understand the point of the policy. BTW Azrael, since you're obviously competent at reading between the lines here's another juicy one for you.

The greatest risk is the same one that we repeat each year, namely, management. So long as we have great people we will be fine. Problems will arise if the board allows egos and private agendas to rule. I will do my utmost to ensure that this does not happen.

Reference: http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2015-16-Press-Statement.pdf

Yeah, I'd seen it. In fact, the last two reports (his only two this far) have included little nuggets like this which seem to be tacit acknowledgment of some of the issues.

There were one or two references to value and addressing the issue of improving it in the last report IIRC.

TBH, if I'd a mind to, and considering the banners I constantly wave in the "health of GW" type threads that pop up, I could feel like he's reading my posts and answering back in the reports!

 Battlesong wrote:
In response to the OP, you have to find a specific playgroup that wants to play the game in the same manner you do. If you like or don't like LOW/D-Weapons/Deathstar of the week, make sure that your opponents feel the same way and are willing to make lists that are on the same competitive level. Personally, I think that D-weapons and LOW were HORRIBLE additions to the game - and were made worse by the huge disparity in the power level of each army's options - so I only play if my opponent feels the same way. I don't own a LOW and I don't see myself spending that much money on a model just to keep up with the Joneses. Needless to say, I don't play very often. When I started in 2008 or so, the playgroup I joined was about 10 people and we actually added more plus there's a shop about 20 minutes from my house; now it's 2 of us and the move to 6th/7th, precipitated a good portion of that player loss. I won't even go to a shop to play anymore as I don't want to have a 1/2 hour discussion about what units and rules and detachments and blah, blah, blah before we discuss points and missions. I haven't quit, I haven't sold my models, as I haven't found a system whose models and fluff excite me as much as my Tyranids and CSM, but I also haven't touched my models since November and, where once I would have been begging someone by now for a game of 40K, I just find myself saying maybe we'll get a game sometime. It's sad, really; I used to have a passion for the game, but I feel it's gotten so out of bounds as to be ridiculous.

In the meantime, I've started playing X-Wing and I love it. I really believe this game is going to get a lot of the time I used to pour into 40K and I know a number of people that are playing the game.

I remember feeling bad for taking flying demon princes at one point.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
40k is basically apocalypse now, there's nothing separating the two now, when back in the day they were VERY seperate.

You feel like you showed up to play a 1,000pt game and the other guy brought an 1850 list. It's not so much adapt as it is "looks like its time to buy a new army".

100%Agree and that's what is at the core of 40k's problems, its become apoc, a bloated terrible mess with no standards or formats.


As for the fragmentation of the 40k gaming community, when culture attempts to fill in the gaps left by poor rules or omission of rules, you quickly find any discussion of rules invariably becomes a discussion about people. Turning 40k into apoc has lead essentially to a mindset of cultural relativism, there's no right and wrong way to play, it's just 40k after all... (vomits)


The trope of the casual gamer and the competitive gamer is boring. Don't hate the player, hate the game I say.

I'm on a 40k trial separation, 30k is much more attractive, fair minded and isn't a bloated mess.

Exchanging 40k for 30k is like dating your ex-wife's younger sister.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Exchanging 40k for 30k is like dating your ex-wife's younger sister.

Younger sister with a robust physique, ability to get ready in 2 minutes flat and somehow less entitled than the ex wife. (restrictions on lords of war, force org actually being relevant). The average 7th ed game was taking like 5-8 hours to play by the end, since I've been playing 30k, games are fast, averaging 2-3 hours. It really does feel like 5th