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.

spacelord321 wrote:

Because you can, doesn't mean you should. My fellow Tau players spamming tides is one of the situations that has people fleeing the game. They are playing within the rules but not within ettiquette.

People who pick the units that give don't give them handicaps are not insufficiently devoted to The Hobby. They're not impure. They just have knowledge of a competitive game and use that knowledge to maximize utility within the game. That's what the framework of the rules exist to do. That players like to do competitive 1-on-1 matches is something that GW has acknowledged for over thirty years now. It's why there are army lists, points values, unit categories, rules for all the weapons etc etc. It's why we no longer need game masters! Those who want GW to write balanced rules that properly express the character of each faction aren't some sinister lot, they're people with an understanding of game design. They know and respect good design when they see it and aren't prepared to waste money and time on bad design.

A rules system that allows one player to build a fluffy list filled with units they just wanted to paint and one player to cram as much specialised power out of 1500 points as is possible and still have the game come down mostly to who knows how to use each unit and how to make the most out of the battlefield is vastly preferable to one where the former player gets destroyed no matter how clever they are. What's possibly even more disheartening is showing up with your favourite army filled to the brim with fluffy units that are lovingly painted and be sneered at because this edition your army happens to be the single most powerful one around. Bad balance makes people feel bad about the game. This is a terrible state for any game but catastrophic for one that relies so much on the pure style of the factions as 40K does. Investing emotionally into your models only to have it count for nothing in the actual game is something that GW should want to avoid at all costs.

Your reaction of blaming the players for the state of the game is myopic. You don't understand that the rules are the framework of the community and that well-written, balanced, clear rules make for far better ground to grow a community than a set of rules that have to be wrestled with and argued endlessly before two strangers can agree on a pick-up game.

spacelord321 wrote:


In the end, GW produces nice minis and fun rules, balance only slightly factored, and shifting in phases. They are not ruining your game, you are, when you support people who play in this fashion.

Not true. It is easier to find a game breaker player than one that is not. GW has no know this at this point => GW is the one failing.

Well, I think GW doesn't have the game designers atm able to make a balanced game out of 40k. This would require more ingenuin people to work for GW. I guess the corresponding kind of salaries will not be paid by GW.

GW have at this stage got over 100 people in their design studio. This includes various types of artists, true, but if there isn't a single game designer, GW could easily select a Dream Team from ex-GW staffers like Rick Priestly, say three of them, and give them £300,000 to write a complete update and revision of the rules in a year.

GW would need to support them with a project manager and a technical writer to get their prose into a good format, and playtesting facilities and staff..

The main problem with 40K at the moment is that it has been written to fulfil the needs of the company's management accountants, not game players.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
GW have at this stage got over 100 people in their design studio. This includes various types of artists, true, but if there isn't a single game designer, GW could easily select a Dream Team from ex-GW staffers like Rick Priestly, say three of them, and give them £300,000 to write a complete update and revision of the rules in a year.

GW would need to support them with a project manager and a technical writer to get their prose into a good format, and playtesting facilities and staff..

The main problem with 40K at the moment is that it has been written to fulfil the needs of the company's management accountants, not game players.

Explain ''to fulfill the needs of the ... accountants''.

in the end the company would have increased profits made by good rules.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
GW have at this stage got over 100 people in their design studio. This includes various types of artists, true, but if there isn't a single game designer, GW could easily select a Dream Team from ex-GW staffers like Rick Priestly, say three of them, and give them £300,000 to write a complete update and revision of the rules in a year.

GW would need to support them with a project manager and a technical writer to get their prose into a good format, and playtesting facilities and staff..

The main problem with 40K at the moment is that it has been written to fulfil the needs of the company's management accountants, not game players.

Explain ''to fulfill the needs of the ... accountants''.

For example, Apocalypse introduced giant tanks and creatures into 40K as an optional supplement. This created a new market for expensive giant model kits. Unfortunately, a significant proportion of players weren't interested in Apocalypse and failed to buy the book or the models.

Accountancy solution: Put the Apocalypse rules into the core 40K book, making them "compulsory" so that everyone starts buying Apoc kits, and increase the core rules price too.

Just... to clarify: nothing in 40k is compulsory. Don't feel like you must play a game against superheavies or anything.

To say something is 'compulsory' that once was 'optional' is to miss the entire point of 7th edition imo.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
GW have at this stage got over 100 people in their design studio. This includes various types of artists, true, but if there isn't a single game designer, GW could easily select a Dream Team from ex-GW staffers like Rick Priestly, say three of them, and give them £300,000 to write a complete update and revision of the rules in a year.

GW would need to support them with a project manager and a technical writer to get their prose into a good format, and playtesting facilities and staff..

The main problem with 40K at the moment is that it has been written to fulfil the needs of the company's management accountants, not game players.

Explain ''to fulfill the needs of the ... accountants''.

Accountants who don't know anything about the game or what we, the customers, want make decisions about what they should be selling.

For example for a while the mandatory stock my FLGS had to carry included most of the Vampire Counts line but not the core units needed for a lot of popular armies like High Elves, because whoever sad down to decide what should be mandatory stock did that in the same moth that a Vampire Counts army book was released, and saw that (that month) Vampire models were very popular. They didn't stop to think that might just be because of the new army book though.

We've given up, and most of the group has been playing since Rogue Trader. Just gave up. The washer was broke, so they tried to fix it by adding more laundry and hand grenades.

The thing I think is funny, is this is everything we were asking for. More flavor, more rules, more scenarios, let me play my Stompa in regular 40k...and it just made a mess. We got what we were asking for.

For anyone looking for a good ruleset that harkens to the days of old, try Bolt Action. Our group is loving it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Just... to clarify: nothing in 40k is compulsory. Don't feel like you must play a game against superheavies or anything.

To say something is 'compulsory' that once was 'optional' is to miss the entire point of 7th edition imo.

I don't like Apoc, Gigantics, Flyers, Fortifications, Pychics, Unbound, or Allies, and I find Formations a good idea that is seriously flawed in its execution. I'm not interested in another copy of the fluff or another copy of a bunch of pics even though they are separate from the rules. So that leaves a rulebook filled with a lot of new rules I don't like that GW are asking £50 for.

Result: I won't buy the book. I won't play the game. I won't buy any new codexes or models. Lots of other people feel the same. GW's sales drop 15%.

My point is that all these things could be included as optional supplements, not part of the core rules, making the core rules chear, and keeping people like me happy as well as keeping people who like Apoc happy too.Then GW has more customers and more sales.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Just... to clarify: nothing in 40k is compulsory. Don't feel like you must play a game against superheavies or anything.

To say something is 'compulsory' that once was 'optional' is to miss the entire point of 7th edition imo.

They're compulsory in the sense they're part of the core rules. The moment you start saying "no superheavies" or "no fortifications" you're veering into houserule territory.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
GW have at this stage got over 100 people in their design studio. This includes various types of artists, true, but if there isn't a single game designer, GW could easily select a Dream Team from ex-GW staffers like Rick Priestly, say three of them, and give them £300,000 to write a complete update and revision of the rules in a year.

I bet if they did this they'd recover those £300,000 within a year. The Hype train alone would be tremendous.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Just... to clarify: nothing in 40k is compulsory. Don't feel like you must play a game against superheavies or anything.

To say something is 'compulsory' that once was 'optional' is to miss the entire point of 7th edition imo.

While I normally agree with this concept, it feels like so much of 40k is junk that you might as well play another game.

Back in the day, a couple of my mates didn't like psykers in 40k or magic in WHFB. So we tended to just not use them all that often. Some people might say those are integral parts of the game, but somehow we managed to get by without them in around 4 out of 5 games.

But now, as KK says, it's Superheavies/GC, flyers, fortifications, allies, unbound (or even if you go "bound" the army construction rules are extremely relaxed).

It's all stuff that didn't exist a couple of editions ago but these days to play without them would actually be a pain in the arse (the number of people who build an army around an IK or WK is quite large).

I've always been one to say you should modify rules as you see fit, but there's times that's not practical and in the case of 40k you start asking yourself why you're even bothering to start with GW's rules when they're such a mess.

As someone who has played a lot of games with heavily modified army construction rules, IMO it's almost always easier to start from a core system that has a more rigid and limited structure and then add to it than it is to start with something that has no structure and barely any limits and try to dial it back.

Yeah, any time I look at getting back into the game I abandon the idea when I realize I'll probably never get enough opponents to justify the time and monetary investment because I'd probably only ever want to play casual 1k point games with half the core rules stripped out.

Fair enough. I have found that people would rather remove stuff from existing rules than add new stuff. All through 4th and 5th and some of 6th most of my superheavies never saw play, because they weren't in the core rules and were an add-on, as you say.

Now, I am happy to play without them, as always, but I have encountered less "no on principle" answers than I did in, say, 5th.

There is an absolute GLUT of codecies, campaign books with additional rules/formations, digital downloads, WD articles, and other sources.

I'd like to see a complete reboot with all of the codecies balanced against each other through points or nerfing of various OP units. Removal of super heavies, reworking MC and walker vehicles to be on par with each other. And so on.

However, that would invalidate all of the existing sources in one go.

GW, in their infinite wisdom, has decided that "Everyone can ally with everyone, so it's all fair" is the easiest way to balance 40k. For those of us that don't want to play super friends, that puts us behind the 8-ball.

Oh, well. At least I have my 30k.

Yaaassss, precious Sigismund! Yaaasssss.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Fair enough. I have found that people would rather remove stuff from existing rules than add new stuff. All through 4th and 5th and some of 6th most of my superheavies never saw play, because they weren't in the core rules and were an add-on, as you say.

Now, I am happy to play without them, as always, but I have encountered less "no on principle" answers than I did in, say, 5th.

The problem is that the game scale of 40K is suitable for small infantry actions supported by a few vehicles, and GW have at the behest of their accountants crammed all sorts of over-sized stuff into it that doesn't really fit.

There's the potential for a great game of Lords Of War, with flyers and giant fortresses, but not using 28mm scale models on a standard tabletop. It needs to be done in the garden, or else use 1/285th scale models, otherwise the board ends up looking like a supermarket carpark.

 jonolikespie wrote:
And yet mk3 Warmachine was just announced, and the stated purpose of that was that PP felt balance needed addressing. They are rebalancing EVERY UNIT IN THE GAME.

GW have never released a new edition with the purpose of addressing the problems in the last, they release new editions because they want to sell you a new book.

If they can pull off game balance I will be highly impressed -- and pleased since I like the PP concepts and models. Even just removing the 'required models to be even slightly competitive' would be a nice change.

I am impressed that they are releasing their rules online for free -- something all game companies should do IMHO. People are going to find e-copies anyway, so you might as well make the rules free and charge for the models.

I think you are selling GW a little short on their rules. They do take some look at them. If you look over the past 3 editions, there have been changes to do the following.
- Address 'stupid' parts in the rules, like beasts not being able to climb stairs
- Add apoc rules to the game (something I still don't think a good idea)
- Make the game more in line with Fantasy Battles (warp dice, challenges)
We might agree or disagree with the changes, but the editions have not just been put out to sell new books.

Considering GW do not bother with professional proof reading , or editing of the rule books.
(Resulting in stupid mistakes in the first place.)

And what ever limited play testing is carried out by studio staff.
(Resulting in horrendous balance issues.)

And the resulting mess actually appeals to the two player groups that GW finds easiest to sell to.
(Ignoring the collectors who see GW plastic models as' jewel like objects of wonder,' apparently. )

A)The super competitive crowd LOVE poorly worded rules and massive imbalance that give them auto win lists and rules lawyer heaven.

B)The martyr narrative player, who just buys the fluffiest weakest units , and says I do not play to win, winning just is not cool.I forge the narrative .

GW accountants think they have the market sewn up.Because gamers are either 'fluff bunnie', or' WAACs '.right?

Unfortunately the average person who just wants to play a fun game for a couple of hours, is left cold by the vitriol spewed by these two extreme players groups.

The loss of the' average gamers' has lead to GW plc losing over HALF of its player base for 40k in the last decade.(Based on financial reports and inside info from GW towers.)

Until GW plc realize that writing rules for average gamers , would net them more money that playing off the extreme ends of the player group against each other.

Nothing will change.

Whoever said GW's system best supports small scale infantry actions supported by a few vehicles is god damn right.

Let's not forget that the system we have today is a derivative of RT/2nd edition which was a skirmish game rather than a battle game, where unequipped Tactical Squads would cost 300 points of a game of 1000 points, on a board size very similar if not slightly smaller than we have today.

The need to sell more models blew up the size of the battles without changing the core mechanics. Result : Rules that are evolutions of the skirmish ruleset but are unfit for the current scale of the battle.

Of course, that's on top of the oblivious pricing of units and upgrades.

GreyCrow wrote:
Whoever said GW's system best supports small scale infantry actions supported by a few vehicles is god damn right.

Let's not forget that the system we have today is a derivative of RT/2nd edition which was a skirmish game rather than a battle game, where unequipped Tactical Squads would cost 300 points of a game of 1000 points, on a board size very similar if not slightly smaller than we have today.

The need to sell more models blew up the size of the battles without changing the core mechanics. Result : Rules that are evolutions of the skirmish ruleset but are unfit for the current scale of the battle.

Of course, that's on top of the oblivious pricing of units and upgrades.

This is probably pretty accurate. The currently game in just the last 3 years has basically merged with Apocolypse. So many iconic units are basically useless now because of this. They just don't fit in anymore.

I think to answer the OP question, 40k COULD be fixed by GW, it just won't be. The game needs a lot of core changes to make things work better and then following that an across the board simultaneous codex revamp.

GW would view that as a loss. It would rather keep pouring out monthly updates to keep customers coming in. They won't do faqs because they would rather you just be forced to by a whole new book. The whole thing becomes a band-aid on a band-aid on a band-aid. Then you have an occasional huge release which screws things up further.

nedTCM wrote:


This is probably pretty accurate. The currently game in just the last 3 years has basically merged with Apocolypse. So many iconic units are basically useless now because of this. They just don't fit in anymore.

I think to answer the OP question, 40k COULD be fixed by GW, it just won't be. The game needs a lot of core changes to make things work better and then following that an across the board simultaneous codex revamp.

GW would view that as a loss. It would rather keep pouring out monthly updates to keep customers coming in. They won't do faqs because they would rather you just be forced to by a whole new book. The whole thing becomes a band-aid on a band-aid on a band-aid. Then you have an occasional huge release which screws things up further.

Indeed to all your points. Rather than a core change, I would say complete write up from the basics. It's just a bloated system that makes no sense, with crazy pricing all around.

Quite a bad game

GreyCrow wrote:
Whoever said GW's system best supports small scale infantry actions supported by a few vehicles is god damn right.

Let's not forget that the system we have today is a derivative of RT/2nd edition which was a skirmish game rather than a battle game, where unequipped Tactical Squads would cost 300 points of a game of 1000 points, on a board size very similar if not slightly smaller than we have today.

The need to sell more models blew up the size of the battles without changing the core mechanics. Result : Rules that are evolutions of the skirmish ruleset but are unfit for the current scale of the battle.

Of course, that's on top of the oblivious pricing of units and upgrades.

Maybe it was just my local scene, but with 2nd edition, we NEVER played it as a small scale skirmish game. It was always 2000 point or more. Heck, I think I used more models back then in a game than I do in my games now. The way I saw it, GW was just giving fans what they were already playing by shifting the points down and expanding the battlefield.

More to the point, why does GW need to tell us what sized game we should be playing? Why does there need to be an "Apocalypse" game when the rules were the same, just expanded missions and such. I prefer the open-ended approach when ti comes to game size. If I have an entire evening, break out the reserves and go for broke. If I've got just an hour or so, go for something small, 1000 or less. I find that the sweet spot for this game is 1500 points. Less than that and some armies have a hard time being competitive. More than that and the rules bloat starts to drag the game down. You can easily get through a 1500 point game in about a couple of hours (providing both players know their army and the core rules).

I'd rather GW just streamline the various phases so that regardless of points size, the game works efficiently. Next, they need to learn how to appropriately price something, get an established formula and apply it to EVERY ARMY! It amazes me that as long as GW has been doing this, they clearly do not have a stock pricing formula for determining points cost of something. That should be the very foundation of any points-based game.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

Maybe it was just my local scene, but with 2nd edition, we NEVER played it as a small scale skirmish game. It was always 2000 point or more.

But 2000 points 2nd Edi were not really that much with some characters worth 900 points.

In 4th Edition Fantasy we were also playing 4k points each side because our generals were alons worth 1000 points (and a 3k amry list used much less models than a 8th edition 2000 point list)

In 4th Edi 40k it was similar. We were playing 2000 points but had less models on the table as today's 7th Edition 1850 points list

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

I'd rather GW just streamline the various phases so that regardless of points size, the game works efficiently. Next, they need to learn how to appropriately price something, get an established formula and apply it to EVERY ARMY! It amazes me that as long as GW has been doing this, they clearly do not have a stock pricing formula for determining points cost of something. That should be the very foundation of any points-based game.

they have one, that is why the system does not work. A game like 40k which has a lot non-linear profile values and mechanics and a lot of synergies cannot work with a formula alone.

That was the reason in the past why models had to pay a lot of points for high WS and BS without being worth them because the formula tell the designer BS 5 is worth X points. Never mind that the model does not have a ranged weapon and those points are woth nothing on the table.
the same for WS Ini etc above a specific level were you pay a lot of points without any benefit.

And than there is the AP value, which is worth nothing in points if it is 4-6 but very important if it is 1 or 2. So models pay to much points for AP5, while others get cheap AP2 weapons.
But you cannot calculate the AP value even if you change the formula because having a lot of expensive AP2 weapons is still worthless if facing an enemy whos best save is 4+ or playing on the table with a lot of cover.


so only a lot of play testing would help to get the points right but this would mean an open-beta test with regular errata to the codex books.

Looking at the way GW has changes the rules since 3rd ed.its almost like they want to use game mechanics and resolution methods that generate results that are impossible to arrive at accurate costs for.

A.O.A came up with a very good (not perfect though,) creature creation formula.(Over 10 years ago.)
At the same time lots of game companies were using mechanics and resolution methods to allow provable levels of imbalance.

GW seemed to be doubling down on 'all or nothing' rules writing. Giving the impression that their best guess is as good as it can be, so go hang if you do not like it.

The ever more randum rules , make tactical play impossible for those wanting this sort of game.

Q: "Can 40K be fixed by GW?"
A: "No".

 Talizvar wrote:

We as players could do many things but GW does litigate to preserve their IP so we may not do much until they step aside.

We can do lot and work around their IP but as long players hope that GW will do it right sometimes in the future......

 kodos wrote:
We can do lot and work around their IP but as long players hope that GW will do it right sometimes in the future......

Yes I understand that.
I started in 2nd edition so I know where that "hope springs eternal" is coming from.
It is "nice" to have an official rule set to have competitive play but we do not even have that.
Them willing to get back into tournaments has kindled far more hope than I think can be justified.
Net Epic Armageddon is an example of fan-base rules after the IP holder has abandoned their product.
I have seen some very good attempts to fix things but to try to address everything is massive.
All those new models plus the old, trying to address them all is no small task (can be done but would need a team to agree on a common outcome).

 Talizvar wrote:

All those new models plus the old, trying to address them all is no small task (can be done but would need a team to agree on a common outcome).

Yeah, finding a team that has the endurance to bring this to an end is as difficult as addressing all the problems of 40k alone.