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.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 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.

In one way though what you are saying is actually a truism since if the new books were the same as the old books, there would not be any need for people to buy them. The key point is whether the new rules are improvements, or additions for the same of changing the book. For instance, allowing beasts to climb stairs might be a good thing, addressing a hole in the rules, but it was not necessary to put Apocalypse into the rules as the Apocalypse already existed as an optional supplement (that as you noted, lots of players didn't want.)

I think 40k is better than ever... Just bring up a couple dex's to the same power is all I want.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I think 40k is better than ever... Just bring up a couple dex's to the same power is all I want.

Why exactly do you think this?

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I think 40k is better than ever... Just bring up a couple dex's to the same power is all I want.

Better than ever? Questionable and highly subjective. Which implies the question: Does GW's Warhammer 40,000 Rules need fixing? Of course it does, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist.

More expansive and flexible than ever? Definitely.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In one way though what you are saying is actually a truism since if the new books were the same as the old books, there would not be any need for people to buy them. The key point is whether the new rules are improvements, or additions for the same of changing the book. For instance, allowing beasts to climb stairs might be a good thing, addressing a hole in the rules, but it was not necessary to put Apocalypse into the rules as the Apocalypse already existed as an optional supplement (that as you noted, lots of players didn't want.)

I freely admit that Apocalypse in base 40k irritates the crap out of me. D, stomp, or super heavies have no place in 40k IMHO.
I am sure though, that there are some people who love to have their knight armies.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In one way though what you are saying is actually a truism since if the new books were the same as the old books, there would not be any need for people to buy them. The key point is whether the new rules are improvements, or additions for the same of changing the book. For instance, allowing beasts to climb stairs might be a good thing, addressing a hole in the rules, but it was not necessary to put Apocalypse into the rules as the Apocalypse already existed as an optional supplement (that as you noted, lots of players didn't want.)

I freely admit that Apocalypse in base 40k irritates the crap out of me. D, stomp, or super heavies have no place in 40k IMHO.
I am sure though, that there are some people who love to have their knight armies.

If they were implemented well then I'd call 7th a step forwards for GW, but I daresay most people's problems with superheavies in core 40k isn't there mere existence, but the fact they were introduced poorly.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I think 40k is better than ever... Just bring up a couple dex's to the same power is all I want.

Why exactly do you think this?

So aside from the Stupid-Apocalypse rules, there are a lot of really nice advantages of the current 40k system.
- Allied armies add a lot of flavor and unique feel to armies. There are now dozens of army combinations now.
- The amount of unit combinations has skyrocked with allies. It opens up a lot more options for cool lists.
- Formations encourage fluff lists by giving power to fluff based armies. Balance is an issue in some cases, but the intent is there.
- The psychic phase engages both players, making it a more enjoyable phase than before.
- Decursion style formations are a refreshing change from the CAD formations we have seen for years. I like building decursion lists just because of the change.
- The tournament scene has banded together finally to make unified rule modifications like the ITC.

As someone who has played 40k pretty regularly since 2008, I would say it's in better shape than any other time since then. Sure, I still hate GMC's but there will always be falcons with a rerollable holofield to deal with.

 jonolikespie wrote:
If they were implemented well then I'd call 7th a step forwards for GW, but I daresay most people's problems with superheavies in core 40k isn't there mere existence, but the fact they were introduced poorly.

How were they introduced poorly?
It's all a matter of points. You can have a T8, 6 wound model with FNP and a 5++ save wielding a D sword, but that model should cost 450 or 500 points. If those models are considered 'must have' for every army that can possibly take them -- then something is wrong.

To answer the OP.

It's too late to ditch Superheavies, Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures, Flyers and the like. They are already lose and in the game. Likewisedetachments, bound, detachementsformations and allies at this point is also probably a non starter. They've already become a major part of both the competitive and casual gaming sceness.

But the above are not the problem with 7th.

The problem is the rules for so many of these things were written by an author with one hand down the front of their pants and not thoroughly vetted through rigorous play testing.

The game could be built with formations of Titans that could ally with Xenos psykers that arrive in flying transports and still be balanced and enjoyable. The rules just have to be arranged in such a way to make it happen right.

Jefffar wrote:
To answer the OP.

It's too late to ditch Superheavies, Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures, Flyers and the like. They are already lose and in the game. Likewisedetachments, bound, detachementsformations and allies at this point is also probably a non starter. They've already become a major part of both the competitive and casual gaming sceness.

But the above are not the problem with 7th.

The problem is the rules for so many of these things were written by an author with one hand down the front of their pants and not thoroughly vetted through rigorous play testing.

The game could be built with formations of Titans that could ally with Xenos psykers that arrive in flying transports and still be balanced and enjoyable. The rules just have to be arranged in such a way to make it happen right.

Which, if possible, would be infinitely harder and more complex than simply removing most of these things and playing the game like it was for most of the last 20 years, and would almost certainly still be open to wide abuse. There are just certain things that fundamentally don't balance right, especially without a singular points level game to balance around. If they're going to keep this stuff, they need to rebuild the game essentially as an RPG with a 3rd player GM setting stuff up for players the way Rogue Trader was set up.

 labmouse42 wrote:
- Formations encourage fluff lists by giving power to fluff based armies. Balance is an issue in some cases, but the intent is there.

No, they really don't encourage fluff-based lists. They encourage lists that follow GW's cookie-cutter list ideas, regardless of how that relates to your own fluff. If you start with "what is the story of my army" and pick appropriate units then you probably won't meet the formation requirements, and you'll be at a significant disadvantage compared to someone who just brings a bunch of powerful formations without caring about the fluff.

- The psychic phase engages both players, making it a more enjoyable phase than before.

It doesn't engage both players at all, unless both players have lots of psykers. If I bring my IG tank army then the psychic phase consists of me sitting around waiting for my opponent to finish doing their stuff, and maybe throwing my D6 deny dice with a 0.0000000001% chance of accomplishing anything. It's no more engaging than the rest of 40k's awful IGOUGO mechanics.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I think 40k is better than ever... Just bring up a couple dex's to the same power is all I want.

Why exactly do you think this?

So aside from the Stupid-Apocalypse rules, there are a lot of really nice advantages of the current 40k system.
- Allied armies add a lot of flavor and unique feel to armies. There are now dozens of army combinations now.

Which happen to almost exclusively be built around plugging capability gaps or taking advantage of unintended synergies rather than building fluffy armies.

- The amount of unit combinations has skyrocked with allies. It opens up a lot more options for cool lists.

Which is almost never what actually happens.

- Formations encourage fluff lists by giving power to fluff based armies. Balance is an issue in some cases, but the intent is there.

They encourage whatever GW wants to sell with that release cycle. We get just as much spam and unfluffy stuff with formations as without, it's just way more powerful with it.

- The psychic phase engages both players, making it a more enjoyable phase than before.

Only if both players are relatively evenly equipped in terms of psychic abilities. It's not particularly engaging at all for a Tau player facing off against Eldar or SM's for example.

- Decursion style formations are a refreshing change from the CAD formations we have seen for years. I like building decursion lists just because of the change.

And the fact that a non-Decurion Necron list is just about nonexistent has nothing to do with its power level...

- The tournament scene has banded together finally to make unified rule modifications like the ITC.

Not all tournaments use the ITC, and the ITC has some major issues. It's a step in the right direction, but not a huge one.

As someone who has played 40k pretty regularly since 2008, I would say it's in better shape than any other time since then. Sure, I still hate GMC's but there will always be falcons with a rerollable holofield to deal with.

2008 didn't have rerollable 2++ invul saves, basic Necron Warriors with resiliency to match Terminators or Wraith units capable of tanking more S10 firepower than a Warhound Titan, Jetbike troops units with 40 S6 shots able to reach out from across the board or D weapons on infantry, or armies that get to play with 400+ more points than their opponents "just because". The game is in *way* worse shape, then the worst you had to worry about was lots of tanks and min-maxing and maybe some Nob Biker wound allocation gimmicks. 2008 wasn't perfect, he game had gobs of major issues, but they are tiny next to what the game has to deal with today. The stuff possible today was literally the realm of internet hyperbole, the type of stuff people in 2008 would joke about on 4chan when dreaming up ridiculous stuff.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I think 40k is better than ever... Just bring up a couple dex's to the same power is all I want.

Why exactly do you think this?

So aside from the Stupid-Apocalypse rules, there are a lot of really nice advantages of the current 40k system.
- Allied armies add a lot of flavor and unique feel to armies. There are now dozens of army combinations now.

Which happen to almost exclusively be built around plugging capability gaps or taking advantage of unintended synergies rather than building fluffy armies.

I've always hated the addition of allies as core options. To me, allies is the perfect thing that players should add to a game rather than needing to be written in to the rules. If you like the fluffy aspect of allies and don't care so much about winning it's easier just to add them in yourself rather than screwing up the core balance of the game by allowing armies to get rid of deficiencies with allies. The only pass allies get is the fact codex balance is already so shocking.... but adding allies on top is like trying to put out a fire with a bucket of petrol instead of water.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
like so many other game that have so much choice, you run into the issue of its almost impossible to balance everything.

It does not have to be perfect and good balance is pretty easy to achieve with point cost adjustments.

Not with the current 40k rules.
We have options which would still be useless if they would cost 0 while others would always be taken no matter how much they cost

The point cost adjustment would have been something at the beginning of 6th Edition. Now itvis too late for that.

shiwan8 wrote:
My experience is that it's the WAAC players who do not care about the balance...which is almost every competitive player out there.

You have a very skewed and innacurate view of competitive players if that’s what you believe. There is a huge difference between ‘competitive’ and ‘WAAC’. WAAC isn’t even exclusive to the competitive circuits.

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.

So those rules, that shift in phases, and arbitrarily invalidate whole armies and play styles are not 'ruining the game' for people. Wrong.

The rules for 40k are actually quite clunky, bloated and counter-intuitive in a lot of ways. Theyre based on a rules set that is essentially for napoleonic battles. They're like the proverbial space hulk. Ancient, cobbled together and with decades of ad-hoc add ons, bodges, with no thought towards consequence or direction. Oh, and then there's the gene stealers running around causing all sorts of mayhem. I would neither call the rules for 40k ‘fun’, nor make the claim that they are not ruining the game. At the very best, in my opinion, they get in the way.

That said, gw's lotr rules set is surprisingly refreshing (once you avoid the movie characters!) and intuitive. It never got the appreciation it deserves in my mind.

spacelord321 wrote:
Competative players are ruining your game and recreating it in their image, not GWs. If you want it to stay casual, stand up and call out munchkin gamers.

Define ‘casual’?

Its not zero/sum spacelord. Its not a case of its either the filthy competitive crowd, or GW. Both have a hand in this mess. I’ll agree with you in that gamers very often do not help themselves, and that there is a lot they could do. But a lot of it boils down to trying to avoid the mines whilst picking up various pieces that don't have jagged edges and trying to cobble them together into something that resembles 'functionality'. I'm all for a pro-active, and even a co-operative approach, especially with gw games (as its really the only way any more of getting anything positive out of them) but there is a very valid argument out there that the players shouldn't need to have to do anything of this in the first place - jumping through hoops just to play a game is not necessarily a good thing.There shouldn't be the mine fields that they need to step around, there shouldn't be all the jagged pieces, and areas ripe for exploitation in the first place. and they shouldn't have to deal with poorly implemented rules, design choices and game directions. In other words, them doing this is nothing more than 'making the best of a bad situation'. The situation should never have been this bad. GW should not be producing rules/games that are so obviously open to abuse. They do themselves no favours by producing a product that has so many jagged edges.

Its not so much ‘competiitve gamers’ that are the problem, nor are munchkin gamers synonymous with competitive gamers either (often munchkins can be casual at all costs scrubs) – in better balanced games that are more suited to competitive play (warmachine/hordes, infinity etc), what you so often see as issues in 40k, and what you often see laid at the feet of the filthy competitives simply do not come up. It does suggest that the rules set produced by the company and any faults therein has a lot of relevance to any issues that arise, in that it can exacerbate, magnify and multiply any negative effects and these would not exist to anywhere near that level if the game itself was more structurally sound – like I said earlier – GW are also to blame for its jagged edges ,since they’re the ones who build them in and send them out into the world that way.

spacelord321 wrote:
As I said the meta shifts. It'll come back around. I feel assault is the next direction GW will go to drive sales, and us shooy armies will be the ones crying.

And its neither fair nor fun to be on the receiving end of a meta shift for years at a time, or to swing the nerf bat against such huge sections of the game. Sadly, its what GW does – theyre interested in ‘changes’ and not ‘improvements’. Those assault armies that have suffered in sixth and seventh have done so for 5+ years. Is it really fair to expect players to wait that long before their play style becomes viable, and that when it does, it becomes viable at the expense of someone else’s fun? It's not unfair to ask for viability and variety now. It is unfair to expect people to suck it up for years at a time with cynical edition shifts that have no intention of making a better game. There is a big difference between ‘perfect imbalance’ or circular balance, which you seen in WMH and so on, and the massive inequalities that litter 40k.

@Kodos.
Totally agree with you on this point.

So to fix 40k I believe we need to revert back to 4th/5th edition size game.And put the big toys in an expansion like Apoc.
(So they can be used by people that want to play with them,And are not forced on new players learning the game...)

And then write rules specifically for this game play .(Modern rules for a company level battle game, focusing on detailed unit interaction.)

Does anyone think 40k is still a skirmish game with 100s of models a side?

 Vaktathi wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
To answer the OP.

It's too late to ditch Superheavies, Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures, Flyers and the like. They are already lose and in the game. Likewisedetachments, bound, detachementsformations and allies at this point is also probably a non starter. They've already become a major part of both the competitive and casual gaming sceness.

But the above are not the problem with 7th.

The problem is the rules for so many of these things were written by an author with one hand down the front of their pants and not thoroughly vetted through rigorous play testing.

The game could be built with formations of Titans that could ally with Xenos psykers that arrive in flying transports and still be balanced and enjoyable. The rules just have to be arranged in such a way to make it happen right.

Which, if possible, would be infinitely harder and more complex than simply removing most of these things and playing the game like it was for most of the last 20 years, and would almost certainly still be open to wide abuse. There are just certain things that fundamentally don't balance right, especially without a singular points level game to balance around. If they're going to keep this stuff, they need to rebuild the game essentially as an RPG with a 3rd player GM setting stuff up for players the way Rogue Trader was set up.

But doing away with them simply won't work at this point. If they'd never been introduced to the mainstream game, their rules issues wouldn't matter. But now they are here and are too popular to go anywhere (if they weren't, GW wouldn't be cranking them out as fast as they can). So instead of turning the financial and emotional investments of a large portion of the potential player pool into complete wastes, we need the rules around those things, to be done right.

The rules issues aren't just with the flyers, superheavies, etc. It's also with a lot of basic units in the game. 'De-escalating' 40k would do nothing about a lot of the cheese in all armies (Eldar would still have Scatbike spam, SM would still have invisible deathstars, Tau would still have Riptides, etc). The game is going to need to be re-written anyway to get these right, so doing the super stuff right at the same time is no major increase in effort.

If I were to include superheavies in normal-scale 40K it would be as special objectives for tightly balanced missions. I'm highly doubtful that you can just let Baneblades romp around in a squad-based skirmish game.

So, obviously, if I were to rewrite the rules the first batch wouldn't include them. They would be slowly added to the game through special missions. Players should absolutely be able to eventually use their large models but not without a scenario or a return to the alternative Apocalypse mode (which should prove more popular now that people actually have models for it!).

Rosebuddy wrote:
I'm highly doubtful that you can just let Baneblades romp around in a squad-based skirmish game.

Why not? A squadron of LRBTs has similar firepower and durability for around the same point cost. Baneblades aren't the issue, nor are LoW in general. The problem is a small number of specific LoW units with obviously overpowered rules.

At large, this thread seems to not be for me, so i apologize if you consider me to be unworthy of participating in it (there seems to be a weird animosity against casual players when it comes to this topic, i guess we just don't belong to the wargaming elite or something). Though I can't resist on butting in because I love 40K and seeing what happened to fantasy I'm worried about similar troll-flips for 40K. Also, some seem to overlook certain oddities in the GW business model and just wanting to explain it with that GW is "run by morons, for morons".

In general I don't really buy the better rules as a selling point of models. On closer look they don't really make much sense at all. GW should be able to make much enough money by just re-releases and new products that fall in line with the old ones. It even seems like a smarter business model when thinking about the money they loose by having products standing on shelves and molds not used to the max when older models are replaced by newer rules wise better ones which are then favored at the cost of the old stock. This just doesn't make sense from a business stand point.

Thought there is one group of players that GW benefits from by making better rules for new units. The competitive players. So essentially, those of you who feel a need to always have the best units, and rush to buy them, are the people who are the main supporters of this utterly bizarre business model.

As for what might fix it. Well, i am leaning as suggested on a third party rule set dedicated to tournament play.

 Meos wrote:
(there seems to be a weird animosity against casual players when it comes to this topic, i guess we just don't belong to the wargaming elite or something).

Not at all, I think there's a misunderstanding of what "casual" means.

I'd personally say most competitive players ARE casual players. Tourny players are a whole separate group, but in my observation people who give 0 feths about competitiveness are a rarity even among casuals.

There's a sliding scale of how much people care about different things, rarely does a person fall entirely in to one category or another. I couldn't care less about tournament play, I've played a couple of tournaments in my 20 year gaming history and don't really intend to play any more.

The main thing I care about is being able to take the armies and units I want without feeling like I'm hamstringing myself, within reason of course (I don't expect an army of nothing but Rhinos to compete, but it'd be nice if, for example, it'd be nice if Pyrovores didn't suck donkey balls, or if an Ork player had a fighting chance against any Eldar player who isn't actively trying to lose).

I'd most definitely call myself a casual player.... I'm easy going and don't really care if I win or lose, but I'd have to actively turn my brain off to take some units because it's so obvious they are terrible and despise the fact some rules are just so piss poorly written that you can take it one of multiple ways and since it's an abstract game it's impossible to say what was "intended".

Maybe there is some confusion to what is meant by better rules?

My definition of better rules for the game of 40k would be...
A clearly defined instructions set to play the game of 40k, that have been written focusing on game play, rather than short term sales pitch for the latest releases.
And after the rules are written they are professionally proof read and edited , to arrive at the clearest and best worded set of instructions for the intended game play.


I would like a 40 page rule book for 40k that covers ALL the game play , with clearly defined intuitive rules.(And between 10 and or 20 special rules for special abilities.)
All the units from all the factions would just be as useful because the tactical depth is increased to allow this to happen.

You know like all the other well written rule set out there that DO NOT FORCE A FALSE DICHOTOMY FLUFF VS COMPETITIVE ON THE PLAYER BASE.

Well defined rules that drive intuitive tactical game play help ALL gamers .
(That is why all the good rule sets are out growing market share, and 40k /A.O.S are loosing market share.)

@Lanrak & Meos : Indeed, GW is losing market share due to their wrong rules.

To be fair, it's no surprise Warmahordes started picking up steam as WHFB started losing traction. They want to focus on making and selling the models, fair point, and they understand that strong abilities sell more models... in the short term.

Because players might be okay to buy a unit to be on par with the new meta, but when it's recurring players start to feel that they are getting forced.

That's also due to the complete inability of GW in recent years to capitalize on its player base and create revenue stream using existing models. Companies like PP and FFG are much more involved in the tournament scene for example, and it works because their events generate cash through sales that were already made.

Because GW focuses on models, its only business incentive right now is to push the sale of more models (the formations, the new beasty units, etc).

The issue is the core business model of GW. Until that changes, 40k won't change.

Deadnight wrote:

shiwan8 wrote:
My experience is that it's the WAAC players who do not care about the balance...which is almost every competitive player out there.

You have a very skewed and innacurate view of competitive players if that’s what you believe. There is a huge difference between ‘competitive’ and ‘WAAC’. WAAC isn’t even exclusive to the competitive circuits.

Win At All Cost players do what ever they can to win, right? That's pretty much anyone who goes to tournaments and aims to win starting from list building. Cheaters get kicked so that's not something they can do but as far as social contracts and rules permit they do what ever they possibly can to win...which is exactly what competitive players do.

I play to win but do not build to win and will not try to break the game to win. This makes me a casual gamer. WAAC players will list tailor, try to break the game and do what ever they can in the actual game to win...exactly like competitive players do. This is why competitive is synonymous to WAAC at the moment.

shiwan8 wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

shiwan8 wrote:
My experience is that it's the WAAC players who do not care about the balance...which is almost every competitive player out there.

You have a very skewed and innacurate view of competitive players if that’s what you believe. There is a huge difference between ‘competitive’ and ‘WAAC’. WAAC isn’t even exclusive to the competitive circuits.

Win At All Cost players do what ever they can to win, right? That's pretty much anyone who goes to tournaments and aims to win starting from list building. Cheaters get kicked so that's not something they can do but as far as social contracts and rules permit they do what ever they possibly can to win...which is exactly what competitive players do.

I play to win but do not build to win and will not try to break the game to win. This makes me a casual gamer. WAAC players will list tailor, try to break the game and do what ever they can in the actual game to win...exactly like competitive players do. This is why competitive is synonymous to WAAC at the moment.

No they aren't synonymous. WAAC very literally does mean win at all costs. WAAC players are the cheaters, the ones who will fudge a rule for an advantage, not correct an opponent on a ruling if it benefits them, manipulate their dice and how they roll them to get desired results, enjoy stomping on inexperienced players and gloat about it.

Being a competitive player is simply wantng to play play and win because of it.

No, I have seen more WAAC players on non-tournament events than on tournaments.
Just because there are restrictions and more rules at tournaments.

But it got worse with 7th edi because only the WAAC players are interessted in this game while others play different games.

Causal gamers are not interessted to win at all, they just want to play.

So there is a third group between the Causal gamer and WAAC.
And not only for TableTops but also for boardgames and MMO's.

The bad thing is that standard 40k suits WAAC more than all other TT games out there.

Personal suggestion..

Keep 40k as it is, make it the new Apoc, perhaps streamline a few things so basic troops can get weapons upgrades cheaper or at no cost given how easily they die - just accept its a big toys game.

Then take the LotR rules and adapt them into a 40k universe skirmish game that doesn't have rules for the larger toys - this becomes the intro game

shiwan8 wrote:

Win At All Cost players do what ever they can to win, right? That's pretty much anyone who goes to tournaments and aims to win starting from list building. Cheaters get kicked so that's not something they can do but as far as social contracts and rules permit they do what ever they possibly can to win...which is exactly what competitive players do.

Nope. There is playing to win within the confines of the rules, which starts with building a good list. This does not stop you being a good bloody sport about it, and you can still play to win the game whilst still playing fair and being a decent guy to play against. Ergo not Waac.

That is NOT THE SAME as Waac. Waac is win at all costs. All. So, not about being fair, or being a good sport. It's precisely the opposite. You will see from Waac players things like blatant outright cheating, underhanded moves, subtle cheating, twisting rules to suit ones self, deliberately misremembering rules if it profers an advantage, movement 'surfing' to get those extra couple of inches, being very lazy about measurements, fast dice rolling, list tailoring, terrain tailoring, noobstalking etc. Bear in mind, the vast majority of competitive players despise this kind of play - it is a direct antithesis to the art of sportsmanship and fair play which is a hallmark of honest competition.

there is also the art of subtle and not so subtle intimidation of your opponent and doing whatever psychological tricks to throw them off their gsme - I knew a guy who would sing terrible songs at his opponent badly when it wasn't his turn, because he knew it would grate on the people he was playing against, and knock them off their game. Waac. That same guy, in a tourney game against me (which I won. With tau. Against iron warriors back in fourth. Pretty much David v Goliath). At the time. He was my mate. He counted up the vp's called it a draw and said he'd go to the to and let them know. Thinking nothing of it at the time, I said fair enough. Did the math in my head later and realised I had won on vp's and he'd blatantly lied to me, because he couldn't stand the idea of losing. So fair to say, Waac, and not my mate any more.

Waac. See the difference? Ask most competitive players would they act like this, and like me, they'll say 'no, that behaviour was disgraceful'.

So please - learn to differentiate. because tarring all the competitives as Waac is neither fair, not accurate.

shiwan8 wrote:

I play to win but do not build to win and will not try to break the game to win. This makes me a casual gamer. WAAC players will list tailor, try to break the game and do what ever they can in the actual game to win...exactly like competitive players do. This is why competitive is synonymous to WAAC at the moment.

If you 'play to win' then you are competitive. End of. 'Casual' implies a far more laid back approach, in some ways, almost not caring about the outcome.

And like I said, you are wrong. List tailoring, breaking the game and doing whatever you can to win is not 'exactly what competitive players do'. It's what Waac players do. They are not the same thing. Those things you ascribe to the filthy competitives happen in the casual circuits as well, and if my experience is anything to go by, they prefer the casual circuits for the easy pickings.

CAN it? Yes. WILL it? I doubt it. The fundamental issue is GW sees no problem with it, and seem to feel that if you do see issues, you aren't playing it right. They have peddled this "spirit of the game" horsegak for a decade or more now where there is a "right" way to play the game that involves a lot of talking with your buddies about what should/shouldn't be allowed for this game, and basically customizing every bit of the rules if needed to ensure an enjoyable game. The game itself is basically intended to be barely playable out of the box and requires that sort of "social construct" to make it playable. On top of that, the biggest issue with "spirit of the game" is it boils down to this:

We let you play the game in the way you choose, but if you play it the wrong way it's your fault for not knowing the right way. That basically sums up what "spirit of the game" means. Play the game as GW plays it, even though they make it so you can play it the way you want. You CAN take this unit, but if you do you're a bad person and not playing the game right, but we aren't going to stop you from taking it if you want. That's bullgak.

The issue is, as evident in this thread alone, is there is a hard divide, a civil war if you will, between "casual" and "competitive" because they often draw lines in the sand. One can be casual and still want to win (the competitive part), one can be competitive and not go to extremes (i.e. "WAAC" or extreme mn/maxing). In most games this is not a problem. The issue is in 40k this IS a problem because there is a gulf-sized disparity between things.

Here's a concrete example taken from my own experiences during a past consideration of starting up 40k again. I like Terminators. I love the fluff behind them, I love how they are the best of the best of their chapter, how they are truly both vanguard and bulwark of the Adeptus Astartes. And they are absolute gak in the game (or were at the time I was looking at it), for no discernible reason. Perhaps a year ago now I wanted to do an all Terminator army, with the background being that it was an elite strike team tasked with capturing some key objective in a planetary conflict (I had no idea at this point who opponents would be, so was being as generic as possible), that was so key to victory that it required the absolute best men in the chapter, i.e. the 1st company, to do it; nothing else would suffice. This idea was insanely fluffy, look awesome, and would likely lose every game because the rules are gak. Could I do a similar thing with, say, Sternguard that are actually considered good? Sure. But I wanted Terminators, not Sternguard, and simply because I wanted Terminators over Sternguard this army would be unfairly punished due to GW's lack of care.

Now, I recently considered starting Necrons. I always liked them (I quit 40k when they first got a real codex), and while I'm on the fence about the "Newcron" fluff I like them having personalities and not being just mindless killer robots. Using a random dynasty trait generator I found on 1d4chan, I made some rolls and came up with results that started to gel into a traditional, but still customizable, type of Necron dynasty and I started looking at options. In the case of Necrons, the Decurion is amazing. It's also insanely fluffy. This would be my go-to choice because I like formations, it basically spells out purchases for me to build a greater whole, and I love that. But the power level of the Decurion is off the charts, again due to GW's lack of wanting to balance the game.

Do you see the issue here? One of my ideas (the Terminator army) is fluffy and garbage. The other (very typical Necron phalanx) is fluffy and amazing. Why? That's the problem. Why should one idea be almost unplayable, and the other be so amazing that I would likely get called a WAAC competitive powergaming cheesemonger for no reason, because my army is very powerful because that's how GW made it, and I have no doubt this would happen and people would roll their eyes at me playing a Necron Decurion, despite the fact I would have my own dynasty fluff and the Decurion itself is a very fluffy, traditional type of Necron formation that represents a typical Necron army on the tabletop, which is what I want. A similar thing happened when I was looking at doing an Eldar Iyanden ghost army with all Wraiths, including a Wraithknight (IIRC it was only one). Very fluffy, and so good that it immediately gets called powergaming even when it's not abused but done in a fluffy style.

That's the biggest issue with 40k. Things like that should not exist. If GW wanted to they could fix it by having a new edition that tried to balance things in a reasonable way (i.e. no randomly picking who to do next so some codexes go years before updates) and make a set of rules that was balanced but flexible enough for true narrative games and campaigns to expand.

I don't think they ever will do it, because they see no reason to. They seem to want to put as little effort into the actual rules, to focus on the miniatures and leave the nuances of the rules to the players, which honestly would be fine other than the fact they charge an arm and a leg for the rules and codexes. If the rules were say a slim booklet that was like $15 and a codex was the same, with the fluff parts handled by Black Library, then it would not be such a huge deal. But instead they want to charge what, $85 for the rules, $50 for the Codex and then insane amounts for miniatures that you have a 50% chance of being insanely good or complete garbage (and an equal chance of switching between the two every "new" edition of the game). That's what isn't acceptable.

If I want to play a fluffy Terminator army with a background that makes sense, am I casual or competitive? If I play a fluffy Decurion that doesn't overly spam units and has a backstory, am I casual or competitive? If I play an Iyanden army with all wraith constructs because that's what Iyanden does, am I casual or competitive? If I play Saim-Hann with all Jetbikes (not all with scatter lasers) am I casual or competitive? The problem with all of these is that A) casual/competitive is a mindset. I would play to win, ergo competitive, but want to have fun and have narrative games, ergo casual. Mind = blown. Is it my fault as a player if I like Necrons and the Decurion is a normal formation for my mostly normal "Necron Raider" dynasty? Should I not play it just because it's too good, even if it makes sense? What about the Terminators. Should I not play that because it sucks? The problem with this argument is it usually boils down to it's okay to play something that sucks if it's fluffy, but not to play something that's too good if it's fluffy, and that's not right. An all-Terminator army is fine because it's underpowered. A fluffy Decurion or Jetbike host or Gladius Strike Force (which come on is as generic as it freaking gets, it's a Demi Battle Company, the most fluffy way to play Space Marines!) is bad because it's strong. So it increases the divide because it makes the pro-casual argument seem like sour grapes.

So TL;DR Yes it can be fixed, but that would require having GW care about fixing it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

GW can fix the game, but they need to identify what is wrong with it and address various different ideas about what it should be -- competitive or casual -- tight or sprawling --- skirmish or mass battle. They need ideally to square these various circles in order not to drive away a significant chunk of players who lean towards one or other end of the spectrum.

I thin this can be done by reorganising the rules into a small level skirmish game, a medium size competitive game, and a big battle game, which share a common core of rules that is expanded by optional add-on books.

This is the biggest problem, IMO. In their never ending quest to SELL MORE MODELS! they have completely lost sight of what they even want the game to be. A points system, true line of sight and the mission structures make it a competitive game. The gaping holes in the rules and randomness everywhere make it more of a casual game. Things like challenges and wound allocation make it a skirmish game. The amount of models needed to play and combat resolution make it a mass battle game. They've tried to do everything at once with this ruleset and just ended up doing it all poorly. There are better beer and pretzel games out there. There are better skirmish games, narrative games, pick up games, etc. You can say what you want about the balance in WMH, X wing, Infinity, etc, but how many of those companies have said "We don't care about the quality of the rules, if you do, you're playing our game wrong"? As far as I can remember, GW is the only company in the history of TTWG to basically tell their customers they don't give a feth about tight, balanced rules.