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.

The issue is people disagree about what balance is. A year or three ago someone from GW suggested somewhere they would like to make the game more rock/paper/scissors. The community jumped all over them as if this was the worst idea in the world.

The thing is this PP do this and it sort of works. Every faction can (to a degree) ARM skew or DEF skew and various other types of skew. At the same time however everyone gets tools in their faction to counter this. If a faction is struggling PP release a new unit which they hope will help them out. Its not perfect but they try.

In 40k you don't have this. Balance is far softer and as a result rather than units having niches you just have good units and bad units. Eldar maybe have good units and better units. Because the bad units are objectively bad you should never see them in a competitive game and to be honest you don't.

The result of this is that each Codex has its tournament list - or variations on a theme. They then fight each other and some counter each other and some don't.

Lets say your friend plays Eldar. You know he is going to have Warp Spiders, Scatter Bikes & a Wraithknight or two. He has played the same list every week since the new codex dropped. What is the counter pick for say Tyranids, Orks or CSM? There isn't one. There are better and worse options - but these are probably better or worse vs everything you will ever face.

A no point would someone go "well since they are playing X I guess I will ditch they Flyrants and other FMC and instead bring along some Genestealers". You wouldn't do this because Genestealers are a bad unit and will be a bad unit until GW fundamentally changes their rules.

The problem is in 40k if there was a counter pick to Warp Spiders, Scatter Bikes & Wraithknights then it would just have an "anti-Eldar" pick because it would probably handle anything else they could bring. Eldar would then be bottom tier. Which might make a change but it wouldn't be any more balanced.

Bad rules are attractive to the WAAC mind because you can pretty much interpret what you want and few have a good enough handle on the rules to challenge them on it: they live in the grey-zone.
Remember also that the WAAC player is not terribly concerned with playing within the rules so long as they can get away with what they want to do. They cheat.

Competitive players want to win but ALWAYS within the rules, even if taken to the max. They will beat you, but will not cheat.
The problem is, the "scrub" viewpoint would view them as "cheaters" for not playing to the rules as they see them ("rules as intended" or other viewpoints).

Bad rules are a good smoke screen for a cheat, bad rules are a puzzle at first for competitive players but interest wanes when the "imbalance" is figured out.
In this case, less pure tactical decisions, more mechanics left to a dice roll is terribly boring, outcome by pachinko.
BUT good players not facing much luck will crush you every time (think chess) so luck is a game developer crutch to give the "bad" players a shot taking on the knowledgeable.

You can only make so many backup plans when the dice gods fail you for the third time.
That is why the list building is so important: it is one of the few areas you get to make actual decisions (darn random warlord traits and psychic abilities!).

The other problem is GW refuses to balance at a normal nature. For instance, PP releases something for each faction (well, each full faction, sorry Cyriss/Merc/Minion players) in each game's book. None of this well this month we update Cygnar, then we update Cryx 3 months later, sorry Khador you don't get an update for 5 years but Cygnar gets updates every few months because Cygnar is the most popular faction.

That's the biggest issue. They need to release updated rules with every edition change that brings all factions in line, and then they can sure do things like their campaign packs that detail a specific conflict and then provide *additional* things for the factions involved. There's no problem with that, it's when you have like Chaos being shafted for years or what was it, Orks not having an update in 10 years before the last codex that's ridiculous, when Space Marines get updates constantly sometimes multiple updates while some factions never get so much as an update.

Balance the game first, then add OPTIONAL formations/units/etc. to represent forces in specific campaigns. I don't think anyone would have an issue with Marines getting a few variants to represent the forces that fought in particular theatres of war, it's just that Marines get a new codex/new toys every few months while other factions don't get updates for years, and when they do the power scale is all over the place.

I think formations are good, I really do, because they provide a "shopping list" of sorts. But the power level needs to be relatively close to make the game enjoyable. GW seems to never encounter this situation where someone is using one faction/formation that's bad and their opponent is using one that's good, and the game is just a one-sided massacre for the good player. Either they do see that and don't care or don't see it for whatever reason (in fact I recall them stating that for WD batreps they would often restart and fight the battle again if the first time it went lopsided).

As has been stated in the past, a good, balanced ruleset hurts no one. I'm not entirely sure where the "casual, fluffy players don't need rules" and/or "competitive players like to game a broken system" stuff comes from. What I do know is that I'm no longer interested in having a pre-game negotiation with some rando about the type of game we want to have. I don't want to have to ask him to dial his list back because I brought pure Deathwing and he brought max-grav, drop-podding Gladius Strike Force.

TBH, as much as I may dislike the guy who takes full advantage of the rules and his codex, I can't say he's wrong for doing so. It's just sad that in trying to cater to everyone in their rules-writing, GW has in fact done the opposite: their rules appeal to a smaller and smaller subset of wargamers.

The first action GW should take if they decide they want to make a decent set of rules is a promise to dismiss any thought of the previous 30 year old Priestley, Johnson et al love in, think alike, gak fest RPG lite rules.

The narrative and cooperative game play element has long been a crutch that enables sloppy and inconsistent writing. The sales and marketing behmoth of these shinies is guilty of letting the design team stagnate as they want to sell as much plastic as possible - They probably don't understand that broken rules interactions may actually prevent sales.

It bears repeating, and I will do so, here. Casual and beer and pretzel gamers benefit the most from a rule set where basic interactions, are understandable, legible and sensible.
Fluffy gamers benefit too as rules which are concise and clear for everyone means that there can be more scope for building a campaign or fighting an asymmetric battle.

The fun for all concerned is that, in a game of winners and loosers, a ruleset where there are very few loopholes and very limited interpretation of loopholes in a system which has dedicated staff who can rule on such issues and errata or add changes to later editions of said rules can not be used as a crutch or a stick to beat your opponent with. Win or loose the rules are neutral.

 the_Armyman wrote:
As has been stated in the past, a good, balanced ruleset hurts no one. I'm not entirely sure where the "casual, fluffy players don't need rules" and/or "competitive players like to game a broken system" stuff comes from. What I do know is that I'm no longer interested in having a pre-game negotiation with some rando about the type of game we want to have. I don't want to have to ask him to dial his list back because I brought pure Deathwing and he brought max-grav, drop-podding Gladius Strike Force.

TBH, as much as I may dislike the guy who takes full advantage of the rules and his codex, I can't say he's wrong for doing so. It's just sad that in trying to cater to everyone in their rules-writing, GW has in fact done the opposite: their rules appeal to a smaller and smaller subset of wargamers.

Inadvertently this is another issue. For instance, a Gladius Strike Force is fluffy at its core: it's a Battle Demi-Company, doesn't get much more fluffy than that. But, I think even within that there are levels. For instance, max-grav drop-podding pushes it to the level of cheesy, because it's taking the "best" options for the sake of being the best options, while a truly "take all comers" Demi-Company would likely not max out on particular weapon type but have one squad for close quarters, one for tank hunting, one for rapid response to anything, etc. (which also brings up another point, IS it fluffy for Marines to tailor their force? They would have to know, for example, that they are assaulting let's say an Ork stronghold and make sure to equip weapons that can best deal with Orks). Which again boils down to rules that try to cater to everyone and caters to nobody as a result. There's nothing stopping you from taking all Grav weapons and all drop pods, and can be argued as fluffy (see above justification about Marines knowing their opponent). It's the fault of the rules that a max-grav drop-podding Gladius Strike Force is insanely overpowered, not the person who takes it.

The issue between competitive and casual has always been the fact that, in GW's own words from ages ago, someone who picks the "best" options simply because they are the best options is the min/maxer cheesy beardy WAAC powergamer (insert your word of choice) because they are knowingly picking the better options in favor of the not-as-good options, based only on effectiveness and not the feel or tone of the army. Here's a concrete example:

The Fire Angels chapter is noted for the following in their tactical doctrine:

The Chapter prefers to largely rely on rigid and proven strategic doctrines within the Chapter as to the arming of their forces from which they seldom deviate save in unusual circumstances. Examples of this standard panoply include a focus on regularly arming their Tactical squads with heavy bolters for fire support and melta weapons for close range anti-armour capability, while flamers see extensive use by their assault formations as a preferred anti-personnel weapon.

Ergo, it's against the "spirit of the game" to play a Fire Angels force and max out on grav weapons, while fluffy would be having Tac Squads with heavy bolter/meltagun as per the established canonical doctrine, with very little or no deviation. Having a small handful is acceptable (but again where is the line drawn? In a chapter of 1,000 Marines, how many is enough? Clearly the chapter has to maintain a number of grav weapons in their Armory, so whose to say the captain cannot requisition it for a specific purpose) but maxing out clearly goes against the defined fluff.

You can see the issue here. Again, it's the rules. The rules are too disparate between "good" and "bad" choices when it should largely be a matter of preference and/or fitting the theme, not the fact that grav weapons are the "most optimal" choice compared to everything else. Otherwise you run into issues like the above where it's 'cheese" to take the better option in almost all cases, even if it fits or even if it's something that realistically might be a viable choice.

Then those choices need to be codified for those chapters. And no one would play the chapter that can't get max grav. GW can't accept that people don't like losing because they said so.

 the_Armyman wrote:
As has been stated in the past, a good, balanced ruleset hurts no one. I'm not entirely sure where the "casual, fluffy players don't need rules" and/or "competitive players like to game a broken system" stuff comes from. What I do know is that I'm no longer interested in having a pre-game negotiation with some rando about the type of game we want to have. I don't want to have to ask him to dial his list back because I brought pure Deathwing and he brought max-grav, drop-podding Gladius Strike Force.

TBH, as much as I may dislike the guy who takes full advantage of the rules and his codex, I can't say he's wrong for doing so. It's just sad that in trying to cater to everyone in their rules-writing, GW has in fact done the opposite: their rules appeal to a smaller and smaller subset of wargamers.

Because many of us have to listen to complaints ad nauseam, many times about things that really are actual issues on a theoretical level only. And you know what, that constant torrent of complaints really brings one down, despite the complaints not touching your games in any way. There seems to be a hard rooted culture of whining about each and everything new that GW, only to be forgotten when the next new thing comes around. I don't like to struggle with friends who i have not played a game with in years saying they don't want to play the game because something in the current Tau meta is broken, when he is playing Space Marines and i am playing Eldar! It's ridiculous. And so you get people who counter react to that.

But yeah, you are right, a balanced game wont hurt anybody. And it is true that at large GW is doing a pretty gakky job with the rules when seen from a larger perspective and especially the perspective of people who play in more random groups. And a change to that would be most welcome to all.

 Meos wrote:

Because many of us have to listen to complaints ad nauseam, many times about things that really are actual issues on a theoretical level only. And you know what, that constant torrent of complaints really brings one down, despite the complaints not touching your games in any way. There seems to be a hard rooted culture of whining about each and everything new that GW, only to be forgotten when the next new thing comes around. I don't like to struggle with friends who i have not played a game with in years saying they don't want to play the game because something in the current Tau meta is broken, when he is playing Space Marines and i am playing Eldar! It's ridiculous. And so you get people who counter react to that.

I have to ask: how long have you played 40K? I don't ask it as a matter of assessing your worth or opinion, I just ask it to determine how much you know about the evolution of the game. How many armies have you had invalidated, retconnned, or simply made unplayable because of a new edition or codex? Orks don't have access to an invulnerable save. Deathwing can't 1st turn assault. CSMs are inexplicably inferior to their brother loyalists in nearly every way. A Leman Russ tank can't fire its main gun without forcing snapshots of all its other guns. This is just a list of arbitrary edition changes off the top of my head. There is virtually no reason why this should ever happen under a competent team of rules designers. Yet, here we sit where people who play Orks or CSMs or IG are relegated to playing a very narrow interpretation of their codex to have any hope of having an enjoyable game under the current rules.

Deathwing can come in T1 as long as you have at least 1 Dreadnought.

But the overall point is valid. GW are not good at rules.

I think that the biggest problem plaguing 40k is that while there are a lot of rules that are important and fluffy, there are also a lot of rules that have just been grandfathered in because the game is just that old. A Lot of these rules just don't make sense in the current state of the game. Ordinance seems to be one of the biggest offender of this. In 4th or 5th edition, firing a battle or demolisher cannon was a big deal, they were some of the strongest weapons (if not the strongest) pie plates in the game. So it made sense that firing them was gonna effect any other weapons you had. It was a way to balance that sheer power of it. At that time though, the scale of the game was a lot smaller, where a vindicator could wreck an enemy if it got too close, So antitank was incredibly useful and needed.

Now, Destroyer weapons are commonplace and SHV and GMC rules make it so there is no downside to using them, In this edition, Ordinance has no place besides hindering units with it. So the rule needs to modified to be be less malignant or actually a boon to have, for example maybe making Ordnance weapons TL if the vehicle has remained stationary in the movement phase. Unfortunately, you can't remove the rule, too many weapons have it as part of their profile, and if there is anything i've learned about GW, its that they can add whatever they want, but they WILL NEVER take anything out or change profiles of something once its established.

This is evident with codex releases also. If a codex misses an update during an edition, it also loses the power level and point adjustments of the edition along with whatever flavor of the month that edition entailed. I'll use CSM as my example since its what I'm the most familiar with. CSM missed its 5th edition release, but it got it's 5th edition book in the form of its 6th edition release, thus why its points, power level. and playstyle are relative to the 5th edition style of game (AKA Randomness). Yet, because they were a 5th edition book being forced into 6th, they were not designed with the 6th edition change that favored making walkers into monstrous creatures, encouraging flyers, and allies, (The only thing in the codex that was at 6th edition power level is the heldrake, so, I think it kind of got shoehorned in at the end.) So, as the later codices that were actually designed for 6th dropped, certain new units were considered monstrous creatures instead of a walker as they would of been in 5th (AKA Riptide).

When 7th dropped, it favored SHVs, GCs, and formations. Yet, besides the escalation book released near the start of the edition, The starting codexes of 7th lacked these staples. Which makes me think that Necrons were the first actual 7th edition intended release in forms of power level, formations, etc. In which the trend continued with the other books released (With obvious exceptions).CSM also has missed its 7th edition release, So, its lacking both the staples of 6th and 7th which is part of the reason it's so weak. This is also why the upcoming updated supplements don't fix anything. Sure, we get some formations, but its just like putting a bandaid on a missing limb since our entire book is designed with a 5th edition points and playstyle.

So, GW can't really balance the rules for their game partially because they don't know what edition to design around. By the time they release 8th, they now have to cater to 5th, 6th, 7th, and upcoming 8th edition armies, all with differing playstyles, points levels, and edition centric gimmicks, and somehow find a way to make them all even. Personally, I don't even think that is possible.

So the alternative is gutting the game and redesigning it from the ground up. Removing and modifying rules, reevaluating game phases, Adjusting points across the board, etc. The problem that rises is that every codex has to by updated simultaneously to make sure all the rules that no longer exist are removed and the armies are balanced around one edition. The ONLY way I see them doing that is either updating the edition and releasing a huge FAQ for every faction for free (Which I highly doubt) or including every army and variant of the armies they decide not to "squat" in the the 8th edition book release. Making it so everyone just needs to buy the 8th edition rulebook to have all the armies codexes updated. They can then later start releasing codex updates again with a singular edition in mind and models to go with them. Similar to how supplements are added now. Just with more models.

They'll eat some cost on it early with the loss of the initial codex sales but make it up by making the game more approachable to new players while also keeping in enjoyable to current players. Right now, the biggest bar to entry in this game is the complicated ruleset and the initial starting cost. After you buy the start collecting box, the codex, and rulebook, dice, and templates. You are looking at a pretty sizable monetary investment. Let alone the time investment of learning all the rules of the game. Simplifying the game and putting the codices and rulebooks together with ease some of this pain.

Also having one massive book with all the codexes helps encourage allied play, Which GW has made necessary to play the game. If you really NEED to have single army codex, make it a small paperback version added to a rulebook that you can include with start collecting boxes, similar to the one dark vengeance box had. Include some dice, templates, and a ruler to make it playable out of the box. The only barrier to entry to the game should be a single start collecting box.

Anyway, that's the only way I can see GW "fixing" the game. The problem that arises is GW has to recognize that the game is broken and be willing to take a financial hit to save their game. I just don't foresee that happening.

 the_Armyman wrote:

 Meos wrote:

Because many of us have to listen to complaints ad nauseam, many times about things that really are actual issues on a theoretical level only. And you know what, that constant torrent of complaints really brings one down, despite the complaints not touching your games in any way. There seems to be a hard rooted culture of whining about each and everything new that GW, only to be forgotten when the next new thing comes around. I don't like to struggle with friends who i have not played a game with in years saying they don't want to play the game because something in the current Tau meta is broken, when he is playing Space Marines and i am playing Eldar! It's ridiculous. And so you get people who counter react to that.

I have to ask: how long have you played 40K? I don't ask it as a matter of assessing your worth or opinion, I just ask it to determine how much you know about the evolution of the game. How many armies have you had invalidated, retconnned, or simply made unplayable because of a new edition or codex? Orks don't have access to an invulnerable save. Deathwing can't 1st turn assault. CSMs are inexplicably inferior to their brother loyalists in nearly every way. A Leman Russ tank can't fire its main gun without forcing snapshots of all its other guns. This is just a list of arbitrary edition changes off the top of my head. There is virtually no reason why this should ever happen under a competent team of rules designers. Yet, here we sit where people who play Orks or CSMs or IG are relegated to playing a very narrow interpretation of their codex to have any hope of having an enjoyable game under the current rules.

I started playing back in 3rd edition. Quit somewhere along 4th. Came back to 6th, realized the game got souped up and started liking it a lot. 7th edition, or as i like to see it as 6.5 was reached a point that i would love to see as something that stays around a bit longer. During this time i have played Eldar, Chaos, Space Marines, Grey Knights and currently have built a list for the Inquisition. I have never felt any of my armies becoming rubbish. However I do know the reason is that i don't play in any form of competitive setting and instead build armies to fit themes, then those themes do however they do against whatever my friends play. Of course i try to build well rounded forces that can do a bit of this and that but i never try to go for whatever is the best meta wise, nor do my friends, so it works. Also, when i returned to the hobby i had plenty of friends who were still playing old editions of the rules and were quite happy doing so. So what i don't see is why people don't just pick the rules they want to roll with.

I personally don't think GW will or will ever have a will to "fix" 40K simply because it is a massive game with a copious amount of exceptions compared to the rules and quite frankly there seems to be a very different view of what that "fixing" would need to be depending on who you ask. I mean, for me "fixing" would mean to erase any record of the god awful Centurions and the Space Wolf quasi Caestuses and a handful of other tacky things. Are some of the rules broken beyond repair? Certainly. Does this stop people from enjoying the game? Not really.

What i don't understand is why people don't make a community project of making a set of unofficial competition rules. It could be based on any old rules edition, use any codexes people just agree on together, could ban certain units and allow certain ones that are FW or some actual third party if the idea of running balanced competitive matches is important. Jesus guys, we live in the golden age of internet, something like that could just even be an ever evolving thing built on top of a wiki. I mean that is how EPIC and Necromunda are still alive and kicking ass.

The only issue with would be that you would still end up with people complaining about what would be unbalanced and what not, because there is good deal of people who will never be satisfied with how stuff is, especially when we talk a game with RNG.

 Meos wrote:

I started playing back in 3rd edition. Quit somewhere along 4th. Came back to 6th, realized the game got souped up and started liking it a lot. 7th edition, or as i like to see it as 6.5 was reached a point that i would love to see as something that stays around a bit longer. During this time i have played Eldar, Chaos, Space Marines, Grey Knights and currently have built a list for the Inquisition. I have never felt any of my armies becoming rubbish.

For some of us 5th was the best balanced Edition and 6th/7th was a step back which added just randomness instead of real improvements (but here we also never used the 5th edi rulebook missions and tournaments had their own mission system).

 Meos wrote:

What i don't understand is why people don't make a community project of making a set of unofficial competition rules. It could be based on any old rules edition, use any codexes people just agree on together, could ban certain units and allow certain ones that are FW or some actual third party if the idea of running balanced competitive matches is important. Jesus guys, we live in the golden age of internet, something like that could just even be an ever evolving thing built on top of a wiki. I mean that is how EPIC and Necromunda are still alive and kicking ass.

First it is not that easy any more because it would need to be done from scratch (also to avoid IP problems) and it is a lot of time consuming work to bring all fractions on the same level.

The other thing is that somehow the community wants to wait for GW to do it or start playing something else instead.

I try it from time to time to get people into such project but as soon as something new is released or GW start asking for a FAQ (or people realise that it is hard work) everything is stopped because now the official 40k will become the game they want.

The problems with community rules...

1. Getting a community consensus on what is balanced. GW's rules are so bad some things can unanimously be fixed. But a lot of things it's hard to get a consensus, even if people entirely agree something is broken and overpowered you're unlikely to get people to agree on how it should be fixed. This is why GW needs to take community suggestions, but your actual rules writing group remains small so it can be filtered in to a cohesive package.

2. Splintering the community. One of the biggest strengths of 40k is the size of the community. Being able to walk in to a game store or club anywhere and play a game. The more systems there are, the harder it becomes to find someone who wants to play your own system.

3. Time. We aren't silly, we know it takes time to balance and play test a game. It takes effort to go set up a system to collect and then go through community responses and implement them appropriately. For someone who is doing it as their full time job, it's not a big deal, I'd say it's far less stressful than most jobs, but it's still a job and doing it in your spare time you're unlikely to get good results or even finish.

4. The community isn't single minded. You aren't going to get a singular set of rules that everyone is happy with. Indeed there's already a lot of people who have modified versions of different editions that they play at home or with their own small group. Getting the whole community to agree isn't as easy, we're never going to have 1 dominant community set of rules because not everyone wants the same thing.

That's why the absolute best thing to happen would be GW just to fix their own bloody game. It's easier to get people to begrudgingly accept the things they don't like or agree with about 40k than begrudgingly accept your home grown modifications that they don't like or agree with. It's just 40k has gone so far down the hole at this point. People DO play modified versions, but you don't get large cohesive groups playing those modified versions.

I actually think the WHFB community was more flexible when it came to home grown rules for whatever reason, even though WHFB at no point in in the past 20 years has been as much of a train wreck as 40k currently is.

 Meos wrote:
What i don't understand is why people don't make a community project of making a set of unofficial competition rules. It could be based on any old rules edition, use any codexes people just agree on together, could ban certain units and allow certain ones that are FW or some actual third party if the idea of running balanced competitive matches is important. Jesus guys, we live in the golden age of internet, something like that could just even be an ever evolving thing built on top of a wiki. I mean that is how EPIC and Necromunda are still alive and kicking ass.

Two major reasons:

1) Fixing 40k would require a complete re-write of the entire system. As in literally deleting the entire 7th edition rulebook and starting over with a blank piece of paper. This would require a massive amount of work, both in coming up with a good system and thoroughly playtesting it. That's a full-time job, not a casual weekend project. And at that point you really have to ask why you're bothering with a game in the 40k IP that you will never be able to sell instead of making a game in your own IP and getting paid for it.

2) Getting the community to unify behind a single rule set is like herding cats. So every time someone comes up with a new version of 40k it never gets the critical mass required to be successful. Some people comment on it, maybe someone other than the author even plays a game with it, and then everyone gets tired of trying to persuade people to use it and says "screw it, GW's version sucks but at least everyone agrees on it".

So essentially what is said here is that the GWs game designers should be able to cater to a group that vastly disagrees on how things should be like?

This is why some of us find the whole arguing largely silly. Because for every valid concern there seems to be twenty people screaming and shouting nonsense or at least things that are largely irrelevant. Take the new psychic powers, rules that are clearly broken due to lacking clarity, but that are discussed with arguments like "now my opponent is going to field Skyshield Landing Pads and teleport his army around on them", something that will probably not end up being seen in games because when someone does that the opponent might just walk out the door and not want to play (doubt it would be funny for anyone). Then you have people jumping on that train of ridiculous thought and you end up with a royal mess instead of a discussion, which in turn spills over to hobby communities world wide and has people just being negative about stuff that doesn't really actually end up being an issue at all.

At the end it seems to fall on the fact that GW doesn't want to stay with the same base rule-set for a long enough time. Doing so would ensure that codices get to a level playing field and that people would at least have to suck up the fact that things are a certain way and you either play with it, or you play around it. Here i think they made a slight improvement with keeping 6th and 7th ed. largely as the same (save psychic phase which was a very welcome addition).

Also, thanks for letting me know a bit about 5th ed guys, I had no idea how that one used to work since i missed out on it completely.

 Meos wrote:
So essentially what is said here is that the GWs game designers should be able to cater to a group that vastly disagrees on how things should be like?

No, GW should write good rules, period. The issue is not that the community has wildly divergent demands that no single set of rules could satisfy, it's that any fan-made alternate rules are fighting an uphill battle. GW's rules, for all their flaws, are at least something everyone knows already. So when you go to your local store/club/whatever and want to play a game with your 40k models it's going to be much easier to just play a game of 40k than to try to convince your opponent that this new set of rules is worth learning and using. So the end result is that lots of people come up with better versions of 40k, but none of them get the critical mass to take over.

Take the new psychic powers, rules that are clearly broken due to lacking clarity, but that are discussed with arguments like "now my opponent is going to field Skyshield Landing Pads and teleport his army around on them", something that will probably not end up being seen in games because when someone does that the opponent might just walk out the door and not want to play (doubt it would be funny for anyone).

Sorry, but "this rule is obviously terrible, but it's ok because anyone who takes advantage of it will be shunned from the community" is not an excuse. The rule sucks, and GW's incompetence in writing it is inexcusable. It would have been trivially easy to prevent the problem from happening in the first place by writing better rules, and we should expect that from GW.

Then you have people jumping on that train of ridiculous thought and you end up with a royal mess instead of a discussion, which in turn spills over to hobby communities world wide and has people just being negative about stuff that doesn't really actually end up being an issue at all.

I strongly disagree with this. The mere fact that we have rules where doing something is entirely legal (and clearly so, not even rules lawyering) but actually doing it will get you labeled a TFG and shunned from the community is a really bad issue. It's a toxic mess that just doesn't exist in better games.

 Meos wrote:
So essentially what is said here is that the GWs game designers should be able to cater to a group that vastly disagrees on how things should be like?

I wrote a response but for some reason Dakka logged me out and I lost it.

Basically, no, if that's the point you took away, you missed the point.

People disagree on the finer points of how the game should be, that can kill a community project in its tracks. However they can agree on the larger points, so if GW fixed the larger points then the finer points being a bit out of whack would be less of a problem.

If you take an example like Scat Bikes. Everyone knows what we have is crap. But they aren't necessarily going to agree on how to fix it, and that disagreement makes community projects difficult. If GW just released something that was less crap out of the box, using one of half a dozen options that the community might have come up with, then the community may still not agree on it, but they will be able to agree that it's massively better than the junk we have now and since it forms a solid baseline for 40k players across the globe it's a far better solution.

And make no mistake, people can and do modify various editions of 40k to play in their own homes and clubs. There's just good reasons why there isn't a globally accepted set of community rules for 40k. There might be some for Epic 40k and Necromunda.... but those communities are TINY compared to 40k. I haven't seen a game of Epic played that I myself didn't organise in over a decade. I don't have much experience with Necromunda, but in the case of Epic the core rules as supplied by GW were frankly not all that bad compared to the mess that is 40k.

NVM

A homemade ruleset can be widely accepted, but people expect it to be universally accepted within days of its release

Maybe it's a side effect of the buzz mechanics of marketing right now so we expect this to be changed really quickly. The truth is that most people won't change their gaming habits because they don't have the will to do something different than what GW does, even if it means being vocal about the incompetence of the current rules writers to make a good and fun game.

I thought about it over the week end and even though it would require a complete write up (which GW isn't likely to do after the AOS flop), GW could make it happen over a year by releasing monthly rules fixes over the web.

Players would play with these new rules for a month, get the change, accept the change, then move on to the next release.

It actually wouldn't take much to make a palatable, balanced and fun core ruleset while the points issue from each Codex is being fixed :
1) Changes to the BS system to tone down the extremely powerful and illogical aspects of the shooting phase :
- 0-12" : full BS
- 12-24" : BS-1
- >24" : BS-2
- Snap shots : BS-2
- Remove Cover Saves as they re (because they favour light infantry a lot more than anything else)
- Cover : Soft Cover (intervening models, forests, etc) at -1 BS, Heavy Cover (Ruins, Fortifications) at -2 BS. Stealth and Shrouded respectively remove -1BS and -2BS
- Cover requires the model to either be 25% obscured, or the base fully in area terrain (no more dipping the toe)
- Everybody takes advantage of cover the same way (including MCs and vehicles)
- Jink is -2BS
- Go To Ground is declared like Jink, -1Bs modifier
- Modifiers are cumulative to a minimum of BS1 (unless the model already has BS0 in its base profile)
- Remove Scatter roll for Blasts : instead, the number of models below are the numbers of rolls to hit with all the modifiers (e.g. A Plasma Cannon shot covers 3 models at 23" in ruins, 3 rolls To Hit at BS-3)
- Remove Ignores Cover for Template weapons, work as described above for the Blasts (roll To Hit with modifiers to the BS)
- Heavy Weapons can fire after moving, but at -1BS penalty. Shooting prevents charging if fired. Relentless/SnP removes the -1BS penalty and allows charging if fired.
- A unit can shoot at different target for each different weapon it has (example : All Boltguns shoot the same target, Flamer can choose another one, Multi-Melta can shoot another one)
- Weapons with the Ignores Cover special rule ignore BS penalties from cover

So, while this first set of modifications would create a lot of issues with some cover specific rules for some armies (Dark Angels Ravenwing, Markerlights off the top of my mind) and would require case by case erratas, they are much more representative of the proper mechanics of shooting. I'm sure that many of you probably already have fired a weapon, and since the game scale is 1/56, 1 inch represents 56". After 112 feet (24" in game), it becomes quite hard to shoot effectively at something, especially with the chaos of the battle going on.
But it follows the general principle : the closer you are to something, the closer it is to shoot.

Right now, range doesn't matter at all when determining the effectiveness of shooting, which is an aberration. We've also have Blasts scatter 8" sideways while the bearer was only 5" away from its target, why ? Now, Blasts are interesting because you can securely hope to hit multiple targets. Obviously though, a Space Marine throwing a Plasma Cannon from down range to guys clustered in ruins will have much more trouble effectively hitting the blast compared to point blank range in the open.

2) Movement changes, because some rules are just WTFBBQ and let's cut the crap about it :
- Basic movement for infantry : 6"
- Difficult terrain : half the remaining movement
- Dangerous terrain : models moving in it take an armour save (because really, Dangerous terrain is pretty much a bloated rule as it is now).
- Run moves : 3" flat (not slowed by difficult terrain)
- Charge distance : 6" flat (-2" for difficult terrain)
- Jump Infantry : Can use its jump pack in the movement or assault phase. Increases the movement to 12" or the charge range to 12". Not slowed by difficult terrain but considers it as dangerous.
- Bikes & Jetbikes : No change (they are pretty representative of the fast moving stuff, what sets them apart from other units is the secure Turbo-Boost distance compared to the weird rolls other units have to make because reasons ?)
- Jetpacks assault move : 6" base
- Move through Cover : Model Ignores the penalties for difficult terrain

3) Non-Superheavy Vehicles rebalance, because they really need to be made not useless again :
- Targeting systems : vehicles ignores the BS penalties for range
- Vehicles can fire all of their weapons after moving combat speed. Vehicles moving at cruising speed can fire only 1 weapon at full BS plus modifiers, Snap shooting the rest.
- Fast vehicles moving at cruising speed can fire 2 weapons at full BS plus modifiers, snap shooting the rest.
- Heavy vehicles : Are not affected by weapons with the Ordnance special rule.
- A vehicle can shoot each of its different weapon types at different targets (mini POTMS for all !).

4) MC Rebalance :
- Remove AP2 from Smash except for the single S10 attack.
- See point 1) for cover.

 Peregrine wrote:
I strongly disagree with this. The mere fact that we have rules where doing something is entirely legal (and clearly so, not even rules lawyering) but actually doing it will get you labeled a TFG and shunned from the community is a really bad issue. It's a toxic mess that just doesn't exist in better games.

This in a nutshell is my main issue with GW rules lately and our "community response" to them.
A new player will not know they have committed an atrocity in gaming when they are playing within the rules.
A competitive player finds it illogical to be playing within the rules and be treated like a cheater.
A TFG finds it incredibly funny he can play within the rules and be able to cave-face at will.
I do not see this problem with Bolt Action which is a similar system made by the same folks who made prior editions of 40k.

 Meos wrote:
So essentially what is said here is that the GWs game designers should be able to cater to a group that vastly disagrees on how things should be like?

No, GW game designers should actually design a game. What you basically have is little more than made-up (as in little rhyme or reason) rules for "kewl toys" to go "pew pew". There is zero reason the game cannot be balanced and cater to both casual players who want to only play campaigns and narrative games, and hardcore gamers who want to compete in national tournaments. These things are not mutually exclusive in any game except for GW's products. Everyone would benefit from balanced rules that are not ambiguous, points and models that are balanced with a proper power level instead of being all over the place, and not choices that are too good/bad as to always or never see play time.

That's a problem with game design, not the community.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I strongly disagree with this. The mere fact that we have rules where doing something is entirely legal (and clearly so, not even rules lawyering) but actually doing it will get you labeled a TFG and shunned from the community is a really bad issue. It's a toxic mess that just doesn't exist in better games.

This in a nutshell is my main issue with GW rules lately and our "community response" to them.
A new player will not know they have committed an atrocity in gaming when they are playing within the rules.
A competitive player finds it illogical to be playing within the rules and be treated like a cheater.
A TFG finds it incredibly funny he can play within the rules and be able to cave-face at will.
I do not see this problem with Bolt Action which is a similar system made by the same folks who made prior editions of 40k.

This. I will use myself as an example again: I am seriously considering, probably in the summer after my divorce, to start 40k with a small Necron force. I know Necrons are "OP" nowadays, but I like the models and the fluff and feel they are well-suited to how I want to play. I would, eventually, likely build up a Decurion formation as this is the "typical" Necron army and that's what I am going for. Is it right that I get labeled a WAAC/TFG/powergamer because I like the idea of an eons-old civilization that sold their souls to the devil for immortality, and now are waking from slumber to reclaim the galaxy that "lesser races" have infested? Is it right that I can be shunned or told to "tone it down" when I'm playing a fluffy army (which the Decurion is) for my race? Is it right if, on the flip side, I was dead-set on playing Chaos because I love their background and wanted evil Space Marines, I end up finding that the army is basically garbage and I'd lose by fielding the type of army I wanted (e.g. little or no daemons, lots of Marines) and get my face kicked in despite all efforts because their rules are just bad?

I seriously do not get this. In what world is that acceptable? How on earth is it okay for someone to get told it's okay to play what you want, but find out either it's so bad they lose all the time through no fault of their own, or win constantly and are labeled a bad person because they happened to pick something that's really good?

GreyCrow wrote:

It actually wouldn't take much to make a palatable, balanced and fun core ruleset while the points issue from each Codex is being fixed :

Spoiler:

1) Changes to the BS system to tone down the extremely powerful and illogical aspects of the shooting phase :
- 0-12" : full BS
- 12-24" : BS-1
- >24" : BS-2
- Snap shots : BS-2
- Remove Cover Saves as they re (because they favour light infantry a lot more than anything else)
- Cover : Soft Cover (intervening models, forests, etc) at -1 BS, Heavy Cover (Ruins, Fortifications) at -2 BS. Stealth and Shrouded respectively remove -1BS and -2BS
- Cover requires the model to either be 25% obscured, or the base fully in area terrain (no more dipping the toe)
- Everybody takes advantage of cover the same way (including MCs and vehicles)
- Jink is -2BS
- Go To Ground is declared like Jink, -1Bs modifier
- Modifiers are cumulative to a minimum of BS1 (unless the model already has BS0 in its base profile)
- Remove Scatter roll for Blasts : instead, the number of models below are the numbers of rolls to hit with all the modifiers (e.g. A Plasma Cannon shot covers 3 models at 23" in ruins, 3 rolls To Hit at BS-3)
- Remove Ignores Cover for Template weapons, work as described above for the Blasts (roll To Hit with modifiers to the BS)
- Heavy Weapons can fire after moving, but at -1BS penalty. Shooting prevents charging if fired. Relentless/SnP removes the -1BS penalty and allows charging if fired.
- A unit can shoot at different target for each different weapon it has (example : All Boltguns shoot the same target, Flamer can choose another one, Multi-Melta can shoot another one)
- Weapons with the Ignores Cover special rule ignore BS penalties from cover

So, while this first set of modifications would create a lot of issues with some cover specific rules for some armies (Dark Angels Ravenwing, Markerlights off the top of my mind) and would require case by case erratas, they are much more representative of the proper mechanics of shooting. I'm sure that many of you probably already have fired a weapon, and since the game scale is 1/56, 1 inch represents 56". After 112 feet (24" in game), it becomes quite hard to shoot effectively at something, especially with the chaos of the battle going on.
But it follows the general principle : the closer you are to something, the closer it is to shoot.

Right now, range doesn't matter at all when determining the effectiveness of shooting, which is an aberration. We've also have Blasts scatter 8" sideways while the bearer was only 5" away from its target, why ? Now, Blasts are interesting because you can securely hope to hit multiple targets. Obviously though, a Space Marine throwing a Plasma Cannon from down range to guys clustered in ruins will have much more trouble effectively hitting the blast compared to point blank range in the open.

2) Movement changes, because some rules are just WTFBBQ and let's cut the crap about it :
- Basic movement for infantry : 6"
- Difficult terrain : half the remaining movement
- Dangerous terrain : models moving in it take an armour save (because really, Dangerous terrain is pretty much a bloated rule as it is now).
- Run moves : 3" flat (not slowed by difficult terrain)
- Charge distance : 6" flat (-2" for difficult terrain)
- Jump Infantry : Can use its jump pack in the movement or assault phase. Increases the movement to 12" or the charge range to 12". Not slowed by difficult terrain but considers it as dangerous.
- Bikes & Jetbikes : No change (they are pretty representative of the fast moving stuff, what sets them apart from other units is the secure Turbo-Boost distance compared to the weird rolls other units have to make because reasons ?)
- Jetpacks assault move : 6" base
- Move through Cover : Model Ignores the penalties for difficult terrain

3) Non-Superheavy Vehicles rebalance, because they really need to be made not useless again :
- Targeting systems : vehicles ignores the BS penalties for range
- Vehicles can fire all of their weapons after moving combat speed. Vehicles moving at cruising speed can fire only 1 weapon at full BS plus modifiers, Snap shooting the rest.
- Fast vehicles moving at cruising speed can fire 2 weapons at full BS plus modifiers, snap shooting the rest.
- Heavy vehicles : Are not affected by weapons with the Ordnance special rule.
- A vehicle can shoot each of its different weapon types at different targets (mini POTMS for all !).

4) MC Rebalance :
- Remove AP2 from Smash except for the single S10 attack.
- See point 1) for cover.

Somehow this is the way GW make their new Editions.
The game is fine we just need to add this and change that.

But it is not that easy and some your suggestions are too specific to work out well (just shifting the problem around instead of solving it) while you are missing some important stuff
(eg "Cover requires the model to either be 25% obscured, or the base fully in area terrain (no more dipping the toe)" without a list how big each model has to be and/or what base size they have this will lead to some problems on the table)

Then we add a template for each size, like Infinity has. There are no issues, only potential solutions waiting to happen !

GW doesn't try to adress the specific issues, rather they premake rules to publish later models within these ruleset. Moreover, they wait for 2 years between each core rules release at least which means they either are lazy slowpokes or not interested at all.

Releasing monthly rules changes, with a clear end goal of making the most enjoyable scifi battle wargame for all players, not only holds the hands of the playerbase when it comes to changing the ruleset because it's a rapid fire of small changes over one big vast ruleset (and we all know how everyone is resistant to change, being a business strategy consultant I have to gradually implement change in my client companies so that stuff doesn't get FUBARed), but it also creates a dialog with the market. GW boasts they know their consumer base. Their -10% sales per year over the past 3 to 4 years begs to disagree.
On top of that, it allows them to leverage the new technology from internet to get some proper feedback regularily to hunt for "abuses" (as in stuff permitted by the RAW not in their RAI mindset).

GW still makes rules like it's 1998. It's not hard to make a good ruleset quickly when the designers actually give a feth about it and it's not their 9 to 5

WayneTheGame wrote:
This. I will use myself as an example again: I am seriously considering, probably in the summer after my divorce, to start 40k with a small Necron force.

Sorry to hear... or not so sorry since it needed to happen I guess. (hey! it rhymes!)

... Is it right that I can be shunned or told to "tone it down" when I'm playing a fluffy army (which the Decurion is) for my race?

What I find a little irritating is the being told to "tone it down": how do their wants trump mine?
Could they consider sharpening their pencil a bit and give a good honest try to be competitive?

Is it right if, on the flip side, I was dead-set on playing Chaos because I love their background and wanted evil Space Marines, I end up finding that the army is basically garbage and I'd lose by fielding the type of army I wanted (e.g. little or no daemons, lots of Marines) and get my face kicked in despite all efforts because their rules are just bad?

Yep, got the size of a steamer chest full of chaos but is pointless to play.

I seriously do not get this. In what world is that acceptable? How on earth is it okay for someone to get told it's okay to play what you want, but find out either it's so bad they lose all the time through no fault of their own, or win constantly and are labeled a bad person because they happened to pick something that's really good?

It is OK if you are GW because we all have to suck it up so the new models / new flavor of the month can have it's day.
We are expected to lose for the sake of the new model sales.
Oddly, if we saw more balance, it would just be a different way to play not the huge advantage GW likes to start off with.
If they really were a "model company" they would not need to fluff them up with OP rules / points values too.

I don't even mind wanting to sell new models, it's the fact they shouldn't sell new models by making them so overpowered that they expect every cheeseweasel to rush out and buy a bunch and every "collector" to buy them for their mantlepiece.

The worst part is that there should be internal and external balance so faction choice doesn't doom you to losing constantly until you quit in frustration and say feth this stupid game, or so overpowered that you feel like TFG for winning so much just because your army is better than your opponents. The extremes are the problem. I shouldn't have to decide between wanting to play Chaos because I like the fluff/background/models and having to lose (unless I'm forced to play in a way I don't want e.g. spam daemons) or play Necrons and be labeled a WAAC TFG douchebag because I'm playing an "OP" army, or having to decide between the two extremes.

That, in a nutshell is my problem. I would be unfairly punished if I wanted to play a fluffy Iron Warriors CSM army, because I don't want daemons I want Marines (and no, using Iron Hands rules is not acceptable). I would be unfairly labeled TFG if I want to play a fluffy Necron force because the Decurion is OP. Why am I punished because GW is gak at writing rules?

WayneTheGame wrote:
The extremes are the problem. I shouldn't have to decide between wanting to play Chaos because I like the fluff/background/models and having to lose (unless I'm forced to play in a way I don't want) or play Necrons and be labeled a WAAC TFG douchebag because I'm playing an "OP" army, or having to decide between the two extremes.

Agreed.
The play should only be different, not some strange rock/paper/scissors outcome depending on what army you picked.
I mainly picked my armies early-on because I liked how they looked and played much like in the stories, then over time things changed and it became obvious some armies just cant be competitive AND be fluffy.

If you define "It" as unbalanced armies/units:

It would require a complete reboot of rules and the invalidation of all existing codecies, supplements, and campaign formations.

So, no. It can't be fixed.

 kronk wrote:
If you define "It" as unbalanced armies/units:
It would require a complete reboot of rules and the invalidation of all existing codecies, supplements, and campaign formations.
So, no. It can't be fixed.

Publish the big reboot.
Everyone freaks out.
Within a week publish the "starter (core?) formations" in little codexes like back in the day of 3rd edition for each army (make it cheap to lessen the screaming).
Release one new kit/model or add-on kit for each army the following week.
Showcase the gameplay with some battle reports in WD and tips on how the WD "experts" adjusted their armies for the new style of play.
Continue to publish the add-ons like nothing happened.
I would strongly suggest each "add-on" document be a formation release that contains something for all armies.
That way EVERYONE is forced to buy it, steady income, we all know everyone's armies, they can be balanced together.
Win-win for everyone.

They would need to put out IMHO slim codexes (think 3.0 size) all together, or at least in the span of a month at most, so everything is balanced together. But then they'd run into the same thing over time, updating some armies (read: Space marines) frequently and other armies so infrequently that the power gulf expands exponentially.

What they would have to do is put out balanced things for everybody first, and then publish campaign supplements that have additions (along with miniatures) for the armies fighting, and do it on a schedule so that say this month is Marines vs. Chaos, next month Eldar vs. Tyranids, month after IG vs. Tau, etc.