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.

Catulle wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You're not "working together" in a game of 40k anymore than you're working together in a game of Othello or Chess or even Space Hulk.

If you want to work together with people look at games like Mansions of Madness or Arkham Horror (both fantastic for their own reasons but I lean towards Mansions because miniatures).

I am most certainly working together with my opponent(s) towards the goal of "let's all have fun playing this game" - it'd be a dick move on my paft were that not the case (terminology aside, that's what Brian's getting at with the sociopath, above). The finer parameters (points, scenario, house rules, narrative, snacks, drinks, composition) are all part of the social exchange that so confounds our more self-focused counterparts.

My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue. The only social exchange I require before the game is:
1. Points
2. Mission
3. ITC, ETC, or GWs terrain rules
That's it. Whatever happens after the game in terms of friendliness is good and all, but that's not the goal of the game itself. I should just be able to a basic pickup with random people at various point levels and have a 50/50 shot with my TAC list, and they should expect the same.

That can't happen if you don't balance the armies. So why am I doing GWs job?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Catulle wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You're not "working together" in a game of 40k anymore than you're working together in a game of Othello or Chess or even Space Hulk.

If you want to work together with people look at games like Mansions of Madness or Arkham Horror (both fantastic for their own reasons but I lean towards Mansions because miniatures).

I am most certainly working together with my opponent(s) towards the goal of "let's all have fun playing this game" - it'd be a dick move on my paft were that not the case (terminology aside, that's what Brian's getting at with the sociopath, above). The finer parameters (points, scenario, house rules, narrative, snacks, drinks, composition) are all part of the social exchange that so confounds our more self-focused counterparts.

My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue. The only social exchange I require before the game is:
1. Points
2. Mission
3. ITC, ETC, or GWs terrain rules
That's it. Whatever happens after the game in terms of friendliness is good and all, but that's not the goal of the game itself. I should just be able to a basic pickup with random people at various point levels and have a 50/50 shot with my TAC list, and they should expect the same.

That can't happen if you don't balance the armies. So why am I doing GWs job?

I genuinely feel sad for your local play group if thats your mentality, assuming you have one. the point of a game is to have fun. not to win (although thats nice) but to have FUN.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

Now, this isn't helpful. There is nothing "self-focused" about enjoying a challenging game, where all involved accept that not everyone enjoys the same things they do, or plays a given game for the same reasons.

It's got nothing to do with enjoying a challenging game. Most people enjoy a challenging game (where I will disagree is specifically linking 'playing with/against the best-lists-possible' with being 'challenging games', but let's leave talk of 'relative-list building' to another thread).

It's 'self focused' in the sense that it's you versus the other guy, you want to win at his expense, and you are not going out of your way to help him. It's him versus you, and may the best man win. He makes a mistake, its on him. He builds a bad list, it's on him. Etcetera. Two boxers in a ring. It's on them, no one else. Which is fair. Strictly fair. There is a level of 'honesty' in that approach that I find hard to disagree with or to hold myself against it. It has a certain appeal. That said, i would argue it also has a cost. Too much 'self focus' and too much Competitive-at-the-expense-of-the-other -persons-enjoyment causes damage to a community, if you ask me at least.
Similarly, it's not 'dishonest' or wrong to approach a game differently, where you like to talk it through and 'mutually match it up' rather than blind list-build and focus on list-building-for-advantage, and where you value the enjoyment of the other guy as much as you value a challenging game or wanting to try and beat him.

As you say, not everyone enjoys the same things or plays for the same reasons.

I'm not disagreeing with you- not by much, at any rate. (I still find "self-focused" a misnomer- doing all one can to win does not necessarily diminish the fun of one's opponent) Yes, I prefer "strictly fair" games, because I enjoy them, win or lose.

GW is terrible at balance, creating extremes- "strictly fair" lists will handily defeat suboptimal ones, which isn't fun for the person playing the suboptimal list.

This is not a matter of player behavior. This is a game design issue. A tight, balanced ruleset would eliminate these disputes.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue.

...and that would be what I'd characterise as "a dick move" y'know, acting like somebody who's focused on themselves rather than on making the funsies with another human being. It's a critical failure of empathy and respect that is a serious barrier to even communicating basic social functions. Cue up the Voight-Kampff machine.

Catulle wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue.

...and that would be what I'd characterise as "a dick move" y'know, acting like somebody who's focused on themselves rather than on making the funsies with another human being. It's a critical failure of empathy and respect that is a serious barrier to even communicating basic social functions. Cue up the Voight-Kampff machine.

Why what was said could be harsh, I think you are missing two parts of what’s said there. Being friendly and fun does not have to get in the way of competition and that shouldn’t it be GW job be to provide a fun game under those rules. If a player cannot turn up with a chance at winning, and concessions to the game itself need to be made for it to be fun. It may come back again to GW just not holding up there side.

Apple fox wrote:

Catulle wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue.

...and that would be what I'd characterise as "a dick move" y'know, acting like somebody who's focused on themselves rather than on making the funsies with another human being. It's a critical failure of empathy and respect that is a serious barrier to even communicating basic social functions. Cue up the Voight-Kampff machine.

Why what was said could be harsh, I think you are missing two parts of what’s said there. Being friendly and fun does not have to get in the way of competition and that shouldn’t it be GW job be to provide a fun game under those rules. If a player cannot turn up with a chance at winning, and concessions to the game itself need to be made for it to be fun. It may come back again to GW just not holding up there side.

You could have a perfectly balanced system and people could still be dicks to each other. Let's not place blame on GW for personal actions towards other people.

'I had to be a dick, because GW didn't do their job' just isn't a good reason to be a dick.

In a perfect world the game would be properly balanced so you don't have to do anything more than plop down models, pick your mission, and get to having fun. Real world has GW as the company making this game and they understand game balance like the average American understands the metric system. Because of that it often falls upon the community to self regulate the game when needed and maybe follow a social contract of sorts to help ensure a remotely fair game. Stuff like maybe not plopping down a top tier tournament net list against an inefficient fluffy list or against a very weak codex. This isn't a pass on GW to continue to produce this slop (seriously stop buying their overpriced patches and supplements) but it does mean we have to be mindful of others in the community and work towards an enjoyable experience for everyone (or at least try).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

Catulle wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue.

...and that would be what I'd characterise as "a dick move" y'know, acting like somebody who's focused on themselves rather than on making the funsies with another human being. It's a critical failure of empathy and respect that is a serious barrier to even communicating basic social functions. Cue up the Voight-Kampff machine.

Why what was said could be harsh, I think you are missing two parts of what’s said there. Being friendly and fun does not have to get in the way of competition and that shouldn’t it be GW job be to provide a fun game under those rules. If a player cannot turn up with a chance at winning, and concessions to the game itself need to be made for it to be fun. It may come back again to GW just not holding up there side.

You could have a perfectly balanced system and people could still be dicks to each other. Let's not place blame on GW for personal actions towards other people.

'I had to be a dick, because GW didn't do their job' just isn't a good reason to be a dick.

Well yes, and I was not addressing that part. But I think GW promotes just that attitude. not deliberately but as a side effect.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

Catulle wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue.

...and that would be what I'd characterise as "a dick move" y'know, acting like somebody who's focused on themselves rather than on making the funsies with another human being. It's a critical failure of empathy and respect that is a serious barrier to even communicating basic social functions. Cue up the Voight-Kampff machine.

Why what was said could be harsh, I think you are missing two parts of what’s said there. Being friendly and fun does not have to get in the way of competition and that shouldn’t it be GW job be to provide a fun game under those rules. If a player cannot turn up with a chance at winning, and concessions to the game itself need to be made for it to be fun. It may come back again to GW just not holding up there side.

You could have a perfectly balanced system and people could still be dicks to each other. Let's not place blame on GW for personal actions towards other people.

'I had to be a dick, because GW didn't do their job' just isn't a good reason to be a dick.

I'm not the dick for my opponent not choosing or creating a good army. GW is at fault for that, simple.

I dunno, buddy. A "I don't care if my opponent has fun" attitude IS kinda dick-ish, regardless of context.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I'm not the dick for my opponent not choosing or creating a good army. GW is at fault for that, simple.

....k

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I'm not the dick for my opponent not choosing or creating a good army. GW is at fault for that, simple.

There's more to a fun game than just "it was balanced."

I assure you, the game could be perfectly balanced, and that wouldn't guarantee the game would be enjoyable for either player. Or the game could be crazily imbalanced and yet great fun, if the players lean into it.

And it is absolutely the responsibility of each player to make sure they don't ruin the other person's enjoyment. That's basically the entire social construct underpinning the concept of a game.

While to some degree the player can lower himself to make sure it's more of a balanced game, the system itself and armies within should be better balanced to make that less of an issue from the start.

While the player could be reasonably considered to hold some of this burden, GW needs to do a much better job of finding parity between choices in books as well as between other armies.

If they can't balance allies, CPs and as well as all the units in the books they need to dial it back some so they can more easily find that parity. As is some armies are so much better that even in a casual sense it can be hard to plan out a pick up game because of the poor army design by unit selection.

For instance, it's hard for me to make a reasonable match up vs Grey Knights when the knights are so meh, unless I make a choice to take nothing but the worst things it's going to be a rough match up.

Point to this, GW needs to do a much better job on their end and we can all do our part as well but it isn't exactly just the players fault, that is silly to imagine. We pay a lot for this company to have its act together.

I’ve spent thousands of pounds on GW products over the course of my life. My current army (that I’ve spent countless hours assembling, converting, painting, basing and even rebasing) is a ‘fluffy’ Evil Sunz mechanised list. I have no desire to take the flavour of the month units or faction, nor do I have the time to paint and model another army. Not to mention the financial investment. I try my best to make my list as competitive as possible but in the face of recent codexes and tournament lists it just doesn’t compete. My opponents have had to ‘tone down’ their lists for us to both have a fun game and it’s great that they’re willing to do so but it feels bad that they can’t take all the stuff they want so I’ve largely stopped playing. It also seems really stupid playing a competitive game where one player has a hand tied behind their back because you both know if they used their full strength they’d crush you.

GW have created this game and the rules around it. They have made my army very difficult to play effectively. Not me. Not my opponents. GW. GW also stated at the start of the edition that they would be trying to avoid this exact situation I now find myself in. That all factions would have a variety of competitive play styles common to their archetypes and most importantly depending on what the player wanted to take. Unless you play muMarines, this has been a complete and utter load of gak. Most codexes have one or two competitive builds and that’s it.

So yes, I’m pretty down on the hobby at the moment - largely because of marketing spiel that GW just didn’t follow up on, because my interactions in games are starting to become less and less interesting (picking up models sure gets old, fast) and most importantly because GW don’t even seem to recognise that this as an issue at all and in my opinion actually believe it to be a good thing for their profit margins. Compound these issues around playing the game with the unending marine releases, the huge discrepancy between releases for different factions and the general lack of support for factions not in power armour and I think you have a perfect storm of negative sentiment that has already driven people away from the hobby and that will continue to drive more away if things don’t change.

Trust me when I say that some negativity can be construed as a good thing, because those negative people are still invested in the hobby. Those who have already left the hobby simply don’t care and so don’t state their opinion at all.

Blastaar wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

Now, this isn't helpful. There is nothing "self-focused" about enjoying a challenging game, where all involved accept that not everyone enjoys the same things they do, or plays a given game for the same reasons.

It's got nothing to do with enjoying a challenging game. Most people enjoy a challenging game (where I will disagree is specifically linking 'playing with/against the best-lists-possible' with being 'challenging games', but let's leave talk of 'relative-list building' to another thread).

It's 'self focused' in the sense that it's you versus the other guy, you want to win at his expense, and you are not going out of your way to help him. It's him versus you, and may the best man win. He makes a mistake, its on him. He builds a bad list, it's on him. Etcetera. Two boxers in a ring. It's on them, no one else. Which is fair. Strictly fair. There is a level of 'honesty' in that approach that I find hard to disagree with or to hold myself against it. It has a certain appeal. That said, i would argue it also has a cost. Too much 'self focus' and too much Competitive-at-the-expense-of-the-other -persons-enjoyment causes damage to a community, if you ask me at least.
Similarly, it's not 'dishonest' or wrong to approach a game differently, where you like to talk it through and 'mutually match it up' rather than blind list-build and focus on list-building-for-advantage, and where you value the enjoyment of the other guy as much as you value a challenging game or wanting to try and beat him.

As you say, not everyone enjoys the same things or plays for the same reasons.

I'm not disagreeing with you- not by much, at any rate. (I still find "self-focused" a misnomer- doing all one can to win does not necessarily diminish the fun of one's opponent) Yes, I prefer "strictly fair" games, because I enjoy them, win or lose.

GW is terrible at balance, creating extremes- "strictly fair" lists will handily defeat suboptimal ones, which isn't fun for the person playing the suboptimal list.

This is not a matter of player behavior. This is a game design issue. A tight, balanced ruleset would eliminate these disputes.

BTW you wanna know another word ofr "self focused" Selfish.

I have found similar issues with my Eldar, i have had 3 that i have updated over the years.
Some have been better than others, but it was always built to a theme.

I have had the, you play eldar why you complaining. You could just not play those units, Or you should just be happy with what you have. All from people who tell me that its great right now.

As soon as my army gets a random boost, and hey new minis. Suddenly its all complaints and tone your army down. We do not play competitive lists, And you only have that since its best.
One player even said to me that i must be that kind of person when i mention i play eldar. All why he had big Words about positivity and creating a fun and fair environment.

GW has a lot of the blame for this environment, and players do as well. But i think that when issues are just brushed away, that is what creates such hostility and toxicity.

I am very Hobby positive, I am enjoying the hobby more than ever before. But its mostly at ignoring GW more than actuly being that positive about there games

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Catulle wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You're not "working together" in a game of 40k anymore than you're working together in a game of Othello or Chess or even Space Hulk.

If you want to work together with people look at games like Mansions of Madness or Arkham Horror (both fantastic for their own reasons but I lean towards Mansions because miniatures).

I am most certainly working together with my opponent(s) towards the goal of "let's all have fun playing this game" - it'd be a dick move on my paft were that not the case (terminology aside, that's what Brian's getting at with the sociopath, above). The finer parameters (points, scenario, house rules, narrative, snacks, drinks, composition) are all part of the social exchange that so confounds our more self-focused counterparts.

My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue. The only social exchange I require before the game is:
1. Points
2. Mission
3. ITC, ETC, or GWs terrain rules
That's it. Whatever happens after the game in terms of friendliness is good and all, but that's not the goal of the game itself. I should just be able to a basic pickup with random people at various point levels and have a 50/50 shot with my TAC list, and they should expect the same.

That can't happen if you don't balance the armies. So why am I doing GWs job?

The factions might be balanced as a whole, but your relative selections therefrom might not be.

This is why random hookups don't work UNLESS you and your opponent are superoptimizing min maxxers to the max.

And, it is too much to expect GW or any parent company to manage gameplay like this, at this micro level...
Maybe we will get this, sort of CA army lists as balance points, with deviations therefrom costing CP or something else, but as for a points based system like this one the balancing on the table is largely up to the players at said table.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I’ve spent thousands of pounds on GW products over the course of my life. My current army (that I’ve spent countless hours assembling, converting, painting, basing and even rebasing) is a ‘fluffy’ Evil Sunz mechanised list. I have no desire to take the flavour of the month units or faction, nor do I have the time to paint and model another army. Not to mention the financial investment. I try my best to make my list as competitive as possible but in the face of recent codexes and tournament lists it just doesn’t compete. My opponents have had to ‘tone down’ their lists for us to both have a fun game and it’s great that they’re willing to do so but it feels bad that they can’t take all the stuff they want so I’ve largely stopped playing. It also seems really stupid playing a competitive game where one player has a hand tied behind their back because you both know if they used their full strength they’d crush you.

GW have created this game and the rules around it. They have made my army very difficult to play effectively. Not me. Not my opponents. GW. GW also stated at the start of the edition that they would be trying to avoid this exact situation I now find myself in. That all factions would have a variety of competitive play styles common to their archetypes and most importantly depending on what the player wanted to take. Unless you play muMarines, this has been a complete and utter load of gak. Most codexes have one or two competitive builds and that’s it.

So yes, I’m pretty down on the hobby at the moment - largely because of marketing spiel that GW just didn’t follow up on, because my interactions in games are starting to become less and less interesting (picking up models sure gets old, fast) and most importantly because GW don’t even seem to recognise that this as an issue at all and in my opinion actually believe it to be a good thing for their profit margins. Compound these issues around playing the game with the unending marine releases, the huge discrepancy between releases for different factions and the general lack of support for factions not in power armour and I think you have a perfect storm of negative sentiment that has already driven people away from the hobby and that will continue to drive more away if things don’t change.

Trust me when I say that some negativity can be construed as a good thing, because those negative people are still invested in the hobby. Those who have already left the hobby simply don’t care and so don’t state their opinion at all.

Bravo.
Exalted.

Added realism, tone down killiness at range, increase terrain/board interactions with intuitive rules for cover and movement, allow for meta level restrictions on things like aircraft, be serious about flyers and table shrinkage... make all marines both sides 2 wounds, give Primaris a flaw like blood angels where they turn to chaos as certainly they are heresy, and so on...

But, GW looks from the outside just like any other bubble fiefdom blown up to inspire shareholder investment and immediate returns on said investment, which as we look around the world with big and little financial bubbles bursting everywhere, well... GW is like Nurgle, in a way, and about to pop oozy goo all over.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue.

I'm not the dick for my opponent not choosing or creating a good army. GW is at fault for that, simple.

What? Good god if everyone in this hobby adopted this mindset it would be an awful place!

If you approach a game and know how unbalanced the lists are before playing, you ARE the dick and will just look like a seal clubber to everyone. It is a casual game and GW have never made it otherwise, hell I remember games having a GM and rules for that! Fun is achieved with co-operation and mutual understanding between both players, your attitude spits in the face of that and puts yourself first and deflect the fact behind 'Hey don't blame me, GW says I can do this so I can! Not having fun playing against me? Too bad!"

 jeff white wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Catulle wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You're not "working together" in a game of 40k anymore than you're working together in a game of Othello or Chess or even Space Hulk.

If you want to work together with people look at games like Mansions of Madness or Arkham Horror (both fantastic for their own reasons but I lean towards Mansions because miniatures).

I am most certainly working together with my opponent(s) towards the goal of "let's all have fun playing this game" - it'd be a dick move on my paft were that not the case (terminology aside, that's what Brian's getting at with the sociopath, above). The finer parameters (points, scenario, house rules, narrative, snacks, drinks, composition) are all part of the social exchange that so confounds our more self-focused counterparts.

My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue. The only social exchange I require before the game is:
1. Points
2. Mission
3. ITC, ETC, or GWs terrain rules
That's it. Whatever happens after the game in terms of friendliness is good and all, but that's not the goal of the game itself. I should just be able to a basic pickup with random people at various point levels and have a 50/50 shot with my TAC list, and they should expect the same.

That can't happen if you don't balance the armies. So why am I doing GWs job?

The factions might be balanced as a whole, but your relative selections therefrom might not be.

This is why random hookups don't work UNLESS you and your opponent are superoptimizing min maxxers to the max.

And, it is too much to expect GW or any parent company to manage gameplay like this, at this micro level...
Maybe we will get this, sort of CA army lists as balance points, with deviations therefrom costing CP or something else, but as for a points based system like this one the balancing on the table is largely up to the players at said table.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I’ve spent thousands of pounds on GW products over the course of my life. My current army (that I’ve spent countless hours assembling, converting, painting, basing and even rebasing) is a ‘fluffy’ Evil Sunz mechanised list. I have no desire to take the flavour of the month units or faction, nor do I have the time to paint and model another army. Not to mention the financial investment. I try my best to make my list as competitive as possible but in the face of recent codexes and tournament lists it just doesn’t compete. My opponents have had to ‘tone down’ their lists for us to both have a fun game and it’s great that they’re willing to do so but it feels bad that they can’t take all the stuff they want so I’ve largely stopped playing. It also seems really stupid playing a competitive game where one player has a hand tied behind their back because you both know if they used their full strength they’d crush you.

GW have created this game and the rules around it. They have made my army very difficult to play effectively. Not me. Not my opponents. GW. GW also stated at the start of the edition that they would be trying to avoid this exact situation I now find myself in. That all factions would have a variety of competitive play styles common to their archetypes and most importantly depending on what the player wanted to take. Unless you play muMarines, this has been a complete and utter load of gak. Most codexes have one or two competitive builds and that’s it.

So yes, I’m pretty down on the hobby at the moment - largely because of marketing spiel that GW just didn’t follow up on, because my interactions in games are starting to become less and less interesting (picking up models sure gets old, fast) and most importantly because GW don’t even seem to recognise that this as an issue at all and in my opinion actually believe it to be a good thing for their profit margins. Compound these issues around playing the game with the unending marine releases, the huge discrepancy between releases for different factions and the general lack of support for factions not in power armour and I think you have a perfect storm of negative sentiment that has already driven people away from the hobby and that will continue to drive more away if things don’t change.

Trust me when I say that some negativity can be construed as a good thing, because those negative people are still invested in the hobby. Those who have already left the hobby simply don’t care and so don’t state their opinion at all.

Bravo.
Exalted.

Added realism, tone down killiness at range, increase terrain/board interactions with intuitive rules for cover and movement, allow for meta level restrictions on things like aircraft, be serious about flyers and table shrinkage... make all marines both sides 2 wounds, give Primaris a flaw like blood angels where they turn to chaos as certainly they are heresy, and so on...

But, GW looks from the outside just like any other bubble fiefdom blown up to inspire shareholder investment and immediate returns on said investment, which as we look around the world with big and little financial bubbles bursting everywhere, well... GW is like Nurgle, in a way, and about to pop oozy goo all over.

I not sure anyone really ever thinks of perfect balance, Nor should they. Unit choice and how they effect the battlefield and the play style is great way to make the game fun.
One of the issues with that is GW does not really think about the game being fun, They think about how they can make it Cool.
THey will present army as COOL, when really under the rule set the only conclusion would be the command has no other option, or is not very smart. Which undermines marines a lot.

I often think this is the bigist issue they have with ballance, they do not want to concede the battle scale and where some things sit. But still want things to Be Cool on the battlefield :( With so little thought to how to achieve that well.

In the end we end up with massive power issues, where just forethought in the design would have pushed the game along a much better path.
Otherwise i agree like 98%

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I’ve spent thousands of pounds on GW products over the course of my life. My current army (that I’ve spent countless hours assembling, converting, painting, basing and even rebasing) is a ‘fluffy’ Evil Sunz mechanised list. I have no desire to take the flavour of the month units or faction, nor do I have the time to paint and model another army. Not to mention the financial investment. I try my best to make my list as competitive as possible but in the face of recent codexes and tournament lists it just doesn’t compete. My opponents have had to ‘tone down’ their lists for us to both have a fun game and it’s great that they’re willing to do so but it feels bad that they can’t take all the stuff they want so I’ve largely stopped playing. It also seems really stupid playing a competitive game where one player has a hand tied behind their back because you both know if they used their full strength they’d crush you.

GW have created this game and the rules around it. They have made my army very difficult to play effectively. Not me. Not my opponents. GW. GW also stated at the start of the edition that they would be trying to avoid this exact situation I now find myself in. That all factions would have a variety of competitive play styles common to their archetypes and most importantly depending on what the player wanted to take. Unless you play muMarines, this has been a complete and utter load of gak. Most codexes have one or two competitive builds and that’s it.

So yes, I’m pretty down on the hobby at the moment - largely because of marketing spiel that GW just didn’t follow up on, because my interactions in games are starting to become less and less interesting (picking up models sure gets old, fast) and most importantly because GW don’t even seem to recognise that this as an issue at all and in my opinion actually believe it to be a good thing for their profit margins. Compound these issues around playing the game with the unending marine releases, the huge discrepancy between releases for different factions and the general lack of support for factions not in power armour and I think you have a perfect storm of negative sentiment that has already driven people away from the hobby and that will continue to drive more away if things don’t change.

Trust me when I say that some negativity can be construed as a good thing, because those negative people are still invested in the hobby. Those who have already left the hobby simply don’t care and so don’t state their opinion at all.

See underlined part.
Ditto.
I don't agree often with you englishmen but that is pretty much it. It was also that promise that drew me and my friends back in after 7th , and preety much kicked us out again now

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue.
...
I'm not the dick for my opponent not choosing or creating a good army. GW is at fault for that, simple.

Yikes.

Just
Y i k e s.

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue.

I'm not the dick for my opponent not choosing or creating a good army. GW is at fault for that, simple.

What? Good god if everyone in this hobby adopted this mindset it would be an awful place!

If you approach a game and know how unbalanced the lists are before playing, you ARE the dick and will just look like a seal clubber to everyone. It is a casual game and GW have never made it otherwise, hell I remember games having a GM and rules for that! Fun is achieved with co-operation and mutual understanding between both players, your attitude spits in the face of that and puts yourself first and deflect the fact behind 'Hey don't blame me, GW says I can do this so I can! Not having fun playing against me? Too bad!"

There are fluffy armies like a well built Imperial Guard or Eldar that completely destroy other fluffy built armies like Grey Knights + Inquisitors or AdMech.

So please tell me, oh wise one, whose fault is it there?

 jeff white wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Catulle wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You're not "working together" in a game of 40k anymore than you're working together in a game of Othello or Chess or even Space Hulk.

If you want to work together with people look at games like Mansions of Madness or Arkham Horror (both fantastic for their own reasons but I lean towards Mansions because miniatures).

I am most certainly working together with my opponent(s) towards the goal of "let's all have fun playing this game" - it'd be a dick move on my paft were that not the case (terminology aside, that's what Brian's getting at with the sociopath, above). The finer parameters (points, scenario, house rules, narrative, snacks, drinks, composition) are all part of the social exchange that so confounds our more self-focused counterparts.

My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue. The only social exchange I require before the game is:
1. Points
2. Mission
3. ITC, ETC, or GWs terrain rules
That's it. Whatever happens after the game in terms of friendliness is good and all, but that's not the goal of the game itself. I should just be able to a basic pickup with random people at various point levels and have a 50/50 shot with my TAC list, and they should expect the same.

That can't happen if you don't balance the armies. So why am I doing GWs job?

The factions might be balanced as a whole, but your relative selections therefrom might not be.

This is why random hookups don't work UNLESS you and your opponent are superoptimizing min maxxers to the max.

And, it is too much to expect GW or any parent company to manage gameplay like this, at this micro level...
Maybe we will get this, sort of CA army lists as balance points, with deviations therefrom costing CP or something else, but as for a points based system like this one the balancing on the table is largely up to the players at said table.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I’ve spent thousands of pounds on GW products over the course of my life. My current army (that I’ve spent countless hours assembling, converting, painting, basing and even rebasing) is a ‘fluffy’ Evil Sunz mechanised list. I have no desire to take the flavour of the month units or faction, nor do I have the time to paint and model another army. Not to mention the financial investment. I try my best to make my list as competitive as possible but in the face of recent codexes and tournament lists it just doesn’t compete. My opponents have had to ‘tone down’ their lists for us to both have a fun game and it’s great that they’re willing to do so but it feels bad that they can’t take all the stuff they want so I’ve largely stopped playing. It also seems really stupid playing a competitive game where one player has a hand tied behind their back because you both know if they used their full strength they’d crush you.

GW have created this game and the rules around it. They have made my army very difficult to play effectively. Not me. Not my opponents. GW. GW also stated at the start of the edition that they would be trying to avoid this exact situation I now find myself in. That all factions would have a variety of competitive play styles common to their archetypes and most importantly depending on what the player wanted to take. Unless you play muMarines, this has been a complete and utter load of gak. Most codexes have one or two competitive builds and that’s it.

So yes, I’m pretty down on the hobby at the moment - largely because of marketing spiel that GW just didn’t follow up on, because my interactions in games are starting to become less and less interesting (picking up models sure gets old, fast) and most importantly because GW don’t even seem to recognise that this as an issue at all and in my opinion actually believe it to be a good thing for their profit margins. Compound these issues around playing the game with the unending marine releases, the huge discrepancy between releases for different factions and the general lack of support for factions not in power armour and I think you have a perfect storm of negative sentiment that has already driven people away from the hobby and that will continue to drive more away if things don’t change.

Trust me when I say that some negativity can be construed as a good thing, because those negative people are still invested in the hobby. Those who have already left the hobby simply don’t care and so don’t state their opinion at all.

Bravo.
Exalted.

Added realism, tone down killiness at range, increase terrain/board interactions with intuitive rules for cover and movement, allow for meta level restrictions on things like aircraft, be serious about flyers and table shrinkage... make all marines both sides 2 wounds, give Primaris a flaw like blood angels where they turn to chaos as certainly they are heresy, and so on...

But, GW looks from the outside just like any other bubble fiefdom blown up to inspire shareholder investment and immediate returns on said investment, which as we look around the world with big and little financial bubbles bursting everywhere, well... GW is like Nurgle, in a way, and about to pop oozy goo all over.

No it is NOT too much to manage. Why do other games not have pickup issues but 40k does?
It's the laziness and bad ideas behind it. Pure and simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aelyn wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I'm not the dick for my opponent not choosing or creating a good army. GW is at fault for that, simple.

There's more to a fun game than just "it was balanced."

I assure you, the game could be perfectly balanced, and that wouldn't guarantee the game would be enjoyable for either player. Or the game could be crazily imbalanced and yet great fun, if the players lean into it.

And it is absolutely the responsibility of each player to make sure they don't ruin the other person's enjoyment. That's basically the entire social construct underpinning the concept of a game.

"Social Construct" for 40k was just some crap sold to you by a company that can't properly do what they're saying they do. When you have to do their job for them (balanced armies and units), that's absurd.

You don't want to hear it but it's the truth.

I think Slayer-Fan is coming off as extra harsh, but the gist of it is right: 40k is a wargame, so the goal is to win. Now, part of that is also to have fun, but it's not like you go into the game wanting to lose. That said while I hate the idea of "It's not my fault if my opponent likes weak units" because picking what you like the look/background/etc. of is meant to be 1/3 of the Warhammer hobby (i.e. Collecting, Painting, Playing) but yeah, it is sort of GW's fault for having such awful balance that someone can screw themselves if they like a certain unit and want to take it, and someone else only looks at power and ignores anything deemed "subpar". For a pickup game, you SHOULD only need to ask points/mission/etc. and there's nothing wrong or "dickish" about that. Sure the person can end up being a jerk during the game (cheating, rules lawyering, nitpicking, etc.) but that's not the fault of the game. Showing up with a particular army and, due to the design, it's 10x more powerful than the army your opponent brought for seemingly no reason at all, however, IS a problem with the game and makes it even less conducive to a pickup game style of play because it requires additional "paperwork" as it were before playing to ensure a fun game. In a well-designed game, you can have a fun game without needing to do that first.

I feel that a game needs a social construct by virtue of being played against another person but the Warhammer social construct is a joke and used far too often to cover up design issues that should be way bigger deals than they are. You shouldn't need to have a social construct to hash out what units/lists are acceptable or not.

Wayniac wrote:
40k is a wargame, so the goal is to win. Now, part of that is also to have fun, but it's not like you go into the game wanting to lose.

Personally I find that winning or losing a close match is far more fun than getting stomped (obviously) or stomping the opponent. If the game isn't a challenge and your making your opponent feel bad because of how one sided the game is going then its not very fun even if your winning.

With that context the whole bit of social construct is important to make sure the matchup is fair. It matters with army balance (again GW sucks at this) but it also matters to your opponent's capabilities. You sorta need to put on the kiddy gloves when your up against a newer player or a younger player that doesn't quite grasp complex strategy and tactical decision making. If you regularly play with the same people you can sorta learn how well a matchup will go and I find it important to match your lists to your opponents abilities. You field a certain strength list against the more tournament minded player while you play different kinds of lists against the person who is either less skilled, going for more theme over function, or is playing the underpowered faction.

Again stomping somebody into the ground (or getting stomped) isn't any fun so it seems reasonable to make that extra bit of effort to establish a more level playing field. Zero excuse for GW's rule write inability but even in a well balanced game, you still need to be mindful of your opponent's enjoyment.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That can't happen if you don't balance the armies. So why am I doing GWs job?

It's your job too?

Blastaar wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with you- not by much, at any rate. (I still find "self-focused" a misnomer- doing all one can to win does not necessarily diminish the fun of one's opponent) Yes, I prefer "strictly fair" games, because I enjoy them, win or lose.
GW is terrible at balance, creating extremes- "strictly fair" lists will handily defeat suboptimal ones, which isn't fun for the person playing the suboptimal list.
This is not a matter of player behavior. This is a game design issue. A tight, balanced ruleset would eliminate these disputes.

With respect, you are wrong. 'Self-focused' is the perfect misnomer.

Doing all one can to win can diminish the fun of ones opponent. Have you never heard of 'win at all costs' or 'competitive at all costs'? But self focused means you playing the game for you, only considering a game in terms of youand not being interested or having any considerations for them.

My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue.

Very much on the selfish/independent spectrum (actual terms depending on ones own perception/predjudice).

And yes, it is a matter of player behaviour as well, and not just game design. They're both sides of the very same coin. Gw, or Corvus belli, or privateer press, warlord or wyrd could (or have) let any amount of howlers through the gates. The players are the ones taking eight of them and inflicting them on their peers, and shrugging their shoulders and denying all responsibility for their own actions that come at the expense of every one else.

You speak of a tight well balanced ruleset that would eliminate these disputes. That game sir, is a unicorn. It does not exist. and what she more, it's a deflection. And in the meantime, and in the absence of this unicorn, other things need done instead. They msy not be perfect, but they help.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm not the dick for my opponent not choosing or creating a good army. GW is at fault for that, simple.

Classic transference. Firstly, it has nothing to do with 'fault'.

The decision to take a top tier list against that person who didn't create a 'good' army (and how exactly are we defining 'good', in this case anyway?), or to seek to exploit what they have, whilst knowing theirs doesn't match yours is a decision that is. On. You. Not gw. That, combined with 'My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue.' is what puts these things into penile territory.

Apple fox wrote:
I not sure anyone really ever thinks of perfect balance, Nor should they.

No. You often get talk that they 'are not speaking about perfect balance' but instead they always speak instead of the 'better balance' unicorn, or grudgingly the 'good enough' unicorn, whilst convieniently never stating how far short of 'perfect balance unicorn' they are willing to accept 'better balanced unicorn' to be, in the limited systems that are ttgs, what sacrifices to balance they are willing to make/accept, how many issues or how many problems or inaccuracies that will be acceptable for it to be counted as a 'better balanced' game. Seems to me it's a moving target, what's expected is always that little bit more that what can be provided by the writers, it's always on someone else to 'do something', so the players themselves conveniently never have to be responsible for inflicting the jagged edges of a system on each other or ever have to step up and show some personal responsibility, and there is always just about enough room to keep complain about things whilst simultaneously doing nothing about them.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
No it is NOT too much to manage. Why do other games not have pickup issues but 40k does?
It's the laziness and bad ideas behind it. Pure and simple.
"Social Construct" for 40k was just some crap sold to you by a company that can't properly do what they're saying they do. When you have to do their job for them (balanced armies and units), that's absurd.
You don't want to hear it but it's the truth.

Rubbish. I've never come across a game that didn't have pick up issues. Let's not pretend this is a gw thing (but let's be fair, gw and 'balance' should never be uttered together. Theirs is a game with plenty bad ideas but they are far from alone in this)I played warmachine since mk1, there's no end of silver bullets/hard counters and 'dead choices' in that game- take the wrong caster, bad synergy or whatever, and it's far from unheard of to simply be shut down and cut out of the game by what the other guy brings. I've seen enough chatter on other games, including infinity, malifaux, heck even x-wing about the dichotomy between competitive and casual lists and matxh up issues that pop up in pick up game culture as a result of these balance issues.

And a thought. Maybe if all these issues pop up in pick up game culture, but those of us in the 'talk-it-out-and-collaborate' are able to avoid those pitfalls, maybe it's suggestive at at least some of the fault likes with pick up gaming culture itself?

Social contract is a thing. Building relationships and maintaining them is a thing. It leads to a stronger, healthier community. If I treated my wife in the way you treat your opponents - 'My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue', my marriage would not be a long one. If I treated my friends in this way, pretty soon I wouldn't have friends. There are limits to what the writers can realistically acheive in a rules set, and I genuinely don't think, for all the talk, that people would be happy with having to shoulder the consequences of the design sacrifices needed in order to push balance more to the front.

Sorry, but I don't have to be "friends" with my opponent during a game anymore than I have to be "friends" with my coworkers on the clock.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sorry, but I don't have to be "friends" with my opponent during a game anymore than I have to be "friends" with my coworkers on the clock.

No, but if you don't fit the culture at work you're going to wind up be adversarial with co-workers and management or burnt out.

Slayer I get what you're saying and I agree for the most part but you really are coming off like a selfish ass who doesn't care about anything but your own enjoyment with the way you're wording some of those statements...

Deadnight wrote:

Social contract is a thing. Building relationships and maintaining them is a thing. It leads to a stronger, healthier community. If I treated my wife in the way you treat your opponents - 'My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue', my marriage would not be a long one. If I treated my friends in this way, pretty soon I wouldn't have friends. There are limits to what the writers can realistically acheive in a rules set, and I genuinely don't think, for all the talk, that people would be happy with having to shoulder the consequences of the design sacrifices needed in order to push balance more to the front.

Bingo... looks like we have found a winner.

I will take "What's the source of negativity in hobby community today?" for 10,000 Alex.

To be fair, it is just plain harder to build, to reconcile and compromise... to anticipate, to be charitable, to be generous...