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.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Mate that isnt a GW thing thats your local or regional tournament rule as THEY decided that WYSIWYG is in effect.

You're right, GW tournaments are even stricter.

though its getting off topic,

Well yeah as it should be. but that is sort of the point to play at a GW store or event and they will enforce WYSIWYG as they dont want people running around with 3rd party bits or having people run flamers as meltas or whatever as it makes things look bad for publicity and spectators. non GW tournaments made that decision as they want to avoid the oh these flamers are lascannons. ultimately in the case of Non GW events which is the majority of the events world wide, its a rule enforced not by GW but by the same competitive players that started the event in the first place. (in reference to the other thread)

nataliereed1984 wrote:
Also "top selling item" does NOT reflect "majority of overall sales", it just means that one particular kit sold more than any ONE other kit. That's all.

When something is the top selling unit for 9 months in a row, that my friend is the majority of sales.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Its a mystery to me as to why people keep trying to force something so staunchly not a competitive game into that niche. If GW wanted to make the game Warmachine levels of competitive they easily could but they don't for a reason.

At what point is 40k not competitive game, even in the most casual environment it is still competitive even if just for fun and with little to thought to the need to win.
At a certain point 40k is just kinda a bad game. Fun at times, but still kinda bad in so many places.

There is a difference between being a competition game, where one person wins and another loses, and being competitive, where all permutations of all possible combinations are balanced and fair, meaning that decisions, skill, and tactics are the only deciding factor. WH40K is the former, not the latter.

Yep. There's also just… you know… degrees of priority. 40k prioritizes having a wide variety of distinct and characterful factions, units and special rules, and rules with a strong sense of narrative immersion in mind, over a more limited range of more comparable unit options, or more abstracted but competitively balanced rule systems, because they know the main "fun" of the game that draws people to it is the setting and the models and the aesthetic and such. That doesn't mean they disregard balance when designing rules and play testing, it's just not their sole and primary goal.

Also… if people really hate 40k and think it's such an awful game, why are they still playing it? There's lots of other games. You can even continue to collect the models and enjoy the IP without having to play the game.

40k pays little mind to narrative, it’s kinda a joke. It really sells the idea.

But.. I am a narrative player, I play narrative in warmachine, infinity and dropzone. As well as a campaign in frost grave going for a long time now.
The idea that 40k does that particularly well of with much thought from design is just not really there.

But from a narrative perspective I loved turning up to games where purely on shoddy rules my army would lose with little thought from design on how my narrative focused army would function in even a quite soft environment. Or where I effectively had to quit one of my eldar army’s. Since bikes suddenly become a really good force. Despite not running it to its maximum and entirely within a narrative bounds of how it would function.

GW game design is just all over the place from a narrative point, with entire ranges left gutted narrative wise due to lack of access to models.

I… I am not sure you and I are using the word "narrative" with the same meaning.

Well, then you should explain. I play both in soft narrative, where we both turn up and wing a narrative. As well as more highly curated scenario and campaign play. 40k does nothing that really makes it better at ether, and as often though design can hinder such.
Not that it cannot, and it’s great that people do and have lots of fun at that. But using such as an excuse for the poor state of the rules is rather bothersome to me. Makes me think GW is more the EA of the tabletop world, puts out avg products with flashy paint. But is really just to big and mainstream to fail since no failure on there part can bring them down.

MiguelFelstone wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

petrov27 wrote:
even if not competitive, shouldn't it have at least a balanced competent set of rules? Is it "fun" even in casual games to have to go "guys, my army is total garbage, can you please not play with your broken OP stuff?"

Sure. And, in general, they tend to accomplish that.

How? In what way? What evidence to you have to back that bold claim?
I've got evidence *points at the GKs in his closet*

You're asking me to provide *evidence* that I enjoy the game and find it relatively balanced and competent for the purpose of the kinds of friendly games I enjoy?

Seriously?

Yeah, I'm out. Have fun continuing to spend fortunes on a game you clearly despise?

I think I'm in the middle ground on this argument, thinking GW could do a little more... but just for the hell of it - can anyone honestly name a truly balanced (and importantly, continuously expanded) miniature wargame with as many customizable options pr. miniature and faction as 40k?

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Starcraft was not a competitive game. It was a game where the armies have different units when most RTS at the time usually had similar sides with maybe a few unique gimmicks, that had good back and forth unit balance. The people were surprised that a large scale tournament scene spawned out of it, because that's not what "it was made for"

Same with Street Fighter, same with Counter Strike. In every instance, they went on to make the game better balanced and interesting, and other people benefited. The idea of games "built for competition" is a recent one with stuff like Overwatch. At it's core, a game is built for what the user wants it to used for, and if it can be made better to benefit *the group as a whole* rather than trying to exclude people's desires because "that's not what it's built for",then it should.

I also fail to understand why painters/builders matter for how the rules should be done. Does making the rules worse make the people who don't play the game happier?

Well put.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The competitive environment isn't the problem. It's loaded with plenty of people who are happy to go to a lot of time and energy shaving edges off GW's square peg to make it fit in their round hole, and the players are perfectly happy to buy stuff just because it's powerful.

The casual narrative scene isn't the problem. Those people are perfectly happy to fiddle with things, build their own scenarios, and otherwise disregard GW's mistakes.

The problem is and always has been with pick-up games. If I go down to a game store and play a game on the fly with someone I haven't met before I have to negotiate the fine details of what I can and can't use or one of us is going to steamroll the other one because GW can't be bothered to make two armies of equal points be roughly similar in power.

This. This 100%.

 Aestas wrote:
I think I'm in the middle ground on this argument, thinking GW could do a little more... but just for the hell of it - can anyone honestly name a truly balanced (and importantly, continuously expanded) miniature wargame with as many customizable options pr. miniature and faction as 40k?

Anyone know what Chief O'Brien was playing on DS9?

MiguelFelstone wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

petrov27 wrote:
even if not competitive, shouldn't it have at least a balanced competent set of rules? Is it "fun" even in casual games to have to go "guys, my army is total garbage, can you please not play with your broken OP stuff?"

Sure. And, in general, they tend to accomplish that.

How? In what way? What evidence to you have to back that bold claim?
I've got evidence *points at the GKs in his closet*

Sadly I also have a GK army I spent lots of time, that was first gutted and struggles now to even compete in any way :(

I also fail to understand why painters/builders matter for how the rules should be done.

It doesn't. It matters for how the kits are put together.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I also fail to understand why painters/builders matter for how the rules should be done. Does making the rules worse make the people who don't play the game happier?

Always confuses me as well. If the rules are good, they can still make pretty models and painters can make up whatever narratives they want. If the rules are crap, who cares how pretty your plastic army people are? If the rules are crap, just go build dioramas and be done with it.

 Aestas wrote:
I think I'm in the middle ground on this argument, thinking GW could do a little more... but just for the hell of it - can anyone honestly name a truly balanced (and importantly, continuously expanded) miniature wargame with as many customizable options pr. miniature and faction as 40k?

Warmachine and hordes are not as far off as people really think, in a lot of cases the minor factions are way more diverse than the more minor factions of 40k.
As far as battlefield elements they are extremely similar.

40k could be a lot better if someone put the effort in to get it there, but I do not really think this is a rules issue. It’s a design issue, some of the 40k factions lack the basic ability to function in a game that is designed more to the ideas that 40k sells itself on.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
You're asking me to provide *evidence* that I enjoy the game and find it relatively balanced and competent for the purpose of the kinds of friendly games I enjoy?

Seriously?

Yeah, I'm out. Have fun continuing to spend fortunes on a game you clearly despise?

Nope. No. Okay.

I was responding to what i quoted directly, but i'll break it down for you since your clearly confused.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

petrov27 wrote:
even if not competitive, shouldn't it have at least a balanced competent set of rules? Is it "fun" even in casual games to have to go "guys, my army is total garbage, can you please not play with your broken OP stuff?"

Sure. And, in general, they tend to accomplish that.

Here you are arguing the game is balanced and has a competent set of rules.

Very few people want GW to put out a perfectly balanced game. Some things have to be better at an intended role than others or why not just play checkers.

The gripe is that GW seems to be intentionally bad at balance. Marines when they were first released vs what they are now. It's crazy that the same designers could think either of these designs was okay.

I play 40k because it is the only mini-wargame that I can find a constant player pool that isn't weird closet Nazi's (literally saw a guy playing a WWII game with nazi dice with the SS on them, that's a hard nope for me), has large social tournaments and I have a familiarity with (started playing WFB and 40k in '96).

GW's marketing seems concerned with balance (else why would we have 3 balance passes every year) so it is something GW pretends to try at, but the state of GK for the years since 8th started and the wild imbalance still left in game makes it feel like more of a marketing push than anything else.

Hell, the fact that they are holding my armies (DA/BA/SW) hostage behind a slow roll out of rules in order to maximize profits (the books/rules have been written for a while now) shows how GW uses balance.

If I could find another game in similar popularity/ubiquity I'd hop on that ship in a moment. I tried Warmachine but that died a bit before 8th came out, there are a few star wars gamers around but not enough to have a community.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I also fail to understand why painters/builders matter for how the rules should be done. Does making the rules worse make the people who don't play the game happier?

Always confuses me as well. If the rules are good, they can still make pretty models and painters can make up whatever narratives they want. If the rules are crap, who cares how pretty your plastic army people are? If the rules are crap, just go build dioramas and be done with it.

Why can't people like collecting and painting but also game occasionally? I put a lot of time into painting and re-basing my nids and don't want to yank the arms off my monsters every codex update because GW decided to change their options to keep the WYSIWYG/competitive pedants happy.

But I forget that the general opinion of the game on dakka is is "I had my fun and thats all that matters."

 Sim-Life wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I also fail to understand why painters/builders matter for how the rules should be done. Does making the rules worse make the people who don't play the game happier?

Always confuses me as well. If the rules are good, they can still make pretty models and painters can make up whatever narratives they want. If the rules are crap, who cares how pretty your plastic army people are? If the rules are crap, just go build dioramas and be done with it.

Why can't people like collecting and painting but also game occasionally? I put a lot of time into painting and re-basing my nids and don't want to yank the arms off my monsters every codex update because GW decided to change their options to keep the WYSIWYG/competitive pedants happy.

But I forget that the general opinion of the game on dakka is is "I had my fun and thats all that matters."

You realise that under the current rules, that some players do not get to have as much fun as there chosen army is outmatched even at the avg.

And you cannot get angry at players when GW themselves aren’t removing options not represented by models in a lot of cases.

Trying to clarify my thoughts here, you seem to think the game is fine. And that players response to the rules is pedantic in some way, why also blaming them for things outside of there control why GW enforce there own form of WYSIWYG.
Ironically back when I started WYSIWYG was more of a casual thing at times, a way for casual players to simplify the game so they could focus more on the fun and narrative of the game.
With more competing players being far more in the middle ground.

Apple fox wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I also fail to understand why painters/builders matter for how the rules should be done. Does making the rules worse make the people who don't play the game happier?

Always confuses me as well. If the rules are good, they can still make pretty models and painters can make up whatever narratives they want. If the rules are crap, who cares how pretty your plastic army people are? If the rules are crap, just go build dioramas and be done with it.

Why can't people like collecting and painting but also game occasionally? I put a lot of time into painting and re-basing my nids and don't want to yank the arms off my monsters every codex update because GW decided to change their options to keep the WYSIWYG/competitive pedants happy.

But I forget that the general opinion of the game on dakka is is "I had my fun and thats all that matters."

You realise that under the current rules, that some players do not get to have as much fun as there chosen army is outmatched even at the avg.

And you cannot get angry at players when GW themselves aren’t removing options not represented by models in a lot of cases.

My 40k armies are Sisters, Tyranids, Necrons, Grey Knights, AdMech and IG, the least played army is IG because they aren't painted so I'm fairly familiar with the bottom of the barrel thanks. And btw, I've won a majority of my 8th Ed games.

MiguelFelstone wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
You're asking me to provide *evidence* that I enjoy the game and find it relatively balanced and competent for the purpose of the kinds of friendly games I enjoy?

Seriously?

Yeah, I'm out. Have fun continuing to spend fortunes on a game you clearly despise?

Nope. No. Okay.

I was responding to what i quoted directly, but i'll break it down for you since your clearly confused.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

petrov27 wrote:
even if not competitive, shouldn't it have at least a balanced competent set of rules? Is it "fun" even in casual games to have to go "guys, my army is total garbage, can you please not play with your broken OP stuff?"

Sure. And, in general, they tend to accomplish that.

Here you are arguing the game is balanced and has a competent set of rules.

No, I was arguing the game is relatively balanced and has a competent set of rules for a game that doesn't prioritize competition. That was the conversation we were having.

Anyway, seriously, this thread is waaaaayyyyy too negative for me, so in terms of me, at least, can we please just leave it at you being welcome to hate the game and me being welcome to think it's mostly fine for what it is?

Without the competitive side of this game, you can kiss this game goodbye. I'm sorry, I'm not competitive, nor am I too naive to think that GW somehow cares enough to keep making this game for casuals like me. I spend less than 60/usd a month on this hobby, but there are 4 players I know personally in my area that spend roughly 200-400/month. GW has no interest in what I think would be a cool way to play the game.

Same with Starcraft (Or any major Multi-player video game), D&D, Diablo 3-Infinity, WoW, anything made by EA, Actavision, Konami, or Night Dive studios.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

MiguelFelstone wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
You're asking me to provide *evidence* that I enjoy the game and find it relatively balanced and competent for the purpose of the kinds of friendly games I enjoy?

Seriously?

Yeah, I'm out. Have fun continuing to spend fortunes on a game you clearly despise?

Nope. No. Okay.

I was responding to what i quoted directly, but i'll break it down for you since your clearly confused.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

petrov27 wrote:
even if not competitive, shouldn't it have at least a balanced competent set of rules? Is it "fun" even in casual games to have to go "guys, my army is total garbage, can you please not play with your broken OP stuff?"

Sure. And, in general, they tend to accomplish that.

Here you are arguing the game is balanced and has a competent set of rules.

No, I was arguing the game is relatively balanced and has a competent set of rules for a game that doesn't prioritize competition. That was the conversation we were having.

Anyway, seriously, this thread is waaaaayyyyy too negative for me, so in terms of me, at least, can we please just leave it at you being welcome to hate the game and me being welcome to think it's mostly fine for what it is?

Honestly I do not think anyone here really hates the game, maybe some do. It’s hard to tell In text.

D&D isn't about competition. Can't say the same for the others (having not played them) but D&D is NOT a competitive game.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Why can't people like collecting and painting but also game occasionally?

Super, go for it, given that you don't really care about rules balance, you can even make up whatever rules you want, you are free, unbound by GW's hideous rules! Run through the rainbows, oh future gothic summer child!

 Sim-Life wrote:
But I forget that the general opinion of the game on dakka is is "I had my fun and thats all that matters."

Yes, but your fun requires no structure, no definition, no rules and no balance, yet, painters insist on jumping in on rules discussions with spurious arguments about how keeping things fluffy, pretty and canonical is the pole star by which we should all navigate.

Not to be an ass, but I didn't even read this thread - just the title, and thought "Well, no gak.".

Is this a genuine surprise to people that GW is extremely lacking in their playtesting? This has been a thing for decades now.

GW games are competitive they’re just not very well balanced as such.

 Fajita Fan wrote:
GW games are competitive they’re just not very well balanced as such.

Most games are inherently competitive.

Its just not GWs primary focus to full balance it.

i forget who it was but in a AMA on reddit one of the big names stated that they dont care to get it to 99% perfect.

there is diminishing returns from 75% to 90% to 95%.

(but this might of been kirby era)

We can argue for days about what direction GW should take the game ruleset and that is essentially a subjective thing. What I think most of us can agree on at least is that overall GW is just bad at rules writing.

From the people who just want to build an army with stuff they like…. we just dont care.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Why can't people like collecting and painting but also game occasionally?

Super, go for it, given that you don't really care about rules balance, you can even make up whatever rules you want, you are free, unbound by GW's hideous rules! Run through the rainbows, oh future gothic summer child!

 Sim-Life wrote:
But I forget that the general opinion of the game on dakka is is "I had my fun and thats all that matters."

Yes, but your fun requires no structure, no definition, no rules and no balance, yet, painters insist on jumping in on rules discussions with spurious arguments about how keeping things fluffy, pretty and canonical is the pole star by which we should all navigate.

Maybe swing that pendulum back the other way and think about what you said from the fluff-bunny perspective. Why do competitive players keep jumping into discussions about why unit X is marginally worse than unit Y and therefore worthless then start throwing maths and theoryhammer around like its the Be All and End All of the game.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Maybe swing that pendulum back the other way and think about what you said from the fluff-bunny perspective. Why do competitive players keep jumping into discussions about why unit X is marginally worse than unit Y and therefore worthless then start throwing maths and theoryhammer around like its the Be All and End All of the game.

Do we invite you to those threads? Do you feel you have something productive to add to such discussions of rules minutiae? Then why do you participate? I don't jump in on threads about why Magnus should be red and not green, I don't comment on why Roboute would never get coffee with Dante, because I DON'T fething CARE. Dakka has a whole forum for discussing fluff-bunny issues, I'm sure they'd happily put one up for modeling if you asked.

regarding pick up games, my last pick up game was a pretty relaxed "let's put our models down and play" affair. it's possiable to get that kinda game play even with a pick up game