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.

 kodos wrote:
40k is already too big to have such rules working properly
There is no reason to have the detailed heroic story of each of your 100 grunts laid out by the dice on the table

current 40k at 2000 points is already Apocalypse size of the past, while still using rules for small a small 500 point Skirmish system.
this is also a reason why there is a balance issue, the size of the game is outside the sweetspot of the rules

Thank you for pointing this out. Separate hit -> wound -> save rolls so that you can forge the narrative is appropriate for a skirmish game where you have 10-20 models on the table. It is wholly inappropriate for massive hordes of infantry along with formations of armor and giant robots. I personally would not be at all upset if 40K was branched into a skirmish system (bigger Kill Team) and a battle system (smaller Apocalypse).

There is something very wrong with the scale of a game when skyscraper-sized robots are modeled, but it also matters exactly what kind of grenade a conscript is carrying.

Both narrative and matched play games should be WYSIWYG so everything is clear to your opponent.

 Fajita Fan wrote:
Both narrative and matched play games should be WYSIWYG so everything is clear to your opponent.

Yes.

It's pretty hard to balance, what, 29 factions? Let's squat some of this junk and reduce the size of the game. That alone would help with keeping people on an even playing field.

 Crimson wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:
Both narrative and matched play games should be WYSIWYG so everything is clear to your opponent.

Yes.

agreed.

 kodos wrote:

this is the point
the one advantage of 40k, compared to all other games, was the easy to find pick up game and that everyone plays the same game

Look, I agree with you that there's some issues with detail scaling, and that the rules writers are maybe making too many assumptions about people's ability and willingness to tweak the rules as needed, but the idea that the only advantage of 40k over other games is that it's easy to find an agreed upon pick-up game is… that's a pretty bold claim. I mean, for starters, there's the obvious advantages of the IP itself, and the quality of the models.

I stick by my belief that, although it's certainly not perfect, I like the game a lot, that it works quite well for the kinds of games I enjoy, and that the game is always going to be structured primarily around "telling a story" (and, to be frank, I'm sure that's in part because it's a nice middle ground that invites both newcomers and experts, and rests between hardcore competitor types and open play types who just want an excuse to set up their models with a friend's), so there's not much use being angry it isn't optimized for the competitive scene.

If the game were all about intense competition between human players, at the cost of the feeling of narrative immersion and memorable moments and the friendly vibe of many gaming days, I wouldn't be interested. It would turn me off. For many of the same reasons I never play competitive videogames online with strangers anymore. Compettiive gaming is deeply unpleasant and alienating to lots of people, and not always for anything to do with the game itself, if you catch my meaning. So why should the desire of Gamer X who wants it to be that kind of game trump the desires of people like me, who don't want it to change in that direction? It is what it is.

The unwillingness of people who strongly dislike 40k to play other things due to the fact that other games aren't as popular and widespread is a self-defeating, self-perpetuating vicious cycle, by the way, and one that I'm certain absolutely infuriates people like Privateer Press and Corvus Belli and Warlord, and the many smaller companies and people trying to actually make new games that better fit certain desires and niches.

There is something very wrong with the scale of a game when skyscraper-sized robots are modeled, but it also matters exactly what kind of grenade a conscript is carrying.

To be fair, though, anyone fielding a 28mm titan outside of Apocalypse games deserves what they get.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also the narrative argument falls flat when you realize the rules don't even allow for immersion anyway. Strats that only affect one unit at a time ever, like True Grit or Transhuman Physiology, because only one unit gonna remember they can shoot stuff next to them or they can somehow become more durable? The fact IGOUGO stops actual interaction between armies for dozens of minutes at a time? The bizarre as hell scaling of the current wounding table?

You're assuming that all games use Matched Play rules, which aren't the main way to play, manyof the standard Matched Play rules are listed in the Advanced Rules section.

Trying playing with the Core rules, PL, no CP, and your Codex, the basic version of the game, the one most people start with, at 500, 750, 1000, etc points, not these huge 2,000 point tournament based things. Look at it from the beginner perspective.

The base game is actually pretty fun!
The rulebook does make a note about using detachments and CP for Stratagems, saying that it's a great option, but it's just an option.
Personally, I've stopped using Matched Play and am following the Narritive section of the book (and CA's) which have TONS of unique and cool rules. I've found that PL based games, and the Narritive rules really change the feel of the game, even if you add in CP's and such.

 Togusa wrote:
It's pretty hard to balance, what, 29 factions? Let's squat some of this junk and reduce the size of the game. That alone would help with keeping people on an even playing field.

I started typing this out earlier but I felt there’s no viable chance of it happening. How about we get back to the old days:
Basic Marine codex with basic units and wargear
Non codex marines get small supplements for special rules/units/wargear but reference main Marine book for all else

IG codex with stats for the basic WS3, BS3, S3, T3 human trooper and buffs for using pure IG forces
Inquisition supplement with Sisters and GK with henchmen using IG rules
Custodes supplement with SoS and golden boys

Mechanicum codex (these need more robots and less infantry so they’re not too similar to IG)

Tau Alliance - add more kroot and vespid units without anymore Gundams

Necrons but I have no idea what to do with them as I don’t see them played

Tyranids
GSC supplement with new elites but using the IG rules for cultists and tanks, pure IG buffs replaced with Nid synergy

Chaos marines with god-specific marines as elites
Demon supplement so a player can choose how many troops to use from either list
Traitor guard supplement using IG rules but you use, for example, the same demon princes above
If a greater demon is taken as the General then god specific marines become troops

So you pare the number of codexes back and treat divergent lists as supplements. They draw basic troops and most units from a parent codex using those strategems with supplement-specific units being treated more like elites and costing more points. Tie CP generation to the choice of HQ with higher ranking officers or demons giving more rather than the number of formations. HQs should cost a lot of points with those having weaker stat lines (Tau or IG) giving morale or game effect bubbles instead of everyone getting bubbles (also reduces Death Stars).

So what’s the advantage? You’re balancing fewer main codices against one another while treating supplement units or abilities like points-heavy addons to customize an army. It allows Nids and Chaos to build somewhat soupier lists to compete with the Imperium while making the basic marine, the basic IG trooper, the basic Nid, the basic Tau, etc become the focus.

You’ll still have soup lists with potentially crazy combos but objectives should play more heavily into victory conditions rather than wiping your opponent. It’s possible to win battles and lose a war but it’s going to be impossible to achieve anything like consistent balance with this many separate army lists. Of course paring down will never happen because we continue to buy the models and GW treats the rules more like a tax we continue to pay.

Togusa wrote:It's pretty hard to balance, what, 29 factions? Let's squat some of this junk and reduce the size of the game. That alone would help with keeping people on an even playing field.

IMO the introduction of subfactions in 8th was the perfect opportunity to pare back the number of Marine flavors into a core codex, but I guess that ship has sailed.

nataliereed1984 wrote:To be fair, though, anyone fielding a 28mm titan outside of Apocalypse games deserves what they get.

Then I'll genericize it to 'a battalion-level game shouldn't care about what kind of grenade a conscript is carrying'. 40K's muddled scale is, IMO, a big part of its design problems; beyond the logical problems like putting ICBMs on the table or aircraft that fly in tight circles at 20mph, there's a lot of chrome at a very small scale but not a lot of fidelity in the large-scale, such as maneuver, coordination, or C&C. I've heard complaints about Apocalypse not modeling special weapons, but its scale is perfect for what it's supposed to be: the CO of a battalion strength element does not care about the individual armament of each member of a squad. They don't even care about the squad itself. They care about the company, or at most the platoon, with their orders passed down the chain.

It's a common wargame conceit that the player wears two 'hats'- rather than play a game where you are just the battalion CO and your 3-5 companies are the only playing pieces, it's accepted that you are simultaneously the battalion CO and his company COs, so you have control over both the companies and the platoons within those companies. 40K gives you control over, and 1:1 representation of, every individual soldier, which implies that it would be a platoon-level game at most (giving you the hats of a squad leader and a platoon commander)- and, in fact, that's exactly what it was back in 1st/2nd Ed, with an army being a couple of squads and a vehicle or two.

Abstraction keeps things moving. If greater fidelity isn't adding significant depth to the mechanics, then it's bad design. With the scale 40K is at now, it doesn't need anywhere from 20-120 dice rolls to resolve a single squad of 10 guys rapid firing, but those mechanics have been carried forward by historical inertia and, IMO, an excessive focus on chrome by the playerbase.

Fajita Fan:

I'm not sure us Aeldari and Sisters players would be very happy with that solution. :-/

Catbarf:

It was a joke.

 Blndmage wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also the narrative argument falls flat when you realize the rules don't even allow for immersion anyway. Strats that only affect one unit at a time ever, like True Grit or Transhuman Physiology, because only one unit gonna remember they can shoot stuff next to them or they can somehow become more durable? The fact IGOUGO stops actual interaction between armies for dozens of minutes at a time? The bizarre as hell scaling of the current wounding table?

You're assuming that all games use Matched Play rules, which aren't the main way to play, manyof the standard Matched Play rules are listed in the Advanced Rules section.

Trying playing with the Core rules, PL, no CP, and your Codex, the basic version of the game, the one most people start with, at 500, 750, 1000, etc points, not these huge 2,000 point tournament based things. Look at it from the beginner perspective.

The base game is actually pretty fun!
The rulebook does make a note about using detachments and CP for Stratagems, saying that it's a great option, but it's just an option.
Personally, I've stopped using Matched Play and am following the Narritive section of the book (and CA's) which have TONS of unique and cool rules. I've found that PL based games, and the Narritive rules really change the feel of the game, even if you add in CP's and such.

That doesn't tackle literally ANYTHING in my post.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also the narrative argument falls flat when you realize the rules don't even allow for immersion anyway. Strats that only affect one unit at a time ever, like True Grit or Transhuman Physiology, because only one unit gonna remember they can shoot stuff next to them or they can somehow become more durable? The fact IGOUGO stops actual interaction between armies for dozens of minutes at a time? The bizarre as hell scaling of the current wounding table?

Dingdingding we have an IGOUGO mention! Reset the clock.

Ever considered those stratagems just represent one truly heroic example of such tactics per turn, and all the units are doing such things to a lesser degree? They add flavour and the frisson of risk/reward resource management. Yes, it’s entirely artificial, but I disagree Stratagems are inmersion-breaking by nature. For me, they’re the opposite. They’re something a stat line and special rules some can’t quite achieve. They’re not perfect, not balanced, but are largely fun (except Lightning Fast Reactions that can get in the sea).

As usual, you’ve adopted a viewpoint and refuse see an differing one. At least this time you haven’t pre-derided those with an opposing view, I guess...

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also the narrative argument falls flat when you realize the rules don't even allow for immersion anyway. Strats that only affect one unit at a time ever, like True Grit or Transhuman Physiology, because only one unit gonna remember they can shoot stuff next to them or they can somehow become more durable? The fact IGOUGO stops actual interaction between armies for dozens of minutes at a time? The bizarre as hell scaling of the current wounding table?

Dingdingding we have an IGOUGO mention! Reset the clock.

Ever considered those stratagems just represent one truly heroic example of such tactics per turn, and all the units are doing such things to a lesser degree? They add flavour and the frisson of risk/reward resource management. Yes, it’s entirely artificial, but I disagree Stratagems are inmersion-breaking by nature. For me, they’re the opposite. They’re something a stat line and special rules some can’t quite achieve. They’re not perfect, not balanced, but are largely fun (except Lightning Fast Reactions that can get in the sea).

As usual, you’ve adopted a viewpoint and refuse see an differing one. At least this time you haven’t pre-derided those with an opposing view, I guess...

That...doesn't work either in such a limited context. For all intents and purposes, these are things the units are actually TRAINED for. After all, who is using the Auspex, and why does just one work at a time? Why is just one Predator moving that turn with no firing penalties? Out of the 15 Heavy Bolters in your army, why is just one able to fire Helfire rounds when that Chaos Knight needs to die NOW? That's just a couple off the top of my head. There's SEVERAL more beyond that in the codex and other codices as well. Some make sense as army benefits, like the one to change your Doctrine back or the Orbital Bombardment, and then the supplements gave the army wide ones during your effective doctrine or whatever. Those are few and far between though.

I mean, it does work if you read my take on it. If you ignore it and repeat yours of course it doesn’t. That’s how opinions work.

I get the frustration some people have with Strats. Seeing them as the more heroic moments helps me reconcile them. Units are using their Auspexes and scanners and fly clouds and knife feet etc all the time. That one Hellfire Shell is the one that hits the crucial spot, whereas the others plinked off the armour and might as well have been regular rounds. All the Eldar planes are jinking about but that one gal is just *super good at it*. That kind of thing. The exemplars and outliers are the ones the Strats represent, to me. YMMV. Whatever is most fun for you.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
Fajita Fan:

I'm not sure us Aeldari and Sisters players would be very happy with that solution. :-/

Catbarf:

It was a joke.

Sorry I had them in earlier when I typed this morning. Harlequins should be a supplement.

MiguelFelstone wrote:
Games Workshop does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, or any environment it seems.

I see click bait articles all the time complaining about one thing or another, ways they could improve the game, ect, and that would be wonderful it it actually accomplished a damn thing.

If you accept the above, why on gods green earth would you believe it will be improved? If i'm wrong i'd love to be proven so, please elaborate.

Grey Knights are the poster boys for GWs in-house test team and the perfect example of how completely out of tune they are with the competitive players who buy their products.

If you have a single faction that can't win tournaments for years on end you have a problem, and like i said it's been like this for years, the last GK winning list i saw ran 5-6 baby carriers so it was a while ago.

False, GW sends out game designers for tournaments and they have several elite gaming groups provide feedback and testing on new codexes and they have an internal team that casually tests new content. SM is not proof we need to give up, but proof GW needs to get a little more focus on testing for balance and probably ditch their current casual playtesters because SM are fairly unfun in casual because of rules bloat hitting casuals more than competitive gamers.

8th is better than 7th, it seems like complaining and providing feedback is working. GW is trying harder than ever to make a moderately fair game.

8th isn't that old and GK have won a major, if you include soup I'm sure they have won tonnes of RTTs, did hey win a major in 7th? They didn't receive buffs at regular intervals at least.

Why have a rulebook if you don't want to play a game? Just roll ten dice each per player turn and whoever rolls the highest total by the end of the game wins. Move and remove models from the table to represent the pts score each turn and forge a narrative, now stop asking for 40k to be terrible and stop improving, I just invented a terrible game you can have fun with.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I mean, it does work if you read my take on it. If you ignore it and repeat yours of course it doesn’t. That’s how opinions work.

I get the frustration some people have with Strats. Seeing them as the more heroic moments helps me reconcile them. Units are using their Auspexes and scanners and fly clouds and knife feet etc all the time. That one Hellfire Shell is the one that hits the crucial spot, whereas the others plinked off the armour and might as well have been regular rounds. All the Eldar planes are jinking about but that one gal is just *super good at it*. That kind of thing. The exemplars and outliers are the ones the Strats represent, to me. YMMV. Whatever is most fun for you.

It's very shallow to think it's just the one Heavy Bolter that landed the shot on the Imperial Knight out of 15 you have in your army, meanwhile the rest are shooting with 2 hits average.

So no it still doesn't work in your bizarre interpretation.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also the narrative argument falls flat when you realize the rules don't even allow for immersion anyway. Strats that only affect one unit at a time ever, like True Grit or Transhuman Physiology, because only one unit gonna remember they can shoot stuff next to them or they can somehow become more durable? The fact IGOUGO stops actual interaction between armies for dozens of minutes at a time? The bizarre as hell scaling of the current wounding table?

You're assuming that all games use Matched Play rules, which aren't the main way to play, manyof the standard Matched Play rules are listed in the Advanced Rules section.

Trying playing with the Core rules, PL, no CP, and your Codex, the basic version of the game, the one most people start with, at 500, 750, 1000, etc points, not these huge 2,000 point tournament based things. Look at it from the beginner perspective.

The base game is actually pretty fun!
The rulebook does make a note about using detachments and CP for Stratagems, saying that it's a great option, but it's just an option.
Personally, I've stopped using Matched Play and am following the Narritive section of the book (and CA's) which have TONS of unique and cool rules. I've found that PL based games, and the Narritive rules really change the feel of the game, even if you add in CP's and such.

That doesn't tackle literally ANYTHING in my post.

But it does!
Only Matched Play has the One use per phase limitation on Stratagem.
All other methods of play in the book (that use Stratagems) let you use strays as much as you want, as long as you have the CP.

Which then raises the question "what do CPs represent?"

In what world is "I would have called in an Orbital Strike but I instead promoted myself to Chapter Master" a narratively sensible thing?

"Sorry sir, we'd load and fire our hellfire shells at the Knight but Fred and Ted and Steve all got relics from the armory instead so we can't."

"Sorry Inquisitor, we would seize that man for interrogation but we fired too many Flakk missiles..."

"Sorry, commander, but you can't use the radio in the chimera anymore. We had to shoot Chaos harder too many times instead."

 Fajita Fan wrote:
Both narrative and matched play games should be WYSIWYG so everything is clear to your opponent.

Yes but there is hardly a "clear to your opponent" anymore. So much of what an army can do isn't modeled on the table or available at a glance on the unit's datasheet. 3 WL traits and relics each, 2 or more chapter tactics per sub-faction, doctrines for the people gw thinks deserve better than the rest of us this season, pages of stratagems. All across many books that most opponents have no business in buying for themselves.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Which then raises the question "what do CPs represent?"

In what world is "I would have called in an Orbital Strike but I instead promoted myself to Chapter Master" a narratively sensible thing?

"Sorry sir, we'd load and fire our hellfire shells at the Knight but Fred and Ted and Steve all got relics from the armory instead so we can't."

"Sorry Inquisitor, we would seize that man for interrogation but we fired too many Flakk missiles..."

"Sorry, commander, but you can't use the radio in the chimera anymore. We had to shoot Chaos harder too many times instead."

those limitations do not exist in Narrative-based games.

I have never once spent cp on becoming chapter master for a day.

CP's represent potentially pivotal moments in the battle where intuition, guile, experience, etc factors into the game. if the commander, using their gut, picks to rethink that shot/order/jumping out the way etc it would only be really fairly represented by a commodity(gained/lost).

I really like how the game plays with the CA terrain rules and like minded people. 8th really just needs condensing the rules and maybe introducing flat to wound rolls and differing profiles for wounding light inf, heavy inf, vehicles(maybe by keyword).

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:
Both narrative and matched play games should be WYSIWYG so everything is clear to your opponent.

Yes but there is hardly a "clear to your opponent" anymore. So much of what an army can do isn't modeled on the table or available at a glance on the unit's datasheet. 3 WL traits and relics each, 2 or more chapter tactics per sub-faction, doctrines for the people gw thinks deserve better than the rest of us this season, pages of stratagems. All across many books that most opponents have no business in buying for themselves.

Good marketing, and momentum go a long way even when you have a rather poor game. Rules only need to be good enough to sell to the Idea they Represent. This is really where GW sits with WYSIWYG, No Model no rule, Other than where we can use that to sell something.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
Fajita Fan:

I'm not sure us Aeldari and Sisters players would be very happy with that solution. :-/

Catbarf:

It was a joke.

Sorry I had them in earlier when I typed this morning. Harlequins should be a supplement.

If you just mean that sub-factions like Harlequins, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Deathwatch, Death Guard, Thousand Sons, etc. should be folded back into the main codex, with just a supplement for their unique qualities...

I mean, I can definitely see where you're coming from, but it would still be immensely frustrating for those players who suddenly see their favourite factions ranges minis and unique qualities dramatically reduced.

And I don't thinking cutting down from roughly 24 codexes to roughly 18 would actually help with balancing that much. Especially when you STILL have to do the supplements.

I think it'd be more hurt for players than gain, and even IF it were "even", I still distrust any idea about improving the game that requires making it worse for some players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know… I actually had a thought about how a lot of the conflicts between competitive and narrative desires for the game could be resolved in a mutually satisfactory way…

What if they expanded the Three Ways To Play concept, so that rather than simply different missions and such to play with the same set of rules, and suggestions on how to use them, there were actual "patches" for the rules, and overt "suggestions" for additional optional rules, that could be used to meet different needs?

For example, the Matched Play rules could have a bunch of clear-cut "suggestions" for how to omit OP units or rules from your games, and "patches" for making the rules more streamlined, fast-moving, and appropriate to 2000 pt games (like a flat to-wound roll, and LOS / cover being determined on a unit basis for any infantry unit in excess of 5 models in games of 1000+ points, rather than always being model-by-model).

And Narrative could have, for example, "Suggestions" like rules about how many of a given unit a particular force would take. Like saying that a White Scars army can only have a maximum of one dreadnaught. You could even *minimums*, like White Scars requiring at least one bike unit and at least one land speeder!

Does that seem reasonable? Just, like, leaning into the fact that many of usl play the game in very different ways than others, with very different goals, and creating "OFFICIAL", rather than house-rule, ways to tweak the game to best serve these differences, so no one's fun is being compromised by someone else's fun?

Note: by "patches" I mean "this alternate rule is, 'officially', always in effect for this 'way to play'", and by "suggestions", I mean something akin to a house rule, but they themselves came up with it, tested it, edited it, etc, and are offering it to us as an option to enhance this particular 'way to play' that is optional but ALSO "official".

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I mean, it does work if you read my take on it. If you ignore it and repeat yours of course it doesn’t. That’s how opinions work.

I get the frustration some people have with Strats. Seeing them as the more heroic moments helps me reconcile them. Units are using their Auspexes and scanners and fly clouds and knife feet etc all the time. That one Hellfire Shell is the one that hits the crucial spot, whereas the others plinked off the armour and might as well have been regular rounds. All the Eldar planes are jinking about but that one gal is just *super good at it*. That kind of thing. The exemplars and outliers are the ones the Strats represent, to me. YMMV. Whatever is most fun for you.

It's very shallow to think it's just the one Heavy Bolter that landed the shot on the Imperial Knight out of 15 you have in your army, meanwhile the rest are shooting with 2 hits average.

So no it still doesn't work in your bizarre interpretation.

Yes. Yes it does work. And it isn’t shallow or bizarre. Try arguing without throwing in insults. It’s perfectly reasonable and one way of reconciling Matched Play’s limitation. Bizarre would be something like mentioning IGOUGO in every thread on every topic, or berating people as CAAC before they’ve even posted. That’s bizarre behaviour.

As others have noted “why only once per phase?” is only a “problem” (if you call it that) in Matched Play, a mode which has extra limiters added in a vain quest for balance. It’s a gamey patch to curb the worst abuses. If you want to play a game with 15 Hellfire Shells fired in a Phase then you absolutely can. The assumption on Dakka is that every game is 2k meta netlist WAAC, though, right?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The assumption on Dakka is that every game is 2k meta netlist WAAC, though, right?

If so, this sure as ain't the board for me...

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The assumption on Dakka is that every game is 2k meta netlist WAAC, though, right?

If so, this sure as ain't the board for me...

It's the only forum I visit that uses the term "marine apologist" in a hostile capacity for anyone who doesn't mind there being a marine release. I've considered getting out a few times but there is some good content here amongst the holes.

Dudeface wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The assumption on Dakka is that every game is 2k meta netlist WAAC, though, right?

If so, this sure as ain't the board for me...

It's the only forum I visit that uses the term "marine apologist" in a hostile capacity for anyone who doesn't mind there being a marine release. I've considered getting out a few times but there is some good content here amongst the holes.

Yeah, that's my impression so far as well: mostly not the kind of people I get along with best, or would want to game with, but also a pretty decent number of cool folks mixed in.

GW like most companies wants the best of all worlds. They could, very easily clear all this up and just state on their community page " Warhammer is not and never will be meant to be a hardcore competitive game, play it as such at your own peril. We only give a passing glance balance, never expect more than this from this product. "

If they stated that, quite clearly for all their customers to see, I'd gladly never say another word on their awful balance as they quite clearly made it known that's a non issue for them.

However, they toss around the word and idea of balance about as much any tournament thumper does but it's awful usually.

For the people giving GW a pass, just have GW be clear what the game is and is not and many of these topics would die. GW is as to blame for lack of simple clarity that leads people to believe they actually care about balance, as what else are all these paid point changes, why would they care at all about Legends in tournaments, why would they even run their own tournaments or attend ones they aren't running, etc, etc that makes it seem a lot like they are trying for balance just crap at it.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
GW like most companies wants the best of all worlds. They could, very easily clear all this up and just state on their community page " Warhammer is not and never will be meant to be a hardcore competitive game, play it as such at your own peril. We only give a passing glance balance, never expect more than this from this product. "

If they stated that, quite clearly for all their customers to see, I'd gladly never say another word on their awful balance as they quite clearly made it known that's a non issue for them.

However, they toss around the word and idea of balance about as much any tournament thumper does but it's awful usually.

For the people giving GW a pass, just have GW be clear what the game is and is not and many of these topics would die. GW is as to blame for lack of simple clarity that leads people to believe they actually care about balance, as what else are all these paid point changes, why would they care at all about Legends in tournaments, why would they even run their own tournaments or attend ones they aren't running, etc, etc that makes it seem a lot like they are trying for balance just crap at it.

Except GW know roughly from there sales figures that competitive sells and not just to the competitive players although that is not an unsubstantial amount itself.
GW see a sales spike after every major tournament as people read and see about the results and it’s not just meta chasers it can be your average player who sees a unit used that they dismissed for there army or it could be half a dozen imp knights meta chasers are customers too. The well painted and setup armies on top tables can influence people starting a whole new army.

Besides we know there are hardcore tournament players play testing for GW and most people in the studio that are not JJ are not limp wrist caac players forging the narrative as hard as they can, unfortunately JJ and a couple of other senior members are still ascendant and till that old guard get the boot things are unlikely to change.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
GW like most companies wants the best of all worlds. They could, very easily clear all this up and just state on their community page " Warhammer is not and never will be meant to be a hardcore competitive game, play it as such at your own peril. We only give a passing glance balance, never expect more than this from this product. "

If they stated that, quite clearly for all their customers to see, I'd gladly never say another word on their awful balance as they quite clearly made it known that's a non issue for them.

However, they toss around the word and idea of balance about as much any tournament thumper does but it's awful usually.

For the people giving GW a pass, just have GW be clear what the game is and is not and many of these topics would die. GW is as to blame for lack of simple clarity that leads people to believe they actually care about balance, as what else are all these paid point changes, why would they care at all about Legends in tournaments, why would they even run their own tournaments or attend ones they aren't running, etc, etc that makes it seem a lot like they are trying for balance just crap at it.

They actually kinda did that with 6th and 7th and guess what? Nobody cared. Instead people came up with ITC and continued complaining as usual.