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.

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
"The game is bad" and "the game is unbalanced" are two different things, Slayer.

Not really. Even in a narrative context, the game is adversarial. There is a winner and a loser. Unless your fluff is "my Necrons suck and their tombworld was accidentally overrun when an Imperial Guard regiment mistakenly landed there" or something, it is still important to have rules that define "realistic" (here I mean "narratively consistent") outcomes.

For example, it is narratively inconsistent for Grey Knights to autolose to Chaos.

I am sure most people here would agree that 40K's poor balancing is a detriment for the game, but everyone doesn't think it is enough to make the game 'bad' as there are other aspects they enjoy and they find the game fun regardless of its shortcoming. Ultimately games are for fun, if you're having fun playing it, it cannot be a terribly bad game.

Which is precisely the problem. Some people are having fun, but some people aren't. I love narrative games, but it wasn't narratively supportable to have my army tabled at the top of 3 every game. "This is Bradley, Earl of Montfor- oh blimey. Well this is Bradley II, Earl of Mont- ah, drat. Well this is Bradley III, Earl of - oh, bother."

I was out of the game for six or eight months until Sororitas dropped because of bad narrative experiences. Now that Sororitas dropped, I have played like five games and am cautiously enjoying it more. But I am waiting for the pin to drop, because I think at this point it is inevitable that I will have a game I don't like.

And tbqh, I feel kind of bad even when I do win. My latest narrative campaign game saw my Death Guard opponent nearly tabled by the top of 4 (1500 pts) and I was running an all foot Sisters horde. My opponent was clearly quite distraught - not at me, and he tried to hide it gracefully - but it was clear he was having less fun than I was. And I hate that. We even did the pre-game conversation and stuff; heck the game was organized a week ago in our narrative discord when I elected to defend against his attack on the map. His 1500 points was simply worse than mine, and that shouldn't have happened.

Thats what happens when you have a game that pushes list building over everything else.

To me, 1500 points should have a fair shot against 1500 points. If it can you have good internal and external balance.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Well like I said I think the issue isn't people enjoying 40k outside of tournaments, it's that they aren't acknowledging that it's bad because they don't experience any of the bad parts,

I'd go as far to say in many cases it is because they don't experience anything else, period.

Saying "I like 40K" or variations thereon is a perfectly fine opinion to have, but if all you do is play 40K or even simply within the GW eco system, then it is akin to eating exclusively at McDonald's and claiming the Big Mac is the finest foodstuff in all creation. Nobody can claim you aren't within your rights to hold that opinion, you are entitled to hold it and other people might indeed agree with you if their experience mirrors yours.

I don't question the validity of anyone's opinion, but there are some expressed here which, to me, lack credibility.

I do think there is quite a bit of this with 40k. I was outside the GW bubble (though mostly just next to it given most designers were GW alums) a good while before my miniatures war game of choice became Warhammer 40k. Or some variation. I completely recognize the flaws in the game, but I still like it well enough for what it is and willing to make alterations to get it to work better for me and my opponent. I continue to be baffled my those who expect it to work as a good cutthroat game. I don't think it will ever work like that. If you understand that and still want to play it like that's great. It just isn't how I want to play it. I also think for the most part, the idea new players are going to meet with their respective armies and one happens to bring a badly built, bottom tier army and the other also randomly puts together a near net list army they actually understand how to make use is a bit overstated on Dakka. As well as just how bad the match will be.

Heck, In the past month or so I have been the new (ish) player on both ends of this. First with Age of Sigmar where I played my warscrolls off of the building instructions army of Slaves to Darkness vs. Bonereapers where I got absolutely murdered. But that game was a perfect storm of Bonereapers currently being REALLY good right now and a mission/points level that really favored them vs. a garbage tier faction and pretty bad player. Even now, with a few games and a new Battletome, I don't see me winning vs. Bonereapers all that often. A lot of what OSB faction does what I want my Slaves to Darkness to do, but they kinda do it better. However, at least I have a fighting chance. Maybe even more if I actually adapt. And at the end of the day, that is all I am asking for.

The other end of the spectrum was this weekend of Primaris (me) vs. Tyranids with a lot of Forge World models. The big FW bugs. The mission didn't really favor the Tyranids (killing). However, I made a lot of activation order mistakes and probably should have castled up more given area control wasn't an issue. About the only I did well was spreading his forces out to deal with in detail rather than all at once. I practically tabled the Tyranid player end of round 5 shooting. I do think the Tyranid player played better than me too. He just had a very melee focused army of mechanically inferior units. It was probably a bit of a skew list as well since he did have a Lord of War, but nothing my take-all-comers army couldn't handle since he was paying a premium for T8 and weakest of Saves. So certainly there is room for balance with his stuff vs. mine. However, the game did make it to round 5, which all things considered, wasn't too bad given how killy this edition is. I figure I can drop a 100-200 points from my army and the game will be a lot more interesting. I don't even see it as a handicap. More of a player motivated points balancing for Forge World Lord of War models. I can say many Dakkanauts were right that FW stuff can be really bad in game. But it looks so cool I don't my that Tyranid player to not bring it.

And since it is you I am quoting, I could (note: could) level very limited experience (two games) that Guildball is unbalanced. I know it isn't, I just had incredibly bad luck. I am pretty sure I am the world record holder for losing a game of Guildball the fastest. Back before non-metal models, I was trying to learn the game with a box of Hunters I was originally commissioned to paint but then got as part of a trade. I went to my FLGS which was teaching people to play and got in a game with Fishermen (I think) where I proceeded to lose with barely any input into the game. I know a lot of that loss was just freakishly bad ball bounces and right rolls by my opponent (who also knew the game really well, but didn't really know how to demo/teach it). Anyways whatever the bare minimum moves to win the game, it was a blowout. I didn't play again not really due to that game. More that I really didn't like the game at any level, didn't like the team I had and the group there was far more cutthroat than I enjoy my games to be.

I also forget if it was this thread or another where you asked for more unbalanced miniatures games than that of GW ones. I felt that Deadzone 1st edition was pretty unbalanced beyond the starter box and even then could still be a cakewalk/impossible with the right/wrong secret mission card. You could probably level the same toward Dreadball 1st edition too after Season 2. Granted, I have a personal bias against Jake Thornton as a game designer made worst when I found out he 'designed' Lost Patrol. Good ideas, but very flawed execution with his games. I played a heavily house-ruled version, but to hear the players talk of it, the Mechwarrior Clix game toward the later releases sounded like it went fully off the rails. I didn't really play Dust 1947, but my army (Allied Rangers) had mostly been power-creeped out by USMC and the game itself seem to not entirely understand the intricacies of Battlefront Games version it copied and really only payed lip-service to the non-tile based tabletop version. Black Powder would also be an absolute nightmare to play how many want Warhammer 40k to work as it is a game with no points and toolbox approach that largely required the players to work together to build a game or have the most historically minded host a game. It would break down at nearly every level that 40k is scrutinized by, and it was written by Rick Priestly who states he often enjoys playing the game with the Perry Brothers, Jervis Johnson and John Stallard.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Well, yes they do allegedly test with competitive players, but you're right about not paying people to play test, even studio staff were expected to do that on their won time at one point. Perhaps still.

But if they disregard feedback for whatever reason its akin to having history consultants on awful movies, although GW aren't alone PP released 3rd ed WMH with one faction basically unplayable and one of the first releases was broken as bobbins

 oni wrote:
Myself and 5 other people I know in my local community have quit (hopefully only temporarily) because 8th edition and GW itself has gone off the rails.

My purchasing came to a complete halt quite some time ago due to release fatigue and now I've stopped playing altogether because of the Vigilus campaign books being used in Organized Play events and Psychic Awakening being forced down our throats.

Two year edition lifespan is bs.
GW has gone way too far with pushing books.
GW has back tracked on all of their original promises for what 8th edition is supposed to be. ALL OF THEM.
GW is embracing and fostering a WAAC play style (thanks to bias tournament player influence because that's who they're using for play testers).
Slowly forcing obsolescence on their most iconic property (i.e. Space Marines) all while being completely disingenuous with their fan base about it.
White Dwarf is the worst its ever been.
A release schedule that's completely absurd.
GW's obvious fear of PC culture creeping in and them bowing to it.

It's sad, it's disheartening, I've been involved with 40K for 25 years. I've weathered some pretty bad stuff, but what's happening right now... I cannot take it. I'm so completely disenchanted with EVERYTHING they're doing. I look at my game room with complete disgust for GW and just walk away pretending it's not there - for several months now.

So why don't you & those other 5 who're of similar mind simply get together & play in whatever way you all find agreeable? If Vigilus & Psychic Awakening are a book too far? Then just don't use them.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:


And since it is you I am quoting, I could (note: could) level very limited experience (two games) that Guildball is unbalanced. I know it isn't, I just had incredibly bad luck. I am pretty sure I am the world record holder for losing a game of Guildball the fastest. Back before non-metal models, I was trying to learn the game with a box of Hunters I was originally commissioned to paint but then got as part of a trade. I went to my FLGS which was teaching people to play and got in a game with Fishermen (I think) where I proceeded to lose with barely any input into the game. I know a lot of that loss was just freakishly bad ball bounces and right rolls by my opponent (who also knew the game really well, but didn't really know how to demo/teach it). Anyways whatever the bare minimum moves to win the game, it was a blowout. I didn't play again not really due to that game. More that I really didn't like the game at any level, didn't like the team I had and the group there was far more cutthroat than I enjoy my games to be.

To be fair, that a new player lost hard to an experienced player doesn't speak to imbalance as much to a learning curve, something which GB is acknowledged to possess, and a steep one at that. Personally, that I feel like how I play the game is a bigger determinant to victory than my list is a huge part of the appeal. Your experiences might have been compounded by using Hunters, when they were first introduced (and I know of which I speak, they were my first team from shortly after release) Steamforged self confessedly had them underpowered. Not "going to get crushed everytime" under, but they suffered from needing to do 3 things in order to do what other teams could do in one or two. Consequently there was a real issue against anyone who knew what they were about, as they'd be able to disrupt the Hunters player everytime. This was a temporary issue, however, and they soon got fixed from Season 3.

I also forget if it was this thread or another where you asked for more unbalanced miniatures games than that of GW ones. I felt that Deadzone 1st edition was pretty unbalanced beyond the starter box and even then could still be a cakewalk/impossible with the right/wrong secret mission card. You could probably level the same toward Dreadball 1st edition too after Season 2. Granted, I have a personal bias against Jake Thornton as a game designer made worst when I found out he 'designed' Lost Patrol. Good ideas, but very flawed execution with his games. I played a heavily house-ruled version, but to hear the players talk of it, the Mechwarrior Clix game toward the later releases sounded like it went fully off the rails. I didn't really play Dust 1947, but my army (Allied Rangers) had mostly been power-creeped out by USMC and the game itself seem to not entirely understand the intricacies of Battlefront Games version it copied and really only payed lip-service to the non-tile based tabletop version. Black Powder would also be an absolute nightmare to play how many want Warhammer 40k to work as it is a game with no points and toolbox approach that largely required the players to work together to build a game or have the most historically minded host a game. It would break down at nearly every level that 40k is scrutinized by, and it was written by Rick Priestly who states he often enjoys playing the game with the Perry Brothers, Jervis Johnson and John Stallard.

I wouldn't try and argue that other games haven't had or got issues, but IME these aren't so endemic to a system that it has become normalised the way it has in 40K. Most broken factions or units seem to get fixed addressed at some point, not always as fast or in the way everyone wants, but at least in a way that some way attempts to correct the error.

Something like Black Powder (which in no way is unique, I understand points are an alien concept in a certain stripe of Historical) has an advantage in that by not using points it sets expectations accordingly. In 40K they use points, and it is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make that equal values mean equal utillity. Yes, there is a certain mechanical consideration, but when 1500 points vs 1500 points doesn't actually mean a fair game with both players starting from an equivalent position, people get upset.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Well, yes they do allegedly test with competitive players, but you're right about not paying people to play test, even studio staff were expected to do that on their won time at one point. Perhaps still.

But if they disregard feedback for whatever reason its akin to having history consultants on awful movies, although GW aren't alone PP released 3rd ed WMH with one faction basically unplayable and one of the first releases was broken as bobbins

Yeah, but as I said, mistakes aren't the same as 30 years of persistent problems. But then, the GW hobby is buying GW miniatures, so why worry whether a silly game is balanced or no!

 Azreal13 wrote:

Yeah, but as I said, mistakes aren't the same as 30 years of persistent problems. But then, the GW hobby is buying GW miniatures, so why worry whether a silly game is balanced or no!

To be fair, don't act as though this is somehow unique to gw. Look at privateer press. Warmachine has been around for what? 15 years? And there are still core issues with the game that have never been fundamentally solved. focus is stil problematic for example. Some warcasters and units have been junk since mk1 and some are still go-to after all that time. And in fairness, there have been persistent edition-unique issues that have cropped up in each successive edition of the game to the point where you could say the game changed as it aged, it didn't necessarily improve.

I think it's just the nature of ttgs.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You saying "nah opinion" does not work. I can mathematically show you, as it has been done multitudes of times, how bad certain armies are. Numbers are not opinions.

So can you actually prove the game is balanced?

Not balanced is not the same as not good.

The game is not balanced. I've been involved since third edition and it has never been balanced. It never will be. I've also played a lot outside of the gw bubble, and to be fair, the grass isn't necessarily greener. The best I've seen is various shades of 'more or less good enough some of the time', and for all the times there ok, that helps little when time after time, you still go up against gaspy 2 or the haleys in warmachine and the community as a whole eschews creativity in favour of crutches and go-to netlists.

I've learned not to chase the dragon that is 'balance' to the ends of the earth and back. You'll never find it. It's a unicorn. I'm happy with 'good enough'. I think it is the best that can be realistically expected from any game designer. And that comes with the expectation that I might also have to put some work in at the front end, talk to the other guy, I might have to play down or accomodate in some way. If that leads to a fair(er) game and helps give back to my community, then I'm happy to do my bit. It's like recycling.
I have also learned there are things other than absolute balance provided by gaming-Jesus that are also massively important to me. Considering nothing will ever be perfect, will I accept balance issues if the other things that are important to me are also there? The answer is yes. For the simple reason there are things I can do at my end to mitigate issues that pop up. No different to a model I like not being 'quite-as-perfect' as I'd like - hey, I can convert it. Dodgy rules? We can change them.

I am not the only person to approach games like this.

None of this means I (or people like me) ignore problems or that we don't care about them or don't see them. We are not 'I'm alright jacks'. It doesn't make us entitled or blind or fanboys. It just means we take personal responsibility and ownership of our games, rather than unquestioningly adhering to broken rules or thinking the responsibility isn't ours. It doesn't make us better. Or mean I look down on you. It means proactivity, maybe in a different direction to those of you who complain about, or discuss issues on the internet for years at a time (legitimate position, though personally, I question its value beyond a certain point) but stay playing 'by the rules'. Or those of you who leave to play other games (legitimate position. I play and have played many non-gw games. And yet most of my gaming fun these last 3 years has come from gw stables. If you would have told me this ten years ago I would have laughed!). It does mean, att he cost of some work at the front end, I get to continue to enjoy a game and ip, rather than slowly have that love and joy in by hobby slowly turn to toxicity and hate. Nah, I'll take a bit of work and optimism, thanks.

 Azreal13 wrote:

I wouldn't try and argue that other games haven't had or got issues, but IME these aren't so endemic to a system that it has become normalised the way it has in 40K. Most broken factions or units seem to get fixed addressed at some point, not always as fast or in the way everyone wants, but at least in a way that some way attempts to correct the error.

This is literally exactly what GW is doing! And these days they're patching their game pretty damn rapidly too.

Yeah, but as I said, mistakes aren't the same as 30 years of persistent problems.

Yes they are, except GW is the only one who can have 'persistent problems' as they're practically the only one to have persistent games!

But then, the GW hobby is buying GW miniatures, so why worry whether a silly game is balanced or no!

Well certainly the miniatures are the main appeal.

Deadnight wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Yeah, but as I said, mistakes aren't the same as 30 years of persistent problems. But then, the GW hobby is buying GW miniatures, so why worry whether a silly game is balanced or no!

To be fair, don't act as though this is somehow unique to gw. Look at privateer press. Warmachine has been around for what? 15 years? And there are still core issues with the game that have never been fundamentally solved. focus is stil problematic for example. Some warcasters and units have been junk since mk1 and some are still go-to after all that time. And in fairness, there have been persistent edition-unique issues that have cropped up in each successive edition of the game to the point where you could say the game changed as it aged, it didn't necessarily improve.

I think it's just the nature of ttgs.

I do not in any way assert that the "perfect" game exists. Without playing every one in depth I can't be sure, but I would strongly suspect that literally every game held up as an example of better balance than 40K brings its own issues and imperfections. But were operating on a curve here where perfection isn't required to be better.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You're not even listening to the argument are you? Lemme separate the words individually for you so you can understand the grand point:
The. Game. Is. Not. Balanced. For. Either. Tournament. Or. Casual. Play.

Let me sum it up for you: So. What.

I don't care what your tourney experiences are or how bad they are. This game isn't (and never has been) built for tourney play. So if you insist on using it for such? Don't bitch about the results.
In casual play? 1st, this edition isn't bad enough to bail on (yet). 2nd, we've solved much of this at the individual group lv. These solutions might vary between groups though, so be prepared to be adaptable/flexible.
(for ex; The group I play most often with? We have more detailed terrain/cover rules & we use vehicle weapon fire arcs. Another group in the area doesn't use CPs or strats)

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You denying that doesn't change that as actual absolute fact. Every time I have asked "what about casual Angel Marines, Grey Knights, and Necrons vs Casual Codex Marines, Eldar, and Imperial Guard", literally none of you decided to tackle that point. It's because you don't HAVE an argument.

Well what do you want said? Each casual group might well have a different answer. This is why you play these games with friends. You get together, you play, you run into something, and you discuss how to fix it for next week. (knowing full well this isn't a universal fix, so if you play with a different group or at an event....).

 Azreal13 wrote:

 captain collius wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I think GWs books must be selling just fine considering we appear to be getting a new one every month for the foreseeable future.

I wonder if the cognitive dissonance Slayer is suffering from the idea of people enjoying 40k outside of tournaments is whats causing him to fall back on just calling everyone a fanboy.

Correction it's his fall back when he loses. We all buy plastic army men and spend too much relatively on it.we are all fanboys.

Undoubtedly, but don't make the mistake of thinking were all GW fanboys.

Also of course gw doesn't test with competitive players because unless you're getting paid for it it's hard to get in enough games a week to properly play test a whole system and note all the weaknesses for a book compared to at least 12 other books it's just a problem. This is not to say that space marines are not a step above.....they are. However some can still compete

Well, yes they do allegedly test with competitive players, but you're right about not paying people to play test, even studio staff were expected to do that on their won time at one point. Perhaps still.

Ohh I'm no rose tinted glasses GW fanboy. I stopped playing for a while after AOS came out. I know the reality. I also know that the game is fairly balanced I play a Tau list (I don't spam the ever living f outta drones) and I do fairly well by contrast my Deathwing sucks big-time. Heck just getting access to chaplain buffs would help them. Here's hoping tomorrows release gives me hope and a bigger Ezekiel model.

ccs wrote:
...(for ex; The group I play most often with? We have more detailed terrain/cover rules & we use vehicle weapon fire arcs. Another group in the area doesn't use CPs or strats)...

...Which is exactly what people are complaining about. If you're prepared to write the game yourself why are you paying GW money to write rulebooks?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
...(for ex; The group I play most often with? We have more detailed terrain/cover rules & we use vehicle weapon fire arcs. Another group in the area doesn't use CPs or strats)...

...Which is exactly what people are complaining about. If you're prepared to write the game yourself why are you paying GW money to write rulebooks?

The Core Rules don't use CP or strats.

 Blndmage wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
...(for ex; The group I play most often with? We have more detailed terrain/cover rules & we use vehicle weapon fire arcs. Another group in the area doesn't use CPs or strats)...

...Which is exactly what people are complaining about. If you're prepared to write the game yourself why are you paying GW money to write rulebooks?

The Core Rules don't use CP or strats.

Do they have detailed terrain/cover rules or vehicle weapon fire arcs?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
...(for ex; The group I play most often with? We have more detailed terrain/cover rules & we use vehicle weapon fire arcs. Another group in the area doesn't use CPs or strats)...

...Which is exactly what people are complaining about. If you're prepared to write the game yourself why are you paying GW money to write rulebooks?

The Core Rules don't use CP or strats.

Do they have detailed terrain/cover rules or vehicle weapon fire arcs?

The BRB offer terrain suggestions for the players to decide to use or not. It is in the back of the book just before Campaigns. As for weapon arcs, I'm sure you could agree that is more of a personal preference to use or not use as the gaming group sees fit.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
...(for ex; The group I play most often with? We have more detailed terrain/cover rules & we use vehicle weapon fire arcs. Another group in the area doesn't use CPs or strats)...

...Which is exactly what people are complaining about. If you're prepared to write the game yourself why are you paying GW money to write rulebooks?

Again with the ridiculous hyperbole! FFS!

- Supplementing the game with house rules isn't "writing the game yourself"

- Even if you modified every single rule in the whole game, the rulebooks are still full of lore, art, mission concepts, inspiration, and jumping-off points.

- As mentioned above, CP and stratagems are even presented as optional within the rulebook itself.

yeah but it rings like a hollow justification to say "supplementing the game with house rules isn't writing the game yourself".

GW has 4 pages of rules. One of these days, they might have like 1 page of rules that says:

1) Move phase. Units move a number of inches equal to the movement stat for their data sheet.
2) Shoot phase. Select a unit to shoot. Roll a dice and compare it to the unit's Ballistic Skill. If it meets the required score, select an enemy unit to destroy.
3) Charge phase. Put your units near an enemy unit if they wish to charge it. We recommend within 1".
4) Fight phase: Select a unit to fight. Roll a dice and compare it to the unit's Weapon Skill. If it meets the required score, select an enemy unit to destroy. We recommend limiting it to units within 1" for narrative reasons.

Like sure, there's "structure" there. Technically you could play the game using that 1 page of rules if you want.

But really?

GW's rules right now aren't a whole lot more complicated than that; heck, the morale phase has already been reduced to "select a unit. Roll a d6 and add casualties. Compare to <score>, remove casualties equal to difference." The sum total of the mechanic which is supposed to illustrate the effect of psychology in warfare has been reduced to one sentence.

How much of the game are we supposed to write ourselves? The core rules are four pages...

EDIT:
Plus! They'd still find a way to feth it up and have to errata it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


How much of the game are we supposed to write ourselves? The core rules are four pages....

Like the amount of honey, lemon or milk in your tea, as much as you need to get you what you want.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
...(for ex; The group I play most often with? We have more detailed terrain/cover rules & we use vehicle weapon fire arcs. Another group in the area doesn't use CPs or strats)...

...Which is exactly what people are complaining about. If you're prepared to write the game yourself why are you paying GW money to write rulebooks?

The Core Rules don't use CP or strats.

Do they have detailed terrain/cover rules or vehicle weapon fire arcs?

Nope, but for 100% free Core Rules, these terrain rules work:

Terrain and Cover

The battlefields of the far future are littered with terrain features such as ruins, craters and twisted copses. Models can take shelter within such terrain features to gain protection against incoming weapons’ fire.

If a unit is entirely on or within any terrain feature, add 1 to its models’ saving throws against shooting attacks to represent the cover received from the terrain (invulnerable saves are unaffected). Units gain no benefit from cover in the Fight phase.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


How much of the game are we supposed to write ourselves? The core rules are four pages....

Like the amount of honey, lemon or milk in your tea, as much as you need to get you what you want.

If I'm paying for tea, I expect it to be made correctly.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


How much of the game are we supposed to write ourselves? The core rules are four pages....

Like the amount of honey, lemon or milk in your tea, as much as you need to get you what you want.

If I'm paying for tea, I expect it to be made correctly.

There's no "correct" proportion of milk, sugar, honey or lemon in tea, Slayer...

Guys, I found 9th edition box sets....
https://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=DChcSEwiJ1NOandDmAhXYIK0GHfJSDqgYABABGgJwdg&ae=1&sig=AOD64_0cm4zVJBcNryBw_IgvwigwTNY7cA&adurl=https://www.target.com/p/risk-board-game/-/A-10855294?ref%3Dtgt_adv_XS000000%26AFID%3Dgoogle%26fndsrc%3Dtmnv%26DFA%3D71700000057132013%26CPNG%3DPLA_DVM%252B0060H00000pDiCoQAK-Hasbro-GamesSearch-AO-flight-2019%26adgroup%3DPLA_HasbroAllTime%26LID%3D700000001393753pgs%26network%3Dg%26device%3Dt%26location%3D9030164%26gclsrc%3Daw.ds%26%26gclid%3DEAIaIQobChMIidTTmp3Q5gIV2CCtBh3yUg6oEAQYASABEgLlYfD_BwE&ctype=46&ved=2ahUKEwje5MqandDmAhUzlZ4KHeA9ABoQzzl6BAgBEF8

macluvin wrote:
Guys, I found 9th edition box sets....
https://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=DChcSEwiJ1NOandDmAhXYIK0GHfJSDqgYABABGgJwdg&ae=1&sig=AOD64_0cm4zVJBcNryBw_IgvwigwTNY7cA&adurl=https://www.target.com/p/risk-board-game/-/A-10855294?ref%3Dtgt_adv_XS000000%26AFID%3Dgoogle%26fndsrc%3Dtmnv%26DFA%3D71700000057132013%26CPNG%3DPLA_DVM%252B0060H00000pDiCoQAK-Hasbro-GamesSearch-AO-flight-2019%26adgroup%3DPLA_HasbroAllTime%26LID%3D700000001393753pgs%26network%3Dg%26device%3Dt%26location%3D9030164%26gclsrc%3Daw.ds%26%26gclid%3DEAIaIQobChMIidTTmp3Q5gIV2CCtBh3yUg6oEAQYASABEgLlYfD_BwE&ctype=46&ved=2ahUKEwje5MqandDmAhUzlZ4KHeA9ABoQzzl6BAgBEF8

Just post a picture

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


How much of the game are we supposed to write ourselves? The core rules are four pages....

Like the amount of honey, lemon or milk in your tea, as much as you need to get you what you want.

If I'm paying for tea, I expect it to be made correctly.

There's no "correct" proportion of milk, sugar, honey or lemon in tea, Slayer...

Well here's why your metaphor sucks. There's a huge difference between making your tea at home and going somewhere and paying for sweet tea, and then being handed regular Iced Tea because the waitress said it was already sweet enough and, instead of telling them you want your money back, you pour sugar into the tea to try and get what you ordered. However, that just leaves a bunch of sugar on the bottom.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


How much of the game are we supposed to write ourselves? The core rules are four pages....

Like the amount of honey, lemon or milk in your tea, as much as you need to get you what you want.

If I'm paying for tea, I expect it to be made correctly.

There's no "correct" proportion of milk, sugar, honey or lemon in tea, Slayer...

Well here's why your metaphor sucks. There's a huge difference between making your tea at home and going somewhere and paying for sweet tea, and then being handed regular Iced Tea because the waitress said it was already sweet enough and, instead of telling them you want your money back, you pour sugar into the tea to try and get what you ordered. However, that just leaves a bunch of sugar on the bottom.

Of course the analogy breaks down if you apply to a completely different thing than it was intended for.

Jeez. It's Christmas Eve, dude! Can't you at least try to accept other people's perspectives *tonight*, and see things from their point of view, if not anytime else?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Don't use bad analogies then. Your point of view for the analogy was bloody terrible that I was surprised someone would even try to use it. Paying for a product means your product shouldn't be super defective or not what you ordered. Have some respect for yourself.

It wasn't even MY analogy you !

Goodnight.

you cannot compare 40k to Warmachine or say that there are 30 years of experience/development

while Warmachine (or Kings of War, or most other games out there) are still the same game after an Edition change, this is not true for 40k

8th is a completely new game, all past experience with design, gameplay or points values is worthless
This is a reason why just adjusting points without changing rules in the beginning did not work well (looking at Brimstones) because no one really new which stats will be the important ones that needed change or how well old profiles will translate into the new game.

So 40k is a 2 year old game and we now get the first faction books written for 8th that are based on experience with the new game.
while everything before can be seen as public Beta test.


you can still blame GW for that, as instead of fixing their game, they just release a new one without thinking/developing it through (and test the new game with faction rules from the old game)

 kodos wrote:
you cannot compare 40k to Warmachine or say that there are 30 years of experience/development

while Warmachine (or Kings of War, or most other games out there) are still the same game after an Edition change, this is not true for 40k

8th is a completely new game, all past experience with design, gameplay or points values is worthless
This is a reason why just adjusting points without changing rules in the beginning did not work well (looking at Brimstones) because no one really new which stats will be the important ones that needed change or how well old profiles will translate into the new game.

So 40k is a 2 year old game and we now get the first faction books written for 8th that are based on experience with the new game.
while everything before can be seen as public Beta test.


you can still blame GW for that, as instead of fixing their game, they just release a new one without thinking/developing it through (and test the new game with faction rules from the old game)

WMH mk2 to 3 changed loads about the game so I think its a fair comparison.

it changed a lot, but not the basic mechanics behind the game

 kodos wrote:
it changed a lot, but not the basic mechanics behind the game

Neither did 8th. Its still a d6 system with hit/wound/save rolls.