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.

Play Apoc at lower point levels to be equivalent to a regular game of 40k. More balanced. Better rules. feth power bloat, codexes, supplements, etc etc...

 Crimson wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I just find the appeals to authority of gw to be laughable.

If you don't need GW's missions then you certainly don't need their point costs either.

Or unit rules. Or statlines.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good houseruled mission as well as anyone else. Can be quite fun. But a houserule is a houserule, whether it's ostensibly done for "competition" or "just for fun".

Id prefer a ground up rebuild of everything, but its very impractical. That it even half happened in sigmar is very impressive.

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah im not sure why they dont put out their own points values and rules of play. Not like the bar is very high.

Well volunteered, let us know when you have a draft ready.

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah im not sure why they dont put out their own points values and rules of play. Not like the bar is very high.

Because then we'd lose our data that is useful for baseline balancing and ITC point values would be subject to the whims of the community even more.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah im not sure why they dont put out their own points values and rules of play. Not like the bar is very high.

Because then we'd lose our data that is useful for baseline balancing and ITC point values would be subject to the whims of the community even more.

It would stop any validity ITC has for being involved with or considered by GW.

Its as valid as people think it is. GW is irrelevant

Martel732 wrote:
Its as valid as people think it is. GW is irrelevant

Yet you cannot stop complaining about GW. Personally I wouldn't spend several years consistently whining about things I find irrelevant.

To this analysis. Not overall.

Martel732 wrote:
To this analysis. Not overall.

GW is irrelevant for analysing the balance of 40K rules?

Ishagu wrote:If the community isn't using official rules they can't complain to GW.

In this we are in completely in agreement. If one has a problem with the ruleset being used, DON'T PLAY and direct the complaints at the appropriate target.

If one does not like ITC ruleset, don't play in tournaments that use them. If you do like the changes ITC makes, then you will you pursue those events. Rather simple.

If not enough people use the ITC rulse, they will either change to attract more people, or they will become irrelevant.

Martel732 wrote:I dont want to use any of gws rules. But the community seems to want to use the points fairly universally, as well as the gw brb. So im a bit stuck. Only the missions see variance.

True. The choice is either play with what your group wants, or seek to develop a group that agrees with you. That's the way it's always been in social gaming atmospheres.

Which is precisely the problem with the core game itself. If the game were at least slightly balanced to begin with, house rules don't need to have the effect of balance. New tournament packs wouldn't be claiming more balance, but just a different way to play. GW created that divide (not the competitive jerk players, not the filthy casuals, not the "why can't you just meet me in the middle because I don't want to take a side" people, but GW) and expects us to do the fixing for them.

A game with 600 different units, 20+ factions, countless weapon, deployment and terrain options is nearly impossible to balance fully.

Realise that this game has more unit and faction variety than any competitor, and even RTS video games.

No one is asking for that. Just no more IH-level feth ups.

People were asking for that though.

Lammia wrote:
People were asking for that though.

No they were asking to make marines better. Gw over shot the mark with ih by a long shot.

It's like going out for a cup of coffee and being given crystal meth instead.

Some of us were just asking to make existing marines cheaper.

Some, but most were asking for a whole lot more than just point changes.

They could have stopped at Combat Doctrines and left it there, that in itself is a huge buff. When they got several other layers bolted on for absolute no cost it just compounded the issue. (some more than others, compare Iron Hands to White Scars lol)

PA is a stop gap to sell books and raise relative power level. Wait 6 months and when several other factions receive their "2.0" you'll see marines sink back into a mid-tier footnote and Dakka will once again be flooded with "OMG marines suck" threads.

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Some, but most were asking for a whole lot more than just point changes.

They could have stopped at Combat Doctrines and left it there, that in itself is a huge buff. When they got several other layers bolted on for absolute no cost it just compounded the issue. (some more than others, compare Iron Hands to White Scars lol)

PA is a stop gap to sell books and raise relative power level. Wait 6 months and when several other factions receive their "2.0" you'll see marines sink back into a mid-tier footnote and Dakka will once again be flooded with "OMG marines suck" threads.

And thus the cycle of the codexes shall go on. May the glorious power churn go on forever.

The excuse that balancing 40k is hard is bull gak.

It doesn't need to be that hard. Start from the beginning. Build each army up from the available units and cut the ones that don't fit. GW could do it. They just don't. Because balance isn't a priority for them.

Dudeface wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah im not sure why they dont put out their own points values and rules of play. Not like the bar is very high.

Well volunteered, let us know when you have a draft ready.

Well with ITC's track record they would just make balance worse. After all ITC tournaments are provenly worse balanced than non ITC with gap between strongers and weakest increasing...

ITC point costs would just be even more marine favouring just like ITC scenario is.

 Lance845 wrote:
The excuse that balancing 40k is hard is bull gak.

It doesn't need to be that hard. Start from the beginning. Build each army up from the available units and cut the ones that don't fit. GW could do it. They just don't. Because balance isn't a priority for them.

By all means, please show us how it's done.
GW haven't balanced it properly. The ITC guys haven't done it with their homebrew, neither have the ETC guys.

Go on, write us a balanced set of rules. It's not that hard, as you say.

 Ishagu wrote:
A game with 600 different units, 20+ factions, countless weapon, deployment and terrain options is nearly impossible to balance fully.

Realise that this game has more unit and faction variety than any competitor, and even RTS video games.

40k really does not have any meaningful faction variety over there competitors that would make this such a more impossible task, there bigist issues would come from poor and inconsistent design.
Considering this is a issue in other GW games as well, even if 40k seems to be the worst. It would seem more likely it is something to do with the company.

Well that's just utterly wrong.

40k has massive rules and model variety, and even the same models can perform staggeringly different based on additional sub faction rules and traits.

Is it poor design? Everyone's talking about it, playing it, buying it in record numbers year by year. Maybe GW have realised that new spicy rules create more buzz and excitement than some generic, perfectly balanced ones lol

 Ishagu wrote:
Well that's just utterly wrong.

40k has massive rules and model variety, and even the same models can perform staggeringly different based on additional sub faction rules and traits.

Is it poor design? Everyone's talking about it, playing it, buying it on record numbers year by year. Maybe GW have realised that new spicy rules create more buzz and excitement than some generic, perfectly balanced ones lol

This is true, the forbes numbers put workshop at year to date 1st December (their first halve of their financial year) at $17.8m up pre tax profits.

Their shares are records high not just for workshop but for any tabletop company out there.

I get there is room for improvement but I agree with Ishagu. Workshop do, do alot of things right. Otherwise the numbers wouldn't back them up.

 Ishagu wrote:
Well that's just utterly wrong.

40k has massive rules and model variety, and even the same models can perform staggeringly different based on additional sub faction rules and traits.

Is it poor design? Everyone's talking about it, playing it, buying it in record numbers year by year. Maybe GW have realised that new spicy rules create more buzz and excitement than some generic, perfectly balanced ones lol

Lots of poor design can sell great, wow is doing great as far as we know. Even as it bleeds away players, it just puts new things to sell ones left. Is it well designed, no. A lot of it is awful, but it keeps those left paying and putting more into a cash shop.
It could collapse or keep going, or even find a way to bring new players back.

But that does not set 40k out that far from other games, you described warmachine and hordes right with that opening.
One of the big things that set them apart, is no faction in warmachine is left out of the core design.
40k has a few factions that are left out, as well as new design ideas introduced often at random and with little ideas on how to bring them inline before at times new editions to the game.
Warmachine also, for the most part ties there bigist faction rules to the warcasters themselves, which offer a type of points system to balance them out.

If some models perform drastically different under different rules, it’s on the design and development to understand and catch that.
It’s why players have taken things to there own to fix these issues. It’s a failure of GW and why this thread even exists now.

 Lance845 wrote:
The excuse that balancing 40k is hard is bull gak.

It doesn't need to be that hard. Start from the beginning. Build each army up from the available units and cut the ones that don't fit. GW could do it. They just don't. Because balance isn't a priority for them.

But the problem is there are a great many people up in arms on these forums about the shoddy rules writing, proofing and testing claiming it's easy to better and the bar is low. These same people then aren't able or willing to do the task they deem "easy" and instead continue to perpetuate the GW cycle they hate and just spend time pouring complaints out. All that does is erode the validity of their statements and frustrate others.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Well that's just utterly wrong.

40k has massive rules and model variety, and even the same models can perform staggeringly different based on additional sub faction rules and traits.

Is it poor design? Everyone's talking about it, playing it, buying it on record numbers year by year. Maybe GW have realised that new spicy rules create more buzz and excitement than some generic, perfectly balanced ones lol

This is true, the forbes numbers put workshop at year to date 1st December (their first halve of their financial year) at $17.8m up pre tax profits.

Their shares are records high not just for workshop but for any tabletop company out there.

I get there is room for improvement but I agree with Ishagu. Workshop do, do alot of things right. Otherwise the numbers wouldn't back them up.

Do we know how much of that is them in the last few years picking up pace with everything else, from where I sit. I see so much more from there other games now
The company could be very healthy in other places as well now, considering how bad other games where doing for them for years it seemed.

Apple fox wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Well that's just utterly wrong.

40k has massive rules and model variety, and even the same models can perform staggeringly different based on additional sub faction rules and traits.

Is it poor design? Everyone's talking about it, playing it, buying it on record numbers year by year. Maybe GW have realised that new spicy rules create more buzz and excitement than some generic, perfectly balanced ones lol

This is true, the forbes numbers put workshop at year to date 1st December (their first halve of their financial year) at $17.8m up pre tax profits.

Their shares are records high not just for workshop but for any tabletop company out there.

I get there is room for improvement but I agree with Ishagu. Workshop do, do alot of things right. Otherwise the numbers wouldn't back them up.

Do we know how much of that is them in the last few years picking up pace with everything else, from where I sit. I see so much more from there other games now
The company could be very healthy in other places as well now, considering how bad other games where doing for them for years it seemed.

If you're so against GW, you could just...you know...not play and buy their stuff.

If you do like their stuff but want it to be better. Then offer constructive alternatives. The GW community staff do read these forums. They do get taken into account. But when inherent complaints with no constructive dialogue is constantly thrown. Then the argument invalidates itself as it is seen for the sake of complaining.

But the truth of the matter is workshop are doing very well. They aren't going anywhere anytime soon. So if you want to see the game get "better", don;t simply moan, constructively feed and suggest.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Well that's just utterly wrong.

40k has massive rules and model variety, and even the same models can perform staggeringly different based on additional sub faction rules and traits.

Is it poor design? Everyone's talking about it, playing it, buying it on record numbers year by year. Maybe GW have realised that new spicy rules create more buzz and excitement than some generic, perfectly balanced ones lol

This is true, the forbes numbers put workshop at year to date 1st December (their first halve of their financial year) at $17.8m up pre tax profits.

Their shares are records high not just for workshop but for any tabletop company out there.

I get there is room for improvement but I agree with Ishagu. Workshop do, do alot of things right. Otherwise the numbers wouldn't back them up.

Do we know how much of that is them in the last few years picking up pace with everything else, from where I sit. I see so much more from there other games now
The company could be very healthy in other places as well now, considering how bad other games where doing for them for years it seemed.

If you're so against GW, you could just...you know...not play and buy their stuff.

If you do like their stuff but want it to be better. Then offer constructive alternatives. The GW community staff do read these forums. They do get taken into account. But when inherent complaints with no constructive dialogue is constantly thrown. Then the argument invalidates itself as it is seen for the sake of complaining.

But the truth of the matter is workshop are doing very well. They aren't going anywhere anytime soon. So if you want to see the game get "better", don;t simply moan, constructively feed and suggest.

I made no reference to there success as a company, and the reason I am here is for things I like. This is just throwing the goal posts of discussion in the trash and telling me to go dig them out.
I asked about other games in there financial as that is what You both seem to want to discuss.

My interest lies in rules, considering the last time this discussion come up with Ishagu he sidestepped it entirely I will consider maybe stepping out of this now.