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:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Games are for fun.
40k is a game.
It's truly a life changing realization when you come to understand this.

now just accept that people bought that game and invested a lot of money and now are pissed because that promise (40k is a game, and games are fun) did not hold true for them

Why would they have done such a thing? That sounds like mental illness which has nothing to do with 40k.

The decision to have fun with anything is an active choice. If you are choosing to not have fun with 40k, that's on you.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Why would they have done such a thing? That sounds like mental illness which has nothing to do with 40k.
The decision to have fun with anything is an active choice. If you are choosing to not have fun with 40k, that's on you.

you are working for EA?
it is the players who are wrong and not enjoying the games and never something wrong with game itself

sound like plump marketing or kind of victim blaming
people not having fun with 40k having a mental illness

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Games are for fun.
40k is a game.
It's truly a life changing realization when you come to understand this.

now just accept that people bought that game and invested a lot of money and now are pissed because that promise (40k is a game, and games are fun) did not hold true for them

Why would they have done such a thing? That sounds like mental illness which has nothing to do with 40k.

The decision to have fun with anything is an active choice. If you are choosing to not have fun with 40k, that's on you.

Hey man. If you're like... in the middle of a natural disaster and not having a good time that's just your choice. That's on you. The disaster itself has no bearing on your enjoyment of what you are currently a part of.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Why would they have done such a thing? That sounds like mental illness which has nothing to do with 40k.

The decision to have fun with anything is an active choice. If you are choosing to not have fun with 40k, that's on you.

Man I know some GW whiteknights here are pretty radical, but that's a whole new level of delusion. It's hard for me to have a lot of this "fun" when my fluffy lists get blasted by my opponents fluffy list for no other reason than that GW is incapable of balancing their armies correctly. I personally thought this would not flag me as a mentally ill person but guess I'm wrong.

 Castozor wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Why would they have done such a thing? That sounds like mental illness which has nothing to do with 40k.

The decision to have fun with anything is an active choice. If you are choosing to not have fun with 40k, that's on you.

Man I know some GW whiteknights here are pretty radical, but that's a whole new level of delusion. It's hard for me to have a lot of this "fun" when my fluffy lists get blasted by my opponents fluffy list for no other reason than that GW is incapable of balancing their armies correctly. I personally thought this would not flag me as a mentally ill person but guess I'm wrong.

maybe, on the other hand the evidance thus far suggests the codices may be getting better, codices SOB marines and necrons all allow for fluffy lists while also being reasonably solid.

that said if I didn't find 40k fun I'd stop playing it and stop thinking about it. I certainly wouldn't spend YEARS trolling a 40k forum.

Lance845 wrote:Being a game means it is supposed to be fun. Games are little engines designed to produce fun. The problem is some little engines don't do their job.

Not entirely true. Games can be used for education. That's actually how wargames started in the first place.

Though, in the case of 40K, it is a hobby game, and those are for finding enjoyment.

Lance845 wrote:Different people do seek different things. My issues with the game are deeply rooted in the mechanics. It's not bloat and it's not opponents. The game itself just isn't good.

I have to disagree. The mechanics are not the biggest issue, but the lack of foresight and cross-examination when writing the rules beyond the basic mechanics.

It's like having an Ikea kit, but the pictures are vague and you only the Swedish instructions came in the set. The basics are sound, but everything else they give you to make it work is less-effective in implementing it.

aphyon wrote:Yes they are, formation broke 7th edition, stratagems/CP are what is breaking the current game.
40K was always the fun, fast and simpler game to play. it had to be once it became an army game in 3rd ed. skirmish games cannot scale up and stay with the same complex rules.
9th ed has to much to keep track of, and there are many things that unreasonably bog/slow the game down. there doesn't need to be 7 phases to a game turn that used to have everything intuitively wrapped up in 3

I think the theories were sound behind Formations, CP, and Strategems, but as I mentioned above, GW has a hard time with KISS, and go overboard with their sloppy rule writing.

aphyon wrote:It is the same as it has always been. fun for some people is assembly and painting, or converting models (the hobby aspect) fun for others is game play or immersion in the universe through it. some more competitive players only find it fun to utterly crush their opponents so if they loose a game they are not having "fun" .

This much is very true. But it could be said that the game could be balanced better and the rule writing not so dysfunctional, even though the hobby side is doing quite well.

Lance845 wrote:Hey man. If you're like... in the middle of a natural disaster and not having a good time that's just your choice. That's on you. The disaster itself has no bearing on your enjoyment of what you are currently a part of.

Technically that is true. There are thrill seekers that would be looking for their surf board when they hear of a tsunami, or try to stand up to hurricane winds. There are the anarchists who seek to destroy the culture they live in just for the power thrill.

However, I do agree with where I believe you were sarcastically pointing out that most people prefer having their lives to be a bit more balanced and not so swing-heavy, even in their games.

GW is in the business of selling miniature first and foremost, everything else is just a means to that end. This is an important thing to accept before engaging in any discussions about balance in 40k and GW's aspirations towards achieving it.

Yes, a more balanced and enjoyable game would further incentivise sales of their miniatures, but getting there involves certain efforts and expenses GW is not willing to make. Not to mention the resulting conflict of balance vs. power creep and the pushing of new releases through better rules.

40k becoming a competent game is not happening anytime soon, but that's fine if you can enjoy it for what it is meant to be: an excuse to bring out those beautiful miniatures once in a while and spend a nice afternoon with a couple of friends.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Games are for fun.

40k is a game.

It's truly a life changing realization when you come to understand this.

Until then, try something else.

Except that this is not entirely true. 40k is a game, yes. It is also a product.
And as people have invested heavily in this product (both in terms of money, emotional investment and time) it would be against their self interest if they dind´t take an active interest in the way the product is developing.

As for the proposition of "hey if you do not like the product then just do not consume and just move on"-argument. You can do that, of course. But companies are spending millions every year to find out what their customers like and dislike.
So I´m not quite sure if this proposition would even be in the interest of the company that is producing the product in question.

 BertBert wrote:
GW is in the business of selling miniature first and foremost, everything else is just a means to that end. This is an important thing to accept before engaging in any discussions about balance in 40k and GW's aspirations towards achieving it.

Yes, a more balanced and enjoyable game would further incentivise sales of their miniatures, but getting there involves certain efforts and expenses GW is not willing to make. Not to mention the resulting conflict of balance vs. power creep and the pushing of new releases through better rules.

40k becoming a competent game is not happening anytime soon, but that's fine if you can enjoy it for what it is meant to be: a reason to bring out those beautiful miniatures once in a while and have a nice afternoon with a couple of friends.

Surely it'd be much easier for GW to move miniatures by making a simpler game in which you can use all their minis instead of making a bloated, overly-complicated game where at least half the minis in the game are s*** and not worth using at any given time.

 Lance845 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Games are for fun.
40k is a game.
It's truly a life changing realization when you come to understand this.

now just accept that people bought that game and invested a lot of money and now are pissed because that promise (40k is a game, and games are fun) did not hold true for them

Why would they have done such a thing? That sounds like mental illness which has nothing to do with 40k.

The decision to have fun with anything is an active choice. If you are choosing to not have fun with 40k, that's on you.

Hey man. If you're like... in the middle of a natural disaster and not having a good time that's just your choice. That's on you. The disaster itself has no bearing on your enjoyment of what you are currently a part of.

if I'm in the middle of a natural disaster I get out of it

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 BertBert wrote:
GW is in the business of selling miniature first and foremost, everything else is just a means to that end. This is an important thing to accept before engaging in any discussions about balance in 40k and GW's aspirations towards achieving it.

Yes, a more balanced and enjoyable game would further incentivise sales of their miniatures, but getting there involves certain efforts and expenses GW is not willing to make. Not to mention the resulting conflict of balance vs. power creep and the pushing of new releases through better rules.

40k becoming a competent game is not happening anytime soon, but that's fine if you can enjoy it for what it is meant to be: a reason to bring out those beautiful miniatures once in a while and have a nice afternoon with a couple of friends.

Surely it'd be much easier for GW to move miniatures by making a simpler game in which you can use all their minis instead of making a bloated, overly-complicated game where at least half the minis in the game are s*** and not worth using at any given time.

Well the thing is, at one time they were not s*** and GW sold a bunch of them. now you have them all you don't need to buy more, so they will throw a nice big shiny new mini at you with super good rules *cough* eradicators *cough* (they did the same thing to carnifexes when they released the plastic trygon) that you need to keep playing the most recent version of the game.

And loads of players fall for it every time.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Castozor wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Why would they have done such a thing? That sounds like mental illness which has nothing to do with 40k.

The decision to have fun with anything is an active choice. If you are choosing to not have fun with 40k, that's on you.

Man I know some GW whiteknights here are pretty radical, but that's a whole new level of delusion. It's hard for me to have a lot of this "fun" when my fluffy lists get blasted by my opponents fluffy list for no other reason than that GW is incapable of balancing their armies correctly. I personally thought this would not flag me as a mentally ill person but guess I'm wrong.

maybe, on the other hand the evidance thus far suggests the codices may be getting better, codices SOB marines and necrons all allow for fluffy lists while also being reasonably solid.

that said if I didn't find 40k fun I'd stop playing it and stop thinking about it. I certainly wouldn't spend YEARS trolling a 40k forum.

Maybe some players don't want be forced to quit a game due to its badly done rules. It is like have a gangrene to a leg: you can amputee that leg, if you don't have other choice, but you would prefer save that leg.
Projects like Prohammer or Oldhammer are the proof that more than some players have issue with the rules made by the GW and this can't be branded like simple troll's complaints.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


Surely it'd be much easier for GW to move miniatures by making a simpler game in which you can use all their minis instead of making a bloated, overly-complicated game where at least half the minis in the game are s*** and not worth using at any given time.

AoS is a thing after all, so there is merit to that angle.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Castozor wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Why would they have done such a thing? That sounds like mental illness which has nothing to do with 40k.

The decision to have fun with anything is an active choice. If you are choosing to not have fun with 40k, that's on you.

Man I know some GW whiteknights here are pretty radical, but that's a whole new level of delusion. It's hard for me to have a lot of this "fun" when my fluffy lists get blasted by my opponents fluffy list for no other reason than that GW is incapable of balancing their armies correctly. I personally thought this would not flag me as a mentally ill person but guess I'm wrong.

maybe, on the other hand the evidance thus far suggests the codices may be getting better, codices SOB marines and necrons all allow for fluffy lists while also being reasonably solid.

that said if I didn't find 40k fun I'd stop playing it and stop thinking about it. I certainly wouldn't spend YEARS trolling a 40k forum.

Maybe some players don't want be forced to quit a game due to its badly done rules. It is like have a gangrene to a leg: you can amputee that leg, if you don't have other choice, but you would prefer save that leg.
Projects like Prohammer or Oldhammer are the proof that more than some players have issue with the rules made by the GW and this can't be branded like simple troll's complaints.

continuing to play a game if you actively hate the game is stupid. it's like slashing your self and complaining about being in pain.

Continuing to say the people hate the game, if they try to highlight the issues they have with them is wrong. It is the opposite: they love the game, because if they don't, they would have quit time ago and if they were troll, they wouldn't be able to discuss politely; like instead they are doing.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:
Continuing to say the people hate the game, if they try to highlight the issues they have with them is wrong. It is the opposite: they love the game, because if they don't, they would have quit time ago and if they were troll, they wouldn't be able to discuss politely; like instead they are doing.

I think the issue for many is not the highlighting of problems with the game system. It's the very repetitive nature of such comments being repeated by many people in many threads over and over again. Often with no real purpose other than to highlight the problems as problems that are insurmountable. As a result its the continual bombardment of negative comments which mostly end with "and GW should fix it".

A given comment we can all agree upon (when we can agree a problem is a problem and not simply a variation of opinion).

The issue is this gets brought up so often that it actually squashes other kinds of discussion. We leap for imbalance and GW got it wrong so fast that discussion about how to mitigate/tackle/approach the issue get pushed to the side so fast you miss them if you blink.


In short too many discussions about the game side of the game end up stuck in the quagmire of "GW imbalance" arguments which, once you've been on the site for a few weeks, are fairly predictable in how they unfold and don't generally lead anywhere productive.





For a site where people come to share in the joy of their hobby its a dash of ice cold water in the face. Personally I think there'd be less pushback if there was more push for some kind of structure, organisation and even collective group effort to "fix£ the issues and then present that information to GW. Or create a stand alone expansion to the game to run off - the Dakka rules modification etc... Ergo highlighting that there's an issue, identifying it and then finding a resolution that is beyond "GW fethed up GW should fix it".




This thread is a perfect example of someone new to the game asking questions relating to balance and we are already several pages in to a GW balance argument/discussion. The idea of presenting different tactical options; different builds; different movements or even a closer review of the OP's games beyond their early reports, are all out the window long long ago. And that's part of it - this happens over and over in this kind of thread. We are so swift to blame GW and use that as the beating stick that we drive out other discussion.

Imagine how poor our hobby painting would be if each time we got a painting question we harped on endlessly about how overpriced GW paints are and how their whites aren't perfect etc... If that dominated painting chatter then imagine how weak painting would be. Instead we have those as comments at times, but predominantly its put to one side and we have a vast wealth of people willing to help and painting guides, tutorials, videos etc...

I quit them game when it wasn't fun anymore. I came back when it was fun again. Simple, would do it again.

 Charistoph wrote:

Lance845 wrote:Being a game means it is supposed to be fun. Games are little engines designed to produce fun. The problem is some little engines don't do their job.

Not entirely true. Games can be used for education. That's actually how wargames started in the first place.

Though, in the case of 40K, it is a hobby game, and those are for finding enjoyment.

Lance845 wrote:Different people do seek different things. My issues with the game are deeply rooted in the mechanics. It's not bloat and it's not opponents. The game itself just isn't good.

I have to disagree. The mechanics are not the biggest issue, but the lack of foresight and cross-examination when writing the rules beyond the basic mechanics.

It's like having an Ikea kit, but the pictures are vague and you only the Swedish instructions came in the set. The basics are sound, but everything else they give you to make it work is less-effective in implementing it.

Yes. Games can be used for education. The reason you use a game for education instead of say... a book. Is because the fun engine that is the game is supposed to help facilitate the learning experience with entertainment. It can do two things.

The mechanics are the only issue. From the basic mechanics of the game with the IGOUGO turn structure, through the bloat, to the poor rules writing language, to the poor balancing, to the poorly implemented things like CP and strats. It's all mechanics. And they are all the problem.

 Overread wrote:

The_Grim_Angel wrote:
Continuing to say the people hate the game, if they try to highlight the issues they have with them is wrong. It is the opposite: they love the game, because if they don't, they would have quit time ago and if they were troll, they wouldn't be able to discuss politely; like instead they are doing.

I think the issue for many is not the highlighting of problems with the game system. It's the very repetitive nature of such comments being repeated by many people in many threads over and over again. Often with no real purpose other than to highlight the problems as problems that are insurmountable. As a result its the continual bombardment of negative comments which mostly end with "and GW should fix it".

A given comment we can all agree upon (when we can agree a problem is a problem and not simply a variation of opinion).

The issue is this gets brought up so often that it actually squashes other kinds of discussion. We leap for imbalance and GW got it wrong so fast that discussion about how to mitigate/tackle/approach the issue get pushed to the side so fast you miss them if you blink.


In short too many discussions about the game side of the game end up stuck in the quagmire of "GW imbalance" arguments which, once you've been on the site for a few weeks, are fairly predictable in how they unfold and don't generally lead anywhere productive.





For a site where people come to share in the joy of their hobby its a dash of ice cold water in the face. Personally I think there'd be less pushback if there was more push for some kind of structure, organisation and even collective group effort to "fix£ the issues and then present that information to GW. Or create a stand alone expansion to the game to run off - the Dakka rules modification etc... Ergo highlighting that there's an issue, identifying it and then finding a resolution that is beyond "GW fethed up GW should fix it".




This thread is a perfect example of someone new to the game asking questions relating to balance and we are already several pages in to a GW balance argument/discussion. The idea of presenting different tactical options; different builds; different movements or even a closer review of the OP's games beyond their early reports, are all out the window long long ago. And that's part of it - this happens over and over in this kind of thread. We are so swift to blame GW and use that as the beating stick that we drive out other discussion.

Imagine how poor our hobby painting would be if each time we got a painting question we harped on endlessly about how overpriced GW paints are and how their whites aren't perfect etc... If that dominated painting chatter then imagine how weak painting would be. Instead we have those as comments at times, but predominantly its put to one side and we have a vast wealth of people willing to help and painting guides, tutorials, videos etc...

About that I can agree and in fact I started to contribute to the project Oldhammer, because I don't love complain without try to change the things in better.
I don't know if I will be able to give some good contributor to the project, but I try.

 Jidmah wrote:
I quit them game when it wasn't fun anymore. I came back when it was fun again. Simple, would do it again.

thats the way to do it. if you spend all your time picking at the flaws of the game, not having any fun? then it's proably time to go play something else.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 BertBert wrote:
GW is in the business of selling miniature first and foremost, everything else is just a means to that end. This is an important thing to accept before engaging in any discussions about balance in 40k and GW's aspirations towards achieving it.

Yes, a more balanced and enjoyable game would further incentivise sales of their miniatures, but getting there involves certain efforts and expenses GW is not willing to make. Not to mention the resulting conflict of balance vs. power creep and the pushing of new releases through better rules.

40k becoming a competent game is not happening anytime soon, but that's fine if you can enjoy it for what it is meant to be: a reason to bring out those beautiful miniatures once in a while and have a nice afternoon with a couple of friends.

Surely it'd be much easier for GW to move miniatures by making a simpler game in which you can use all their minis instead of making a bloated, overly-complicated game where at least half the minis in the game are s*** and not worth using at any given time.

*cough* (Apocalypse) *cough* (one page for all universal special rules; all factions' special rules covered in two pages; all minis get to participate in the battle for at least one turn; simplified rules that can be quickly learned, yet provide more tactical depth than the current 9th edition of 40k due to the detachment order system, timing of alternating activations, and an end-of-turn damage phase; "fluffy" game elements moved to a card system that adds flavor and unpredictability, yet the game can be played without the cards as well)

However sadly, many 40k "gamers" seem to want their chosen factions and individual minis to have a bunch of cool, unique rules to make their chosen minis feel "special." While they think this makes the game more interesting or "fluffy" it instead bogs the game down with rules upon rules for different faction abilities, subfaction perks, doctrines/protocols, super doctrines, warlord traits, and relics, not to mention the appropriate "gotcha!" stratagems from a list of dozens available per faction. GW has realized many players want additional rules to make their minis "special," and so gladly caters to them (while increasing GW's bottom line of course) by regularly feeding them new rules and abilities through supplement books, White Dwarf issues, and new codexes. And then what happens when the shine has worn off with all these awesome new rules? Well, GW then resets the game with a new edition and starts the cycle over again . . .

Bottom line, and back to the OP: If you enjoy the minis and fluff like many of us but don't care for the current game's rules, give some other game variations a chance (ex. Apoc, Kill Team, older editions).

 BertBert wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


Surely it'd be much easier for GW to move miniatures by making a simpler game in which you can use all their minis instead of making a bloated, overly-complicated game where at least half the minis in the game are s*** and not worth using at any given time.

AoS is a thing after all, so there is merit to that angle.

AoS is barely better on any of those metrics.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


AoS is barely better on any of those metrics.

Fair enough, I'm not familiar with the current state of the game. My point was that AoS was very much a reset of WHFB with a reduction of complexity and bloat of its predecessor at its core.

 BertBert wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


AoS is barely better on any of those metrics.

Fair enough, I'm not familiar with the current state of the game. My point was that AoS was very much a reset of WHFB with a reduction of complexity and bloat of its predecessor at its core.

and so was 8th edition 40k.

 BertBert wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


AoS is barely better on any of those metrics.

Fair enough, I'm not familiar with the current state of the game. My point was that AoS was very much a reset of WHFB with a reduction of complexity and bloat of its predecessor at its core.

And ended up increasing the bloat by taking all the special rules that were in the core book and offloading them onto individual datasheets.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 BertBert wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


AoS is barely better on any of those metrics.

Fair enough, I'm not familiar with the current state of the game. My point was that AoS was very much a reset of WHFB with a reduction of complexity and bloat of its predecessor at its core.

And ended up increasing the bloat by taking all the special rules that were in the core book and offloading them onto individual datasheets.

that's not bloat.

I think some people seem to define "rules bloat" as "ANY RULES ADDED TO THE GAME EVER!"
and yeaaah.. in that case well. let's just burn the rules books and scream pew pew with our toy soldiers

I haven't read everything here yet - but one option at least for the time being until the rest of the codexes for 9th are released, could be to just play older editions.

5th edition codexes and rule books can be found used for dirt cheap. I bought my nephews a stack of 5th edition codexes for a few bucks each.

Personally, I think the older editions (3rd - 5th) are much cleaner games. The core rules are a bit more complex than 9th in some respects, but the actually army lists are easier to understand and there is less stuff bolted onto the game system (ie no stratagems). It's a cleaner game I feel.

BrianDavion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 BertBert wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


AoS is barely better on any of those metrics.

Fair enough, I'm not familiar with the current state of the game. My point was that AoS was very much a reset of WHFB with a reduction of complexity and bloat of its predecessor at its core.

And ended up increasing the bloat by taking all the special rules that were in the core book and offloading them onto individual datasheets.

that's not bloat.

I think some people seem to define "rules bloat" as "ANY RULES ADDED TO THE GAME EVER!"
and yeaaah.. in that case well. let's just burn the rules books and scream pew pew with our toy soldiers

It is bloat though. There is no reason to to condense several rules down into USRs and put them in the fething rulebook. You know, like every other game system out there does. Having to take a fine tooth comb through each and every individual datasheet just to check if there is a minute difference in seemingly identical rules just for the sake of being different is the very definition of bloat. They are different for no other reason than to be different.

Why have one rule describing deep strike when you can have tens? But why? Just to be different? Does the one previous USR not cover it, despite it being sufficient for 20 years prior? It is just bloat, plain and simple. You have fallen into an Egyptian river if you think otherwise.

personally I favor a happy medium of unifying those various USRs but putting them where approperate, on the datasheet for ease of referance. I hated the rule book flipping I needed for some units back in 7thg. it was REALLY annoying when you'd look up one USR and it simply said "gains these two USRs" and thus you where racing to check out the other 2 USRs.

personally I favor a happy medium of unifying those various USRs but putting them where approperate, on the datasheet for ease of referance. I hated the rule book flipping I needed for some units back in 7thg. it was REALLY annoying when you'd look up one USR and it simply said "gains these two USRs" and thus you where racing to check out the other 2 USRs.

Yeah - that was the worst. USRs that only existed to confer 5 other USRs ... and then the what? 12 full pages I think it was of USR listings? Nightmare. I feel like, if you're going to have true USRs, they need to be a very limited number, and none of them should exist solely to group other USRs under themselves ...