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.

PenitentJake wrote:
...I liked the Witch Hunter dex, which was 3rd ed. That dex continued to be used in 4th. The game felt fine to me at the time, and if I had a friend who wanted to have a retro game, I would, and I'm sure it would be fun. The 5th ed White Dwarf dex killed the army almost as much as the lack of model support- a mistake compounded in 6th. If the 5th ed herohammer/ retro set insists on using that WD dex because those were the official rules, I can bet you don't have many sisters players at the table...

When was the last time you dealt with a dogmatic tournament retrohammer group that's trying to play some very specific set-in-stone combination of books and has no flexibility for people who might want to use a compatible version of their Codex they actually liked?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
...40k doesn't need to be chess with boltguns, and I get I may not be popular for saying it, but there should be a little imbalance floating around, but that should be a lot closer than where it currently sits...

I'm trying to point out that this is a horrible and misleading false dichotomy that gets thrown around to prop up an utterly indefensible position. NOBODY WANTS CHESS WITH BOLTGUNS. We just want to stop being told "Oh, you're losing, wait years for a new Codex/buy a different army and you'll be fine!" or "Don't buy/use the minis you like, they're bad and you'll lose!"

I like how you cherry picked that one line and ignored where I feel the game should be.

And yes, there are people who want the game to be more finely tuned to the point that only skill matters. It's a mindset I've seen in some competitive players, though thankfully a minority. Now maybe you can address the "fat middle" point instead of pretending I sincerely believe the entire community wants chess with boltguns?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
...I like how you cherry picked that one line and ignored where I feel the game should be...

I am repeatedly cherry-picking that one line because I'm pissed off about the specific use of that one line. Can you find a way to describe the awful horror that would result from a better-balanced game without saying "chess with boltguns," maybe?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Let's not white knight the black knights. Dakka may not crack down on threads that often but let's be honest: there is a tendency to browbeat anyone who takes a positive stance regarding GW.

I won't call them trolls for the most part, but we do have a contingent of peopoe who will ascribe malice for everything GW does and spin any arguement of why their claims are ridiculious into simping for GW.

GW is now a corporation. Their primary goal is gain capital to pay investors. A primary way to go about this that is also tried and tested is to give the least amount of product/quality for the most amount of money. I wont say there are not some fair minded people in GW, but at the end of the day its about revenue at the top. Policies originate at the top and flow down to the "creatives".

The customers goal is to get the most out of a transaction as possible (in theory, some people just like buying things or status purchases). These two goals are at odds. This isnt a GW problem. This is a problem with the corporation system. GW just happens to be one that dominates a very niche market (growing in recent times).

The point I am making is that there is a level of malice inherent at a fundamental level. Perhaps malice is to strong of a word. Opposition would be better. But often the losing side of a opposed function will see malice in place of opposition.

My personal take is that GW coasts by the fact they have near market dominance and have a desirable IP that one cannot partake in anywhere else. Are they evil and anti-consumer? Well, all corporations are anti-consumer at a fundamental level. Take for instance the recent Fallen update. The least amount of effort. That is the goal. Sometimes the creatives save it, many times they do not. As a longtime player and poster/lurker on Dakka I can tell you without bias that the happiest players tend to be imperial players while chaos players complain the most. Its a bit of hyperbole, sure. But where there is smoke there is fire. A reason for the season.

When factoring peoples complaints it helps to look at it from another perspective. As for ruining peoples vibe (negative threads), thats on them. They have the option to ignore it. But it is a core facet of discussion and it isnt going away. Not all of this post was directed at you, obviously.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
...I like how you cherry picked that one line and ignored where I feel the game should be...

I am repeatedly cherry-picking that one line because I'm pissed off about the specific use of that one line. Can you find a way to describe the awful horror that would result from a better-balanced game without saying "chess with boltguns," maybe?

Again, you ignored the 45-65% win rate range I feel codexes should be in to hyper-focus on a line that describes the game balanced to something like a 49-51% win rate. I don't think most of us want a win rate that tight, but I've heard enough competitive players push for "more balance" even with books that are in that fat middle that I felt it was worth saying. The fact you're tunneling on that point and not addressing where I feel the game would be healthy means you're missing the point entirely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Table wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Let's not white knight the black knights. Dakka may not crack down on threads that often but let's be honest: there is a tendency to browbeat anyone who takes a positive stance regarding GW.

I won't call them trolls for the most part, but we do have a contingent of peopoe who will ascribe malice for everything GW does and spin any arguement of why their claims are ridiculious into simping for GW.

GW is now a corporation. Their primary goal is gain capital to pay investors. A primary way to go about this that is also tried and tested is to give the least amount of product/quality for the most amount of money. I wont say there are not some fair minded people in GW, but at the end of the day its about revenue at the top. Policies originate at the top and flow down to the "creatives".

The customers goal is to get the most out of a transaction as possible (in theory, some people just like buying things or status purchases). These two goals are at odds. This isnt a GW problem. This is a problem with the corporation system. GW just happens to be one that dominates a very niche market (growing in recent times).

The point I am making is that there is a level of malice inherent at a fundamental level. Perhaps malice is to strong of a word. Opposition would be better. But often the losing side of a opposed function will see malice in place of opposition.

My personal take is that GW coasts by the fact they have near market dominance and have a desirable IP that one cannot partake in anywhere else. Are they evil and anti-consumer? Well, all corporations are anti-consumer at a fundamental level. Take for instance the recent Fallen update. The least amount of effort. That is the goal. Sometimes the creatives save it, many times they do not. As a longtime player and poster/lurker on Dakka I can tell you without bias that the happiest players tend to be imperial players while chaos players complain the most. Its a bit of hyperbole, sure. But where there is smoke there is fire. A reason for the season.

When factoring peoples complaints it helps to look at it from another perspective. As for ruining peoples vibe (negative threads), thats on them. They have the option to ignore it. But it is a core facet of discussion and it isnt going away. Not all of this post was directed at you, obviously.

I both agree and disagree with you. I'd agree there is malice when it comes to the business decisions made at the top, but when it comes from what comes from the studio team in terms of lore, model design, rules or even paint schemes (and by god do they need to learn how to properly paint a female face) I don't ascribe malice.

Pricing has malice behind it. GW knee-jerk reacting to a balance issue only to over correct and nerf something into the ground and then never buff it again for the rest of the edition I ascribe to "good intentions". As in the "road to hell is paved with good intentions".

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
...I like how you cherry picked that one line and ignored where I feel the game should be...

I am repeatedly cherry-picking that one line because I'm pissed off about the specific use of that one line. Can you find a way to describe the awful horror that would result from a better-balanced game without saying "chess with boltguns," maybe?

Again, you ignored the 45-65% win rate range I feel codexes should be in to hyper-focus on a line that describes the game balanced to something like a 49-51% win rate. I don't think most of us want a win rate that tight, but I've heard enough competitive players push for "more balance" even with books that are in that fat middle that I felt it was worth saying. The fact you're tunneling on that point and not addressing where I feel the game would be healthy means you're missing the point entirely.

I don't think tournament winrates are a meaningful metric of the health of the game/health of a Codex, just because the statistic completely ignores internal balance. If a Codex has one netlist with a 55% winrate and the entire rest of the Codex has a 0% winrate if you use any of it the Codex will show a 55% tournament winrate because tournament players will only use that one netlist. The GK Codex is a good example here; they "fixed" it in PA by making one powerhouse deathstar Paladin build work, and the whole rest of the book is still pretty crap.

I don't define balance in terms of how close everything is to a 50% winrate, I define it in terms of whether there's a reason to use everything in the game. There should never be a dead unit that you should never buy, a dead Codex that nobody should ever use, or on the flipside always-take units/Codexes. Not everything needs to be equal for everything to be able to participate.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
...I like how you cherry picked that one line and ignored where I feel the game should be...

I am repeatedly cherry-picking that one line because I'm pissed off about the specific use of that one line. Can you find a way to describe the awful horror that would result from a better-balanced game without saying "chess with boltguns," maybe?

Again, you ignored the 45-65% win rate range I feel codexes should be in to hyper-focus on a line that describes the game balanced to something like a 49-51% win rate. I don't think most of us want a win rate that tight, but I've heard enough competitive players push for "more balance" even with books that are in that fat middle that I felt it was worth saying. The fact you're tunneling on that point and not addressing where I feel the game would be healthy means you're missing the point entirely.

I don't think tournament winrates are a meaningful metric of the health of the game/health of a Codex, just because the statistic completely ignores internal balance. If a Codex has one netlist with a 55% winrate and the entire rest of the Codex has a 0% winrate if you use any of it the Codex will show a 55% tournament winrate because tournament players will only use that one netlist. The GK Codex is a good example here; they "fixed" it in PA by making one powerhouse deathstar Paladin build work, and the whole rest of the book is still pretty crap.

I don't define balance in terms of how close everything is to a 50% winrate, I define it in terms of whether there's a reason to use everything in the game. There should never be a dead unit that you should never buy, a dead Codex that nobody should ever use, or on the flipside always-take units/Codexes. Not everything needs to be equal for everything to be able to participate.

I agree win rates aren't perfect, but they are a barometer for overall health of the game (though I feel there is an arguement excluding top table results in that metric due to the skill gap boosting win rates). GW has a bad habit over the years hammering things down without coming back to boost them up, but so far this edition they've been finally giving the game a rework to try and boost things and encourage better internal balance thanks to the reintroduction of limits to certain chaffe units. I don't like the fact they refuse to FAQ some of these changes as a patch, but I'll at least credit them for making changes for the better.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
...40k doesn't need to be chess with boltguns, and I get I may not be popular for saying it, but there should be a little imbalance floating around, but that should be a lot closer than where it currently sits...

I'm trying to point out that this is a horrible and misleading false dichotomy that gets thrown around to prop up an utterly indefensible position. NOBODY WANTS CHESS WITH BOLTGUNS. We just want to stop being told "Oh, you're losing, wait years for a new Codex/buy a different army and you'll be fine!" or "Don't buy/use the minis you like, they're bad and you'll lose!"

I like how you cherry picked that one line and ignored where I feel the game should be.

And yes, there are people who want the game to be more finely tuned to the point that only skill matters. It's a mindset I've seen in some competitive players, though thankfully a minority. Now maybe you can address the "fat middle" point instead of pretending I sincerely believe the entire community wants chess with boltguns?

You do nothing to really prove otherwise with the garbage idea that some imbalance is actually healthy somehow.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
...I agree win rates aren't perfect, but they are a barometer for overall health of the game (though I feel there is an arguement excluding top table results in that metric due to the skill gap boosting win rates). GW has a bad habit over the years hammering things down without coming back to boost them up, but so far this edition they've been finally giving the game a rework to try and boost things and encourage better internal balance thanks to the reintroduction of limits to certain chaffe units. I don't like the fact they refuse to FAQ some of these changes as a patch, but I'll at least credit them for making changes for the better.

I don't think they have made things better. They're changing points more, but they haven't gotten any better at it; damage creep has gotten so out of control you have to leave maximum points in Reserves to prevent the person who goes first from tabling the other guy, the only things that get meaningful FAQ patches are nerfs to things that have too-high tournament winrates (underperforming/underused units almost never get anything), they're still doing the Codex model of dumping lump changes to each army and then not touching them again for years, stratagems just represent a monumental extra pile of bloat, and they're still trying to band-aid patch things instead of fixing the underlying problems to the point that there are math errors they made in the 8e Indexes that we're still paying the price for today.

Everything that's wrong with 40k right now is the exact same stuff that's been wrong since 5th. Nothing's changed.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
...40k doesn't need to be chess with boltguns, and I get I may not be popular for saying it, but there should be a little imbalance floating around, but that should be a lot closer than where it currently sits...

I'm trying to point out that this is a horrible and misleading false dichotomy that gets thrown around to prop up an utterly indefensible position. NOBODY WANTS CHESS WITH BOLTGUNS. We just want to stop being told "Oh, you're losing, wait years for a new Codex/buy a different army and you'll be fine!" or "Don't buy/use the minis you like, they're bad and you'll lose!"

I like how you cherry picked that one line and ignored where I feel the game should be.

And yes, there are people who want the game to be more finely tuned to the point that only skill matters. It's a mindset I've seen in some competitive players, though thankfully a minority. Now maybe you can address the "fat middle" point instead of pretending I sincerely believe the entire community wants chess with boltguns?

Hey, I want chess with boltguns! Well, not meaning the differences between factions but rather the feel of the game. I'd like to have gampelay time spent mostly on thinking, planning, strategizing (so the game should reward those) not on the menial chore of generating random numbers.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
...40k doesn't need to be chess with boltguns, and I get I may not be popular for saying it, but there should be a little imbalance floating around, but that should be a lot closer than where it currently sits...

I'm trying to point out that this is a horrible and misleading false dichotomy that gets thrown around to prop up an utterly indefensible position. NOBODY WANTS CHESS WITH BOLTGUNS. We just want to stop being told "Oh, you're losing, wait years for a new Codex/buy a different army and you'll be fine!" or "Don't buy/use the minis you like, they're bad and you'll lose!"

I like how you cherry picked that one line and ignored where I feel the game should be.

And yes, there are people who want the game to be more finely tuned to the point that only skill matters. It's a mindset I've seen in some competitive players, though thankfully a minority. Now maybe you can address the "fat middle" point instead of pretending I sincerely believe the entire community wants chess with boltguns?

You do nothing to really prove otherwise with the garbage idea that some imbalance is actually healthy somehow.

Maybe because this has literally been argued to death and I've staked my flag on a "fat middle" being the healthiest place for the game to be, while you've done nothing to discuss that point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
...I agree win rates aren't perfect, but they are a barometer for overall health of the game (though I feel there is an arguement excluding top table results in that metric due to the skill gap boosting win rates). GW has a bad habit over the years hammering things down without coming back to boost them up, but so far this edition they've been finally giving the game a rework to try and boost things and encourage better internal balance thanks to the reintroduction of limits to certain chaffe units. I don't like the fact they refuse to FAQ some of these changes as a patch, but I'll at least credit them for making changes for the better.

I don't think they have made things better. They're changing points more, but they haven't gotten any better at it; damage creep has gotten so out of control you have to leave maximum points in Reserves to prevent the person who goes first from tabling the other guy, the only things that get meaningful FAQ patches are nerfs to things that have too-high tournament winrates (underperforming/underused units almost never get anything), they're still doing the Codex model of dumping lump changes to each army and then not touching them again for years, stratagems just represent a monumental extra pile of bloat, and they're still trying to band-aid patch things instead of fixing the underlying problems to the point that there are math errors they made in the 8e Indexes that we're still paying the price for today.

Everything that's wrong with 40k right now is the exact same stuff that's been wrong since 5th. Nothing's changed.

I was thinking more how they've been changing statlines for units and wargear than what the FAQ has been doing. That said, they should have just FAQ'd everything all at once instead of forcing it to be a codex only update.

And I'm mixed on stratagems. I like the concept, but not so much the execution. Maybe it they were dialed in like AoS' Command Abilities I'd like them more instead of this massive list of stratagems where most of them are almost never used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cyel wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
...40k doesn't need to be chess with boltguns, and I get I may not be popular for saying it, but there should be a little imbalance floating around, but that should be a lot closer than where it currently sits...

I'm trying to point out that this is a horrible and misleading false dichotomy that gets thrown around to prop up an utterly indefensible position. NOBODY WANTS CHESS WITH BOLTGUNS. We just want to stop being told "Oh, you're losing, wait years for a new Codex/buy a different army and you'll be fine!" or "Don't buy/use the minis you like, they're bad and you'll lose!"

I like how you cherry picked that one line and ignored where I feel the game should be.

And yes, there are people who want the game to be more finely tuned to the point that only skill matters. It's a mindset I've seen in some competitive players, though thankfully a minority. Now maybe you can address the "fat middle" point instead of pretending I sincerely believe the entire community wants chess with boltguns?

Hey, I want chess with boltguns! Well, not meaning the differences between factions but rather the feel of the game. I'd like to have gampelay time spent mostly on thinking, planning, strategizing (so the game should reward those) not on the menial chore of generating random numbers.

That level of simulation play is better for computers (Total War: Warhammer 40k does sound a little cool though). I'd rather the game be a little looser and more abstract than too simulationy. Probably why I'd rather we do wounds and casualties like Apoc instead of pulling them right away.

PenitentJake wrote:

 aphyon wrote:


What it looks like to me is that your having codex issues like many people did. are group allows all codexes from 3rd-7th to be used in our 5th ed games and some obviously stand out above the others. there has never been a better lore based codex with all the build options since the 3.5 chaos codex. in fact many of the 3rd and 4th ed codexes and even a few from 5th were the high water mark for their factions.

Well first off, I'm not having Codex issues so far; I like the current version of the game and I am satisfied with the two 9th edition dexes I have so far.

3rd-5th was a decent era for most dexes; there was a kind of flexibility and customization which no longer exists- a sense of "Build your own dudes." In a lot of cases, that was good because if you had a vision of how a unit should play, you could use the "build your own" rules to get there. The Witch Hunter dex was good, but it didn't have that "build your own" feel, and as mentioned above, 5th ed killed it.

Personally, I feel that 9th has as much or more customizability, but it is a different kind of flexibility. Load-outs are nowhere near as flexible, but synergies between Warlord Traits, Chapter Tactics, Relics and Strats as well as unit auras yield a surprising number of combinations, and I feel they give more depth to unit than mere load-out options. I also like how many of these traits really do define the subfactions and/or units to which they apply: I've always said that fluff is BS- rules do a far better job of actually defining the characteristics and behaviour of a unit than a bunch of flowery adjectives and some artwork; all the novels in the world that say a certain unit behaves a certain way in battle aren't worth the paper they're printed on when the rules say it ain't so.

Adding Crusade into the mix takes customizability off the charts, and the thing about these customizations is that they have to be earned inn battle, so they mean more, and their gradual application over time builds a story in a way that picking from a list of "build your own" options at the list building stage never could. Man I can hardly wait to see what getting a chaos mark, becoming possessed, possessing others looks like once chaos gets its bespoke crusade content.

If you really want to go that line down, i am sorry but no neither stratagems nor warlord traits nor subfactions increased customizability.
Simply put: F.e. the CSM dex, is absolute horsegak in that regard. The stratagems singlehandedly destroyed internal balance to the point where subfactions that can't have access to slaanesh will never pick certain units like havocs and obliterators f.e. The warlord traits are for the most part severly limited, unless you play BL, or AL, of which the later is still more limmited then the Posterboys of chaos. Most of the warlord traits are also outright aurahammer rubish which don't let me represent how an unit actually fights if it is 6.1 " away from my chaos lord or whatever i have as a warlord.Nvm that for some factions the traits are basically a given and turn themselves from a narrative nice to have ability to a solved puzzle.
Unit loadout customizability being gone is just the next step of the simplification route and stratagems like AA missiles really just highlight the problem with the stratagem system itself.
Stuff like Red Butchers being an stratagem increases the lack of customizability via simply existing as a one off, and further cripple balance, just like cacophony does the same to shooting units in an extreme.
Subfaction traits are a other exemple, there's no timeline in which a free general upgrade for being a specific colour will be balanced. There's clear objectively better options in most dexes, leading to those players that are narratively minded with bad traits or disfunctional traits or just simply not even fitting traits to basically be sabotaged.

 aphyon wrote:


In my book strats are garbage because you have to use a resource mechanic to enable things that were previously built in to the faction as natural abilities or equipment you could buy from the armory.

Some strats were previously available as abilities or equipment- I'm not terribly keen on those myself, to be honest. But most of my favourites were not; Blessed Bolts and Burning Descent are amazing, fluffy strats; they were never available as equipment or abilities, and they'd be far too powerful if they were. I love them because they feel like cinematic moments and story events. I can't use all of them every game- not even all of my favourites, so I really have to pick how and when to use them, which reinforces the feeling of being in a story. I also love the fact that there are subfaction specific strats to further define the characteristics and behaviour of that subfaction.

Cinematic is fine and dandy, but if it actively leads to disadvantages for other subfactions within the same dex to the point where it's x or bust like the CSM dex it's a disadvantage and further decreases customizability and narrative capabilities.

 aphyon wrote:

Some factions had hard restrictions to make them unique stand alone armies-deathwing/ravenwing, saim hann eldar, farsight enclave tau etc..

You can still do all of these things and better in 9th; you can also do this with Every. Single. Subfaction. In. The. Game. Not just the lucky ones or the poster boys.

No i can't. Because my faction literally doesn't exist anymore, respectively what exists is legends and not working as the faction is and was supposed to without even the same access to units. And my other faction has subfactions that are basically not workable with.

 aphyon wrote:

others gave you the options to build your force in line with specific subfactions by army composition and equipment for your leaders,

And yes, I too liked some of those options, I particularly LOVED Platoons for guard for example. But I feel like I have more options now than I ever did.

No, i have less options. Subfaction traits are even less encouraging to build a narrative army , since if they are internally badly balanced there's no reason to pick some of them. Same with stratagems. Unlike IA13 where the traits did cost pts via demagogue devotions and unlocked far more than just got handed freely i am also not encouraged to build my OWN background or USE the wierder niches aswell, simply because it's clear which is better.

 aphyon wrote:


there is nothing about 9th edition or any of it's codexes i find decent or worth my time. to me the game isn't even 40k anymore.

This is your truth; I can't change that. It sounds like you've found some people to play with who will play older versions of the game and even allow you to take models from later editions backwards- good for you. I love this version of the game, so I'll keep playing it.

This is true, but don't proclaim that subfaction traits or stratagems did increase narrative capability. They did not or had significant balance cost to the point where balance becomes an issue even for the narrative side of the game-.

I know we're past the original topic and into a gripe about what we don't like about 40k/GW again but I invite the OP to go look at my posts from 8th, where I actually enjoyed and defended it to my recent posts about how I quit the game and wish my group would be more open to playing other games. People have already explained why they stick around and hope for things to get better and its the same for me. If GW ever get rid of stratagems, secondaries, doctrine type round-to-round bonuses and all the extra book keeping and all the other bloat they're claiming to be strategy and give units back their character and return the Your Dudes feel I'll play again. I haven't felt like any army has had much character since 7th. I know I'll get gak for this but I unironically really liked Matt Ward's rules because everything felt characterful and unique and he actually tried to capture the character of an army or unit. Currently it seems like the rules writers have a handful of abilities (cause additional Mortal Wounds on an unmodified 6, reroll 1s on hits, -1 when attacking etc) and trying to make them work for everything and then giving it a unique name and trying to pass that off as "character". Best example I can think of is the Necron Lychguard shield, which went from literally reflecting shots back at enemies to just an invuln save. It just makes everything feel super bland and boring.

 Sim-Life wrote:
I know we're past the original topic and into a gripe about what we don't like about 40k/GW again but I invite the OP to go look at my posts from 8th, where I actually enjoyed and defended it to my recent posts about how I quit the game and wish my group would be more open to playing other games. People have already explained why they stick around and hope for things to get better and its the same for me. If GW ever get rid of stratagems, secondaries, doctrine type round-to-round bonuses and all the extra book keeping and all the other bloat they're claiming to be strategy and give units back their character and return the Your Dudes feel I'll play again. I haven't felt like any army has had much character since 7th. I know I'll get gak for this but I unironically really liked Matt Ward's rules because everything felt characterful and unique and he actually tried to capture the character of an army or unit. Currently it seems like the rules writers have a handful of abilities (cause additional Mortal Wounds on an unmodified 6, reroll 1s on hits, -1 when attacking etc) and trying to make them work for everything and then giving it a unique name and trying to pass that off as "character". Best example I can think of is the Necron Lychguard shield, which went from literally reflecting shots back at enemies to just an invuln save. It just makes everything feel super bland and boring.

Agree with most of this. Andy Chambers is another example of a great codex writer for "your dudes", just a fun as hell designer all round. These days there'd be fury over the "randumb" and having to take a negative with the positives though.

Hey, notices a few folk seem to be confused on wither Warhammer is a hobby. It isn't, it is a game in the greater hobby of wargaming, which incorporates many different games throughout history, ranging from fantasy to historicals, and of course scifi. People saying leaving GW as equivalent to leaving the hobby is as weird as saying that by never using a Xerox product you will never laminate anything ever.

It's a shame to have such beautiful models hampered by a clunky and unbalanced ruleset.

Being vocal about it is the only way for people to reach out to GW.

It may or may not have any effect; it's also a trend in the entertaining industry to blame the vocal critics instead of looking earnestly at your product to make it better (or making people pay to beta test your product).

I understand that GW balance rules with individual units sales in mind Instead of the game as a whole, and that it's unlikely to change, which lead me to appreciate the hobby for its miniatures more than the game itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dai wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I know we're past the original topic and into a gripe about what we don't like about 40k/GW again but I invite the OP to go look at my posts from 8th, where I actually enjoyed and defended it to my recent posts about how I quit the game and wish my group would be more open to playing other games. People have already explained why they stick around and hope for things to get better and its the same for me. If GW ever get rid of stratagems, secondaries, doctrine type round-to-round bonuses and all the extra book keeping and all the other bloat they're claiming to be strategy and give units back their character and return the Your Dudes feel I'll play again. I haven't felt like any army has had much character since 7th. I know I'll get gak for this but I unironically really liked Matt Ward's rules because everything felt characterful and unique and he actually tried to capture the character of an army or unit. Currently it seems like the rules writers have a handful of abilities (cause additional Mortal Wounds on an unmodified 6, reroll 1s on hits, -1 when attacking etc) and trying to make them work for everything and then giving it a unique name and trying to pass that off as "character". Best example I can think of is the Necron Lychguard shield, which went from literally reflecting shots back at enemies to just an invuln save. It just makes everything feel super bland and boring.

Agree with most of this. Andy Chambers is another example of a great codex writer for "your dudes", just a fun as hell designer all round. These days there'd be fury over the "randumb" and having to take a negative with the positives though.

You can't balance a game where everyone have different abilities and statlines.

You need to homogenize most of it for balance purpose.

Character is good, balance (or aiming for balance) is better.

Now I completely agree that the bazillions stratagems, unbalanced doctrines within a codex and between codexes, reroll rules, and multiplication of -1/+1 rules on every datasheet is just either plain boring, outright broken, and mostly tedious micromanagement.

Hey, notices a few folk seem to be confused on wither Warhammer is a hobby. It isn't, it is a game in the greater hobby of wargaming, which incorporates many different games throughout history, ranging from fantasy to historicals, and of course scifi. People saying leaving GW as equivalent to leaving the hobby is as weird as saying that by never using a Xerox product you will never laminate anything ever.

I get your point, and you're not wrong, but for some people, it IS the whole hobby. For example, where I live, if you want to have a community, and other players where you can get regular games, painting competitions, etc, it's pretty much GW or nothing. If you only paint the models, then sure, in a place like mine, you can buy whatever and paint it, but those other games have no support around here. Years ago, I was the one at several different LGS's picking up games like Starship Troopers, VOR, Warzone, Chronopia, etc, and getting others into it. But without fail, these other games eventually disappear the second you get any kind of community built up.

Fortunately, the local 40k community is a pretty good one that I tend to enjoy. But like I said, if I were to look to another system, there is ZERO established community, and zero interest. The only community that ever came close was Warmahordes, but that just up and vanished probably 6 or 7 years ago and never came back. So .... pretty much 40k or nothing at this point.

It still doesn't change the fact it isnt a hobby, just a facet of it. Part of this hobby is the modeling and painting as well.

It still doesn't change the fact it isnt a hobby, just a facet of it. Part of this hobby is the modeling and painting as well.

I mentioned that in my post. But for so many people, it's about painting and playing. Not just painting. I know I have a lot more fun in the hobby aspect of building/painting if I know I'll be taking the army to the LGS to see how awesome my friend's new models look. It's very motivating and way more enjoyable (for me personally) than just painting and dropping them on a shelf and leaving it at that. So again, in places like where I live, if that is how you want to hobby, it's GW or nothing.

Totally fine if someone else just wants to paint and not play. That's cool too. Just pointing out why some people may be appearing to consider GW "the whole hobby".

But its just a brand. Its like saying every copier is a Xerox or every soda a Coke, or every car a Ford.
Or you know, every restaurant a Taco Bell.

If some only by a specific brand, that's... not relevant. They can do it if they want, but it doesn't change the category from 'brand' to 'hobby,' let alone the whole hobby.
Its like inviting someone to play some multiplayer Call of Duty when you actually mean Civilization. Or rather, inviting someone to 'play Activision.'

If some only by a specific brand, that's... not relevant. They can do it if they want, but it doesn't change the category from 'brand' to 'hobby,' let alone the whole hobby.
Its like inviting someone to play some multiplayer Call of Duty when you actually mean Civilization. Or rather, inviting someone to 'play Activision.'

You're misunderstanding me to a pretty wide degree. Of course it's not literally the entire hobby, but functionally, in some locales, it is, quite literally, the only option if your vision of the hobby is, building, painting, AND PLAYING/having a community around you to enjoy the hobby with. In your analogy, it would be like saying "Do you want to play Civilazation instead of CoD today" and every person saying "no".

Many towns just don't have the support of multiple systems. They just don't. I have a closet full of games I've worked really hard to get started that aren't 40k. They never go anywhere substantial. So like I said, that's great if you are fine with just building/painting. In some cases that's actually better. You can do what you want and not worry about a thing. But if you also enjoy having a community, and playing actual games with real people as part of your hobby experience, then again, unfortunately, in many places, it tends to be 40k or nothing. For some, it's just not as simple as "go pick up another game".

Voss wrote:
But its just a brand. Its like saying every copier is a Xerox or every soda a Coke, or every car a Ford.
Or you know, every restaurant a Taco Bell.

If some only by a specific brand, that's... not relevant. They can do it if they want, but it doesn't change the category from 'brand' to 'hobby,' let alone the whole hobby.
Its like inviting someone to play some multiplayer Call of Duty when you actually mean Civilization. Or rather, inviting someone to 'play Activision.'

Then again it is in the same kind of person that would think that if someone stopped playing Dungeons and Dragons that they stopped playing tabletop entirely, when D&D has become a catchall nickname for all TTRPGs even though they may be playing a game of Deadlands or Pathfinder.

I don't care if 40k is the only game you can find, it is still idiotic to say that leaving it is the equivalent of leaving the hobby of wargaming in general.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It also goes heavily into GW's marketing strategy. There are no competitors, regardless of size, they don't exist in their world they want to create for the customer. Not to complain about that, it is rather effective after all.

I don't care if 40k is the only game you can find, it is still idiotic to say that leaving it is the equivalent of leaving the hobby of wargaming in general.

Scenario:

You're in an area where 40k is literally the only game in town, and you can't get any interest generated in other games. Your vision of the hobby involves playing the game you are into as well as painting (it's only fun for you if all of those aspects are present). You decide to leave 40k for whatever reason - what does that leave you with? You have no other options. You can't jump to another game because there isn't one. No one else will play anything outside of 40k. You have, in effect, left the hobby. That's the reality of a lot of people. Sure, again, if you enjoy it differently that's cool. You're good with just painting and don't need/want the social aspect? More power to you. You're fine playing against yourself in your basement? Go for it.

Not sure what's so hard to understand about that. If you want to split hairs and deliberately misinterpret, that's fine too. Just pointing out a legitimate situation many people are in that contributes to why they don't leave. Again, you can say all you want, "There's other options, you're playing into their marketing strategy, etc etc" but the reality is, in many places, rolling up to the LGS and saying "Who wants to play Infinity today?" just isn't a realistic expectation. And I'm saying this as someone who has spent a ton of money on non-GW systems over the years. I have multiple armies for Vor, Chronopia, Warzone, Crucible (company went under before I was even done painting ...), Starship Troopers, and a few other more obscure systems, so it's not like I didn't try.

This situation comes up enough on Dakka that to think it's "stupid" you must live in a place that's got a lot of support for other systems (good for you), or again, just deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying.

At the end of the day, people choose to be miserable and spiteful or to try to find the positives in it. I don't love everything GW does, far from it, but I do try to look more at the things I love vs the things I hate about this hobby.

Mostly, I like to play games. I like to put models on the table and roll dice and see what happens. I try to learn from my mistakes, and I accept that perfect balance is impossible.

It's all about what you want to make of it.

 BlackoCatto wrote:
Hey, notices a few folk seem to be confused on wither Warhammer is a hobby. It isn't, it is a game in the greater hobby of wargaming, which incorporates many different games throughout history, ranging from fantasy to historicals, and of course scifi. People saying leaving GW as equivalent to leaving the hobby is as weird as saying that by never using a Xerox product you will never laminate anything ever.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but 40K is my hobby.

I collect, paint, and play with 40K miniatures because I am invested in the 40K setting. For the same reason, I read Black Library books, and have played the Rogue Trader, Dark Heresy, Deathwatch, and Black Crusade RPGs.

I have no interest in any other miniatures, be it Warmahordes, Malifaux, Battletech, and least of all historicals. Were I to become estranged from the 40K setting, I would simply ditch painting and modelling altogether outside of what I might need for RPGs. I did it before when The Old World got canned in favour of AoS, which holds no interest for me.

Siegfriedfr wrote:


You can't balance a game where everyone have different abilities and statlines.

You need to homogenize most of it for balance purpose.

Character is good, balance (or aiming for balance) is better.

Now I completely agree that the bazillions stratagems, unbalanced doctrines within a codex and between codexes, reroll rules, and multiplication of -1/+1 rules on every datasheet is just either plain boring, outright broken, and mostly tedious micromanagement.

You can have a semblance of balance and still retain character. Its just that GW have no interest or talent for doing so. 40k in its current state would be impossible to balance in the way people want it to be without stripping out a lot of the gunk but I would rather have a fun, characterful, unbalanced game than a boring, homogemised unbalanced game.

You can have a semblance of balance and still retain character. Its just that GW have no interest or talent for doing so. 40k in its current state would be impossible to balance in the way people want it to be without stripping out a lot of the gunk but I would rather have a fun, characterful, unbalanced game than a boring, homogemised unbalanced game.

I think they do have an interest in it. I just don't think they quite know how. Remember that there's still a MASSIVE disconnect between how the designers think of the game and how even the casual customer play/understand the game. They've gotten a lot better at this to be fair, but there's still just a lot of "Well it doesn't matter if we do "X" because OF COURSE no one will interpret/play it like that. That would be madness. There's no way anyone would do that ...."


I also think they're hampered a bit by the required sales cycles which doesn't make things easier. I do think, on the whole, they've made great strides in that area though. Drukhari aside (not quite sure what happened there).

Tycho wrote:

You can have a semblance of balance and still retain character. Its just that GW have no interest or talent for doing so. 40k in its current state would be impossible to balance in the way people want it to be without stripping out a lot of the gunk but I would rather have a fun, characterful, unbalanced game than a boring, homogemised unbalanced game.

I think they do have an interest in it. I just don't think they quite know how. Remember that there's still a MASSIVE disconnect between how the designers think of the game and how even the casual customer play/understand the game. They've gotten a lot better at this to be fair, but there's still just a lot of "Well it doesn't matter if we do "X" because OF COURSE no one will interpret/play it like that. That would be madness. There's no way anyone would do that ...."


I also think they're hampered a bit by the required sales cycles which doesn't make things easier. I do think, on the whole, they've made great strides in that area though. Drukhari aside (not quite sure what happened there).

honestly , that is somewhat correct, however the streamlining did create an easier job for the designers.
the other problem is corporate seemingly insisting on cut content DLC and rules sources being written seemingly by singular people on their own without feedback or general knowledge what the other side is doing, cue IH supplement, cue DE DT shenanigans.

honestly , that is somewhat correct, however the streamlining did create an easier job for the designers.
the other problem is corporate seemingly insisting on cut content DLC and rules sources being written seemingly by singular people on their own without feedback or general knowledge what the other side is doing, cue IH supplement, cue DE DT shenanigans.

Agree with all of this, although the IH fiasco is a head scratcher and points to the disconnect on the designers part IMO. GW have publicly stated that the play testers flagged that book. GW released it anyway. This is likely due to a move by corporate sales rather than the design staff (who were left in an awkward spot), but at the same time, how did they not see how bad that book was before it even got to the testers?

Tycho wrote:

honestly , that is somewhat correct, however the streamlining did create an easier job for the designers.
the other problem is corporate seemingly insisting on cut content DLC and rules sources being written seemingly by singular people on their own without feedback or general knowledge what the other side is doing, cue IH supplement, cue DE DT shenanigans.

Agree with all of this, although the IH fiasco is a head scratcher and points to the disconnect on the designers part IMO. GW have publicly stated that the play testers flagged that book. GW released it anyway. This is likely due to a move by corporate sales rather than the design staff (who were left in an awkward spot), but at the same time, how did they not see how bad that book was before it even got to the testers?

In true GW fashion, it's fully possible the book was already being printed while being playtested.