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.

Deadnight wrote:

Lance845 wrote:
The players only responsibility with a game is to follow the rules.

I dunno man. 'We were just following orders' doesn't get much traction at the Hague.

'But it's legal', or even better 'but iys not against the rules' is often a copout of the morally bankrupt in real life.

'Following the rules' doesn't absolve you from responsibility when said rules are poor, or when abuse of said rules has negative consequences .
Our responsibilities extend to ensuring we all have a good time.

Personal responsibility is a thing, whether you like it or not.

If you want to go with those analogies, when a governments rules are bad it means revolt, revolution, and war.

GWs rules are bad.

It's time for a new regime.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Octopoid wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


GW sucks at writing rules. It's unreasonable to expect them to get better while throwing money at them. Stop paying and playing them. Get your joy anywhere else.

I see. So in order for you to get what you want, I'm going to have to give up something that makes ME happy.

You mean like telling other players they have a responsibility to tone down what makes THEM happy for YOUR enjoyment? Again, the burden of responsibility here isn't on the players. Because it cannot be. The burden of responsibility is on the game and the game makers. If they are incompetent or unwilling your options are a) stew in their garbage. b) play a different game.

I choose B. What do YOU choose?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I notice that the conversation has turned from competitive players, to WAAC players to donkey-caves. Not all donkey-caves are WAAC players, not all WAAC players are donkey-caves. No one has really answered my question.

Because you lot keep trying to equate "competitive players" with "WAAC players" and shifting goalposts.

WAAC is a specific mentality. There's a reason why it has always been treated as an insult. It means Winning At All Costs. It's everything short of actively cheating.

There's another reason that it got used as a de facto insult for so long: it tended to go hand in hand with an extremely argumentative attitude.

So to drag the point kicking and screaming back to where we were, why is it not GWs responsibility to balance the game to the point where casual can compete fairly with WAAC?

It's right there in the name. Winning At All Costs.

One of the nicest guys in my group is WAAC as hell. But I'd love nothing more than to be able to take a fluffy list and try to beat him with skill, clever plays and knowledge of my army. 40k currently does not facilitate this.

 Lance845 wrote:
I see. So in order for you to get what you want, I'm going to have to give up something that makes ME happy.

You mean like telling other players they have a responsibility to tone down what makes THEM happy for YOUR enjoyment? Again, the burden of responsibility here isn't on the players. Because it cannot be. The burden of responsibility is on the game and the game makers. If they are incompetent or unwilling your options are a) stew in their garbage. b) play a different game.

I choose B. What do YOU choose?

 Octopoid wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Everything. You're asking whether or not GW should make a better game. I said yes. Now what?

So then you acknowledge there are deficiencies in the game that are beyond the players control, so it isn't the players fault if one side gets curbstomped by the other?

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Everything. You're asking whether or not GW should make a better game. I said yes. Now what?

So then you acknowledge there are deficiencies in the game that are beyond the players control, so it isn't the players fault if one side gets curbstomped by the other?

Yes. What are you going to do about it?

 Sim-Life wrote:

Its never going to happen while we have people blaming the players for GWs failures. I also never asked for a perfect game. I asked for a reasonably balanced game.

How in the world is not being able to properly write an army list or understanding how your army functions something that you can reasonably lay as one of GW's failures?

Seriously. I want to know. I get that some factions are stronger than others and I'm sure that somewhere someone just happened to stumble into a powergamer winning combo from their starting point, but it's not like in an active community you don't have people discussing these things and trying to figure out stuff.

Also:
You don't have to accept every single game you're offered in a more casual setup. You're not bound under some kind of geas, whereupon you'll be rendered into a Squig every game you fail to accept.

This is something I've learned over the years. It's the best thing I've learned in my hobby time. There comes a time to accept that certain individuals just aren't fun to play with and you don't have to subject yourself to it.

If Warmachine can have 80+ units per major faction and achieve reasonable balance then I fail to see why 40k also can't achieve that.

It's weird how Warmahordes gets held up as this shining beacon of balance in one spot on this forum and blasted as a hideously imbalanced and poorly designed game in others.

 Kanluwen wrote:

If Warmachine can have 80+ units per major faction and achieve reasonable balance then I fail to see why 40k also can't achieve that.

It's weird how Warmahordes gets held up as this shining beacon of balance in one spot on this forum and blasted as a hideously imbalanced and poorly designed game in others.

Cannot. Exalt. Enough.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Its never going to happen while we have people blaming the players for GWs failures. I also never asked for a perfect game. I asked for a reasonably balanced game.

How in the world is not being able to properly write an army list or understanding how your army functions something that you can reasonably lay as one of GW's failures?

Seriously. I want to know. I get that some factions are stronger than others and I'm sure that somewhere someone just happened to stumble into a powergamer winning combo from their starting point, but it's not like in an active community you don't have people discussing these things and trying to figure out stuff.

We are not talking about properly writing an army list or understanding how your army functions. We are talking about understanding how ALL armies function and other players capabilities so that you can write a list that is roughly equivalent to their capabilities outside of the point structure.

You explain to me how every person is supposed to do that and come up with equivalent answers.

Seriously. I want to know.

 Sim-Life wrote:

One of the nicest guys in my group is WAAC as hell. But I'd love nothing more than to be able to take a fluffy list and try to beat him with skill, clever plays and knowledge of my army. 40k currently does not facilitate this.

And this might be where the problem lies.

You're conflating "competitive" with "WAAC".

 Octopoid wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

You mean like telling other players they have a responsibility to tone down what makes THEM happy for YOUR enjoyment? Again, the burden of responsibility here isn't on the players. Because it cannot be. The burden of responsibility is on the game and the game makers. If they are incompetent or unwilling your options are a) stew in their garbage. b) play a different game.

I choose B. What do YOU choose?

Woah, WOAH! I don't recall telling anyone to tone down what makes them happy for my enjoyment. I think I said, "Maybe, and this is a wild take I know, maybe if your community is that toxic, you should consider NOT playing Warhammer."

I choose C, the option where I get to play what makes me happy, and you get to do whatever you want to do, too. Maybe consider that option?

EDIT: Damn, I screwed up the quotes. Sorry, folks.

I am not pretending to have any control over any other person. Nor do I want it. This is a discussion. And right now this discussion is about the burden of responsibility for an enjoyable game. My stance is that the players don't shoulder that responsibility.

 Lance845 wrote:

If you want to go with those analogies, when a governments rules are bad it means revolt, revolution, and war.

GWs rules are bad.

It's time for a new regime.

Course they are bad. Just like water is wet. And the sky is grey (scotland). Gw rules writing is notorious and has been for forty years.

Sure, if you want. Go ahead, declare 'war'. Be angry. I'm the meantime ill be enjoying my hobby.

Another approach is to not slavishly follow said rules if you know they're broken. I find 'making the game my own' is the best kind of rebellion against bad rules. We don't have to push the boat out to the point the game is screaming and it breaks down. And in my group, we don't. And guess what? We have fun! And no gami.g police have one knocking on our door complaining that we are not playing 'hard enough'.

I've played the hell out of a lot of those other games too by the way. Warmachine, infinity, bolt action, flames of war, a bit of firestorm.armada, x-wing, Dropzone commander, probably a few others besides. Loved some of them. Wasn't too bothered by others. Ultimately, never came across a game without issues ir that couldn't be twisted into.somethimg nasty. Grass isn't always greener.

And honestly though? Last few years, the most fun I've had has been gw games. Shadespire, warcry, necromunda, kill team etc. Maybe it's less about 'the rules' and more about put approach and the fact I put my exp into community building instead.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

You mean like telling other players they have a responsibility to tone down what makes THEM happy for YOUR enjoyment? Again, the burden of responsibility here isn't on the players. Because it cannot be. The burden of responsibility is on the game and the game makers. If they are incompetent or unwilling your options are a) stew in their garbage. b) play a different game.

I choose B. What do YOU choose?

Woah, WOAH! I don't recall telling anyone to tone down what makes them happy for my enjoyment. I think I said, "Maybe, and this is a wild take I know, maybe if your community is that toxic, you should consider NOT playing Warhammer."

I choose C, the option where I get to play what makes me happy, and you get to do whatever you want to do, too. Maybe consider that option?

EDIT: Damn, I screwed up the quotes. Sorry, folks.

I am not pretending to have any control over any other person. Nor do I want it. This is a discussion. And right now this discussion is about the burden of responsibility for an enjoyable game. My stance is that the players don't shoulder that responsibility.

And my stance is that the players don't shoulder the responsibility for MAKING an enjoyable game. That falls, oddly enough, on the maker of the game. The players do, however, have some amount of personal responsibility (and that amount, by the way, is debatable, anywhere from barely any to almost all) for enjoying what they have.

Deadnight wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

If you want to go with those analogies, when a governments rules are bad it means revolt, revolution, and war.

GWs rules are bad.

It's time for a new regime.

Sure, if you want. Go ahead, declare 'war'. Be angry. I'm the meantime ill be enjoying my hobby.

I am not angry. I don't need to declare war. I am literally spoiled for choice in "countries I want to join" games I want to play. I have like... 8 different 40k rule sets available to me right now within 10 minutes of searching. GW isn't the hobby. You shouldn't conflate the 2. GWs greatest marketing scam is tying that word to their product so that you think they are one and the same. They are not.

Another approach is to not slavishly follow said rules if you know they're broken. I find 'making the game my own' is the best kind of rebellion against bad rules. We don't have to push the boat out to the point the game is screaming and it breaks down. And in my group, we don't. And guess what? We have fun! And no gami.g police have one knocking on our door complaining that we are not playing 'hard enough'.

I agree with all this!

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Its never going to happen while we have people blaming the players for GWs failures. I also never asked for a perfect game. I asked for a reasonably balanced game.

How in the world is not being able to properly write an army list or understanding how your army functions something that you can reasonably lay as one of GW's failures?

Seriously. I want to know. I get that some factions are stronger than others and I'm sure that somewhere someone just happened to stumble into a powergamer winning combo from their starting point, but it's not like in an active community you don't have people discussing these things and trying to figure out stuff.

Also:
You don't have to accept every single game you're offered in a more casual setup. You're not bound under some kind of geas, whereupon you'll be rendered into a Squig every game you fail to accept.

This is something I've learned over the years. It's the best thing I've learned in my hobby time. There comes a time to accept that certain individuals just aren't fun to play with and you don't have to subject yourself to it.

If Warmachine can have 80+ units per major faction and achieve reasonable balance then I fail to see why 40k also can't achieve that.

It's weird how Warmahordes gets held up as this shining beacon of balance in one spot on this forum and blasted as a hideously imbalanced and poorly designed game in others.

To your first point: what? What are you actually talking about? So when if army only has one viable list (such as nids have had to deal with several time) that means the codex has reached acceptable balance?

Second point: 40k is not a short game and you generally only get one game in an evening (though if the game is over on turn 1 thats possibly not true anymore). Not everyone can play multiple times every week or even month. People have jobs, school, children etc. Sometimes they have no choice but to accept what they're given. GW are charging a premium for rules and they should accommodate as much of the player base as possible without people having to engage in lengthy discussions beforehand.

As for Warmachine its balance has a better track record than 40k and people frequently claim that 40k can never possibly be balanced because its so big. While WmH had its own issues you could still take non-meta lists (I'm saying this as an Old Witch 1 and Rhyas1 player) and have a good game against top tier meta lists again not something 40k can claim.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Sometimes they have no choice but to accept what they're given

As for Warmachine its balance has a better track record than 40k and people frequently claim that 40k can never possibly be balanced because its so big. While WmH had its own issues you could still take non-meta lists and have a good game against top tier meta lists again not something 40k can claim.

First, you don't have to accept what you're given. If someone is offering you a gak sandwich, and that is somehow your only possible food option, you can decline to eat at all.

Second, WMH is still going, still has balance issues, and is held up by some in the WMH forums as one of the worst balanced games ever, when non-meta lists will get you curb-stomped as fast as they will in WH40K.

So.... yeah.

 Octopoid wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Sometimes they have no choice but to accept what they're given

As for Warmachine its balance has a better track record than 40k and people frequently claim that 40k can never possibly be balanced because its so big. While WmH had its own issues you could still take non-meta lists and have a good game against top tier meta lists again not something 40k can claim.

First, you don't have to accept what you're given. If someone is offering you a gak sandwich, and that is somehow your only possible food option, you can decline to eat at all.

Second, WMH is still going, still has balance issues, and is held up by some in the WMH forums as one of the worst balanced games ever, when non-meta lists will get you curb-stomped as fast as they will in WH40K.

So.... yeah.

Again we're back to "GW doesn't need to make an effort, works for me, screw those other guys".
Also nah, WmH is dead but I've literally never seen anyone claim its the "worst balanced game ever".

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Sometimes they have no choice but to accept what they're given

As for Warmachine its balance has a better track record than 40k and people frequently claim that 40k can never possibly be balanced because its so big. While WmH had its own issues you could still take non-meta lists and have a good game against top tier meta lists again not something 40k can claim.

First, you don't have to accept what you're given. If someone is offering you a gak sandwich, and that is somehow your only possible food option, you can decline to eat at all.

Second, WMH is still going, still has balance issues, and is held up by some in the WMH forums as one of the worst balanced games ever, when non-meta lists will get you curb-stomped as fast as they will in WH40K.

So.... yeah.

Again we're back to "GW doesn't need to make an effort, works for me, screw those other guys".
Also nah, WmH is dead but I've literally never seen anyone claim its the "worst balanced game ever".

"No U"

We're not back to that, don't put words in my mouth. There is a middle ground between "GW has all the responsibility and I have none" and "I have all the responsibility and GW has none."

Also, I have seen that claim made. So, if one of us is claiming it is never said, and the other has HEARD it, which of us is wrong?

Also also, you still haven't answered my question.

So, GW brought out that little balance dataslate thingie. A few points adjustments and a few rules tweaks here and there. Mostly positives, except for the orks who got hit with the 0-1 restriction that a lot of factions used to have in older editions. And despite being an ork player at heart, a buggie heavy one too. I'm fairly okay with it. Hell i'd happily have more of this. On some FW units as an example. The relic rule some of them have is clunky and annoying. Just make it 0-1 and you're good to go. Sure no triple volkite contemptor dreads, but is that really a bad thing for fluff and balance?

I'm fairly keen to see if GW keeps this up.

The so-called "balance update" that GW released kinda proves that the FoC is pointless as it stands and that even the RO3 is a joke.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And this might be where the problem lies.

You're conflating "competitive" with "WAAC".

The problem is you thinking that the players are to blame in your continued - endless, eternal, everlasting, nonperishable - attempts to defend GW from anything and everything they do (except your small pet peeves, like AdMech, Lasguns on Sergeants, etc.).

cody.d. wrote:
So, GW brought out that little balance dataslate thingie. A few points adjustments and a few rules tweaks here and there. Mostly positives, except for the orks who got hit with the 0-1 restriction that a lot of factions used to have in older editions. And despite being an ork player at heart, a buggie heavy one too. I'm fairly okay with it. Hell i'd happily have more of this. On some FW units as an example. The relic rule some of them have is clunky and annoying. Just make it 0-1 and you're good to go. Sure no triple volkite contemptor dreads, but is that really a bad thing for fluff and balance?

I'm fairly keen to see if GW keeps this up.

I don't think it's a positive.

1) the value of player decision making hasn't changed. The game is still won or lost in the list building as far as this conversation is concerned.

2) they didn't bother to fix the issues with units, they simply put restrictions on how many anyone can take by creating additional rules that restrict player decisions in the list building.

There are some good things in there. Like putting more CORE units for necrons. But it doesn't actually address any root cause of any issue. It simply puts a band aid on some of the symptoms.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
See above. Derive your joy while not subjecting everyone to GW's Sysipheon hill.

I'm not subjecting a single soul to any hill, Sisyphean or otherwise. I'm saying, practically, you have a thing. That thing is not ideal, but it exists. You can a) exhort the makers of said thing to make it better, b) derive pleasure from the thing as it exists (which, let's be fair, does include house rules), and/or c) not play with the thing.

I'm choosing A and B. What are you choosing?

As long as you are buying from the maker you are not doing A.

I blame GW for that.
Those bastards keep making models I like.

 Kanluwen wrote:

If Warmachine can have 80+ units per major faction and achieve reasonable balance then I fail to see why 40k also can't achieve that.

It's weird how Warmahordes gets held up as this shining beacon of balance in one spot on this forum and blasted as a hideously imbalanced and poorly designed game in others.

Was it the same people saying both things? If so, they might just be a dingus.

But, if it was different people... The forum ain't a monolith. Some people will hold one opinion, others will hold the opposite.

 Lance845 wrote:

1) the value of player decision making hasn't changed. The game is still won or lost in the list building as far as this conversation is concerned.

#1 is demonstrably false, as the Ork list that won SoCal hasn't won every single solitary tournament since then, much less every single solitary game across the entire world.

And I think it's important for people to remember that GW is under absolutely no obligation to create a game you like or even a perfectly balanced game.

Period.Done.End.Of.Story.Welcome.To.Life.

Those saying GW has to make a perfectly balanced game are just trolling, and refusing to take responsibility for themselves. And if they think GW won't survive, we were having these same discussions 25 years ago in 2nd edition, and there was a HELL of a lot less updates and balance tweaks.

That being said, we'd like them to, and we believe it's in their best interest, but there is still no obligation. There's no legal contract, explicit or implied (and even if there was, GW has the lawyers to get them out of it!) It's impossible to account for all the players in the world, with time to play the game, intelligence, experience, terrain, money to buy models, skill level of opponents, even how many points you decide to play with. That's where player (personal) responsibility comes in.

If you don't like the list someone is bringing you can choose not to play. Nothing is forcing you. If your opponent is a WAAC, politely decline their offer for a game saying "Thank you for the challenge, but I'm looking for a different style of game". That's you taking responsibility for your own enjoyment. Go play someone else, or go play TTS if that's the only group in your area. Go play a different game. That responsibility is entirely on *you*. Nobody else on the entire planet has any responsibility for your happiness or enjoyment, not 1 in 7,899,999,999 people. Not in 40K, TV, marriage, kids, your job or life in general. Get used to it. Make the best of it or take your posterior somewhere else. And that is why I stopped playing 40K for 10 years.

Now I'm back, because I think the game is in a better spot than possibly 2nd edition. Does it have issues, absolutely (as does everything).

But the other thing you have to realize is that not every game is in the same meta as the OP lists. The internet provides waaaayyyyy too much opportunity for trolling, and make it seem like the sky is falling and it's the end of the world. Reading these forums, I'd think 9th is the worst edition ever, when I really think it's one of the best, and heading in the right direction (though not perfect). I'd believe Orks were unbeatable and totally dominating everywhere, but the reality is that I'm winning so much with my IG that my gaming club is scared of me (I beat AdMech, Sisters and drew against new BT). I'm actually toning my list down depending on my opponent and their faction.

That's me taking responsibility for myself.
I filled out the GW Customer Survey with *constructive* feedback (not just griping). That's me taking responsibility to help them
GW did a balance update, that was them accepting responsibility and making the changes they deemed necessary. They weren't required or obligated to, but they did it, and I like the changes they made. Since they made changes I like, I choose to reward them with a purchase not off eBay

Honestly I too would consider 9th one of the best editions if they cranked out all the codices BEFORE releasing supplements and if they didn’t bloat the rules this much. I think it is one of the best core rules that 40k has ever had. They just smothered it. I would love to see them just blow the edition up and start from scratch with the codices and supplements but that would suck for everyone that bought into all the rules already... not like that didn’t stop them before.

brainpsyk wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

1) the value of player decision making hasn't changed. The game is still won or lost in the list building as far as this conversation is concerned.

#1 is demonstrably false, as the Ork list that won SoCal hasn't won every single solitary tournament since then, much less every single solitary game across the entire world.

And I think it's important for people to remember that GW is under absolutely no obligation to create a game you like or even a perfectly balanced game.

It isn't important. Its actually one of the least important things said so far in this thread. Supporting the idea that GW shouldn't put out a quality product and that customers shouldn't like the products they buy is just... bizarre.

And I love the subtle inclusion of "perfectly" in front of "balanced". No one's asking for perfect balance because no one here is a complete idiot.

Well... not everyone.

Voss wrote:

brainpsyk wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

1) the value of player decision making hasn't changed. The game is still won or lost in the list building as far as this conversation is concerned.

#1 is demonstrably false, as the Ork list that won SoCal hasn't won every single solitary tournament since then, much less every single solitary game across the entire world.

And I think it's important for people to remember that GW is under absolutely no obligation to create a game you like or even a perfectly balanced game.

It isn't important. Its actually one of the least important things said so far in this thread. Supporting the idea that GW shouldn't put out a quality product and that customers shouldn't like the products they buy is just... bizarre.

Agreed. Not only is that statement asinine, but I am going to address his first point as well. It is in fact demonstrably true. Every. Single. Time. that anyone talks about anything that happens in any tourny or anyone discusses any issue that they have in any game the very first thing anyone mentions is their list. There are exactly zero discussions about the tactical game of cat and mouse that turned the tide and won a game. Nobody discusses the tactical brilliancy of anyone who wins any tourny of 40k ever. They discuss their list and the STRATEGY they came up with for utilizing it. Tactics and strategy are 2 very different things. Look them up if you need to. There is borderline zero meaningful tactical decisions in 40k. Which means it's all strategy and list building. That doesn't mean any one list will win every situation. But it does mean games are generally decided before they start. Especially when coupled with first turn advantage.

Well I think part of that is that you have to have watched the game to know what tactical decisions a player made in their wins, which very few people do (I know I don't!). What list a player brought is pretty easy for anyone look at and make their hot takes about.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Well I think part of that is that you have to have watched the game to know what tactical decisions a player made in their wins, which very few people do (I know I don't!). What list a player brought is pretty easy for anyone look at and make their hot takes about.

I remember when the hot list for nids was that guy who made the mawloc, lictor list that was fething with people. It still had flyrants but it wasn't the talking point. The lictors and mawlocs disrupted peoples lines and fethed with their strategy. They even interviewed the guy if I remember. And nobody gave a single gak about any one moment in the game because those moments don't exist.

The game is about taking turns swinging the club that is your army at each other. There isn't enough nuance to have tactical decisions that matter. You don't hear about them because they don't exist.

brainpsyk wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

1) the value of player decision making hasn't changed. The game is still won or lost in the list building as far as this conversation is concerned.

And I think it's important for people to remember that GW is under absolutely no obligation to create a game you like or even a perfectly balanced game.

Period.Done.End.Of.Story.Welcome.To.Life.

[...]

Didn't read your post, because this part comes over as condescending as hell. You have your opinion, it is not suddenly "more" true than before let alone someone elses. People have different opinions and that is EXACTLY why it is not "the players fault" because there is such a multitude of ways to play this game. There is no right or wrong way to play this game and neither you nor me nor anyone else can claim that his/her way is better than someone elses. The rules should keep those different ways to play as close to each other as possible, since there is a good chance that a player of one end ends up playing a player of the other end of the "competititve-narrative-spectrum"