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.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
So, it was both perfectly balanced, to the point that the better player won the vast majority of the time, but new models were trash or OP? Not only was it so perfectly balanced that it was the competitive player's dream, where the competitive scene just grey and grew, their ended up only really being one way of playing? I need to know more about the game besides the fact that the devs think it was perfect.

Sounds like bad marketing on their end if you ask me and a lot more blaming of the players. Sounds familiar...

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
So, it was both perfectly balanced, to the point that the better player won the vast majority of the time, but new models were trash or OP? Not only was it so perfectly balanced that it was the competitive player's dream, where the competitive scene just grey and grew, their ended up only really being one way of playing? I need to know more about the game besides the fact that the devs think it was perfect.

The irony is that their team *came out of competitive Warmahordes* so really should have known better.

As I said, SFG are a very middling company. They make most of their money from video game to board game adaptations which end up being either mostly ignored (Devil May Cry, Horizon: Zero Dawn), okay (Resident Evil) or just straight up terrible without house rules (Dark Souls). They especially have a reputation for poorly written rulebooks. Currently the Dark Souls TTRPG is getting a lot of negative buzz for being a mess of errors and typos and their most recently delivered kickstarter (Bardsung) is getting flak for poorly laid out rules.

I'm very doubtful that Guildball was as balanced as they claim.

 Sim-Life wrote:
As I said, SFG are a very middling company. They make most of their money from video game to board game adaptations which end up being either mostly ignored (Devil May Cry, Horizon: Zero Dawn), okay (Resident Evil) or just straight up terrible without house rules (Dark Souls). They especially have a reputation for poorly written rulebooks. Currently the Dark Souls TTRPG is getting a lot of negative buzz for being a mess of errors and typos and their most recently delivered kickstarter (Bardsung) is getting flak for poorly laid out rules.

I'm very doubtful that Guildball was as balanced as they claim.

Guildball 1) had no list-building or customizability of any kind at launch, which makes testing a lot easier, and 2) was made by people who thought the Warmachine people calling Skarre's horns attack "great rack" was the greatest joke in history, and the puns in unit/ability names get really old within minutes. It was perhaps the most triumphant example in history of people saying to themselves "let's all make a game we'd really like to play!" and completely forgetting that someone other than them might want to play it someday.

There is a point that a game being too balanced starts hurting the game's income, as experienced players lose any desire to buy more models. 40k isn't even close to that point, but theoretically you want (as a company) to have a dynamic imbalance that forces even experience players to constantly buy new miniatures while still being balanced enough to avoid a player exodus.

Oh look, a thread proclaiming the death of 40K. Must be a day from the past 20+ years ending in y.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Oh look, a thread proclaiming the death of 40K. Must be a day from the past 20+ years ending in y.

Every time an individual player personally gets fed up and decides to quit for the first time they feel like their outrage is more justified than the outrage of all the players who came before, and figure that because they're outraged that must mean there's something sufficiently wrong with the game for lots of people to quit. Let them hang around for a few edition cycles and watch the newbies dismiss them as frustrated old farts who don't know what they're talking about because GW has changed and everything's going to be fine now, and they'll be grouchy and jaded too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
There is a point that a game being too balanced starts hurting the game's income, as experienced players lose any desire to buy more models. 40k isn't even close to that point, but theoretically you want (as a company) to have a dynamic imbalance that forces even experience players to constantly buy new miniatures while still being balanced enough to avoid a player exodus.

Speaking as an experienced player who detests the current rules but does still occasionally buy new models the fact that there's a back catalogue of old rules and homebrew material to play around with doesn't hurt either.

As to "too balanced" I think games get stale when they reach an equilibrium of imbalance where everyone knows what to take and what not to take. Games that are very balanced are perfectly capable of remaining exactly the same and not growing stale for a long, long time (the rules of chess have barely changed in 1,500 years). That's not to say that a balanced game isn't capable of growing stale, or that all games that are balanced must turn into chess, I don't personally like chess very much, but I also don't think you can equate balance to stagnation.

 Tyran wrote:
There is a point that a game being too balanced starts hurting the game's income, as experienced players lose any desire to buy more models. 40k isn't even close to that point, but theoretically you want (as a company) to have a dynamic imbalance that forces even experience players to constantly buy new miniatures while still being balanced enough to avoid a player exodus.

You do see this in online shooters though, where a static gamestate grows stale and only the next release shakes things up again.

GW embracing intentional "perfect imbalance" isn't wrong, the problem is their business model still being tied to physical books makes it impossible to really keep the game up to speed in a timely manner.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
As I said, SFG are a very middling company. They make most of their money from video game to board game adaptations which end up being either mostly ignored (Devil May Cry, Horizon: Zero Dawn), okay (Resident Evil) or just straight up terrible without house rules (Dark Souls). They especially have a reputation for poorly written rulebooks. Currently the Dark Souls TTRPG is getting a lot of negative buzz for being a mess of errors and typos and their most recently delivered kickstarter (Bardsung) is getting flak for poorly laid out rules.

I'm very doubtful that Guildball was as balanced as they claim.

Guildball 1) had no list-building or customizability of any kind at launch, which makes testing a lot easier, and 2) was made by people who thought the Warmachine people calling Skarre's horns attack "great rack" was the greatest joke in history, and the puns in unit/ability names get really old within minutes. It was perhaps the most triumphant example in history of people saying to themselves "let's all make a game we'd really like to play!" and completely forgetting that someone other than them might want to play it someday.

I am pretty sure I can claim the world record of losing Guildball the in the fewest moves. I had a Hunters team and played a Fisherman's team. I think between both of our model placements and where the ball kept landing, it was a shut out in the least amount of actions to possibly end a game.

It's been more than half-a-decade, so I don't remember much about how to play. But I remember getting only like a couple of actions that didn't do anything before the game was over. My opponent said what happened was like one in a million, but even winning a couple of games before this one (that's why I was playing the Fisherman player who I think was the best in the store); I wasn't impressed by the game. And never played it again.

It's not like I don't like sports miniatures games. I still really enjoy the original Dreadball. The only minis game I ever played a tournament in. My impression of Guildball was its theme was weakly laid over the mechanics, and it often had too much brawl and not enough sport. That, and it was immensely fiddly tedious with model placement.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
There is a point that a game being too balanced starts hurting the game's income, as experienced players lose any desire to buy more models. 40k isn't even close to that point, but theoretically you want (as a company) to have a dynamic imbalance that forces even experience players to constantly buy new miniatures while still being balanced enough to avoid a player exodus.

You do see this in online shooters though, where a static gamestate grows stale and only the next release shakes things up again.

GW embracing intentional "perfect imbalance" isn't wrong, the problem is their business model still being tied to physical books makes it impossible to really keep the game up to speed in a timely manner.

Successful online shooters don't keep things fresh by deliberately rotating imbalance; they keep things fresh by adding content and fixing existing imbalances to open new viable options.

A static, tired game state is the result of no new content and sufficient imbalance that there are right and wrong choices and, thus, only a few ways to 'actually' play.

 catbarf wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
There is a point that a game being too balanced starts hurting the game's income, as experienced players lose any desire to buy more models. 40k isn't even close to that point, but theoretically you want (as a company) to have a dynamic imbalance that forces even experience players to constantly buy new miniatures while still being balanced enough to avoid a player exodus.

You do see this in online shooters though, where a static gamestate grows stale and only the next release shakes things up again.

GW embracing intentional "perfect imbalance" isn't wrong, the problem is their business model still being tied to physical books makes it impossible to really keep the game up to speed in a timely manner.

Successful online shooters don't keep things fresh by deliberately rotating imbalance; they keep things fresh by adding content and fixing existing imbalances to open new viable options.

A static, tired game state is the result of no new content and sufficient imbalance that there are right and wrong choices and, thus, only a few ways to 'actually' play.

I mean what they often do is release a new game with different gear. Or at least that's the CoD/Battlefield model.

I'm not saying they can't make the game work without a shifting meta, but when leaning into competitive trying to keep the game from being solve and staying solved is important to keep the game from being too stale, which seems to be why GW has taken the design approach they have. It's not one that works without a living digital ruleset, but it's what they've adopted.

Yeah, but that is the difference between people playing shoters which are half as old as me, or older, and which are still popular. And something like series games, where every year or two years you practically buy more or less the same game. Often with fewer and fewer options each time, but more seson passes, more DLC etc.

GW does exactly that same. They are making all marine players buy 2 books, just to sell them two books. This isn't even a power thing, like the campaigne books etc Oddly enough it makes makes money the same as battlefields do, and has the same level of quality, when you actually get to play the game.

For me, the thing that makes the game last is when every build is a viable option. This allows us to reorganize our armies in many different configurations.

If you're trying to keep the game alive by changing which build is viable as often as possible, you still aren't giving people the tool they need to actually keep the game alive for the greatest possible length of time.

Karol wrote:
Yeah, but that is the difference between people playing shoters which are half as old as me, or older, and which are still popular. And something like series games, where every year or two years you practically buy more or less the same game. Often with fewer and fewer options each time, but more seson passes, more DLC etc.

GW does exactly that same. They are making all marine players buy 2 books, just to sell them two books. This isn't even a power thing, like the campaigne books etc Oddly enough it makes makes money the same as battlefields do, and has the same level of quality, when you actually get to play the game.

Yeah it feels like the mandates that the books dept needs to make money(source: Rob the Honest Wargamer) has only gotten worse this edition.

Karol wrote:
Yeah, but that is the difference between people playing shoters which are half as old as me, or older, and which are still popular. And something like series games, where every year or two years you practically buy more or less the same game. Often with fewer and fewer options each time, but more seson passes, more DLC etc.

And what do you think a company prefers? A game its playerbase bought once or one that the playerbase buys once every 2 years plus DLC and season passes?

There is a reason Valve has pretty much stopped making videogames and prefers to be a game platform rather than a game producer.

PenitentJake wrote:
For me, the thing that makes the game last is when every build is a viable option. This allows us to reorganize our armies in many different configurations.

If you're trying to keep the game alive by changing which build is viable as often as possible, you still aren't giving people the tool they need to actually keep the game alive for the greatest possible length of time.

For once I agree with this. When I player I tried to theme my lists (Nidzilla, Flying Circus, vanguard organisms, Necron barge navy, kanoptek army etc). Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't but it was usually clear in the game what units worked and what didn't (lictor spam didn't work btw). Its what killed the game for me. My meta is a "casual but make some effort to win" one so if a unit was flawed then theming lists around their...theme just felt bad.

If GW made an effort to make internal balance as important as external then I'd probably still be playing the game and it gives me reasons to buy multiples of units beyond just buying them for the sake of buying them, which I refuse to do (anymore).

 Sim-Life wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
For me, the thing that makes the game last is when every build is a viable option. This allows us to reorganize our armies in many different configurations.

If you're trying to keep the game alive by changing which build is viable as often as possible, you still aren't giving people the tool they need to actually keep the game alive for the greatest possible length of time.

For once I agree with this. When I player I tried to theme my lists (Nidzilla, Flying Circus, vanguard organisms, Necron barge navy, kanoptek army etc). Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't but it was usually clear in the game what units worked and what didn't (lictor spam didn't work btw). Its what killed the game for me. My meta is a "casual but make some effort to win" one so if a unit was flawed then theming lists around their...theme just felt bad.

If GW made an effort to make internal balance as important as external then I'd probably still be playing the game and it gives me reasons to buy multiples of units beyond just buying them for the sake of buying them, which I refuse to do (anymore).

It's nice to be on the same page with you every now and again. There are almost always at least some points in your posts that I agree with, but we seldom line up clearly the way we do this time around.

Cherish the moment brother- I'm sure we'll be back to arguing tomorrow. LOL

 Sim-Life wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
For me, the thing that makes the game last is when every build is a viable option. This allows us to reorganize our armies in many different configurations.

If you're trying to keep the game alive by changing which build is viable as often as possible, you still aren't giving people the tool they need to actually keep the game alive for the greatest possible length of time.

For once I agree with this. When I player I tried to theme my lists (Nidzilla, Flying Circus, vanguard organisms, Necron barge navy, kanoptek army etc). Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't but it was usually clear in the game what units worked and what didn't (lictor spam didn't work btw). Its what killed the game for me. My meta is a "casual but make some effort to win" one so if a unit was flawed then theming lists around their...theme just felt bad.

If GW made an effort to make internal balance as important as external then I'd probably still be playing the game and it gives me reasons to buy multiples of units beyond just buying them for the sake of buying them, which I refuse to do (anymore).

You could give every thing the same statline and same special rules, that would make everything even. The probem is you move away from that the margin of error increases and better/worse options appear. GW is particularly at the but even their best book of this edition was 'solved' quickly.

In the short term this'll breathe life back into the game. In the long term it's just another layer of badly designed rules on top of the existing layers, and it will actually make things worse in the long run, not better. AoC in particular is a complete mess in terms of what it does to the game, except at the very immediate level of "makes bad factions better." It is going to come back to haunt them for sure. The solution to the proliferation of high AP was to retune AP values, not to devalue low AP values.

 catbarf wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
There is a point that a game being too balanced starts hurting the game's income, as experienced players lose any desire to buy more models. 40k isn't even close to that point, but theoretically you want (as a company) to have a dynamic imbalance that forces even experience players to constantly buy new miniatures while still being balanced enough to avoid a player exodus.

You do see this in online shooters though, where a static gamestate grows stale and only the next release shakes things up again.

GW embracing intentional "perfect imbalance" isn't wrong, the problem is their business model still being tied to physical books makes it impossible to really keep the game up to speed in a timely manner.

Successful online shooters don't keep things fresh by deliberately rotating imbalance; they keep things fresh by adding content and fixing existing imbalances to open new viable options.

A static, tired game state is the result of no new content and sufficient imbalance that there are right and wrong choices and, thus, only a few ways to 'actually' play.

Just almost a decade ago the first Halo had a thriving multiplayer community. That's zero options too.

 Sim-Life wrote:

If GW made an effort to make internal balance as important as external then I'd probably still be playing the game and it gives me reasons to buy multiples of units beyond just buying them for the sake of buying them, which I refuse to do (anymore).

I wish GW was better at this, but for internal balance to actually come they'd need to make point updates every 6 weeks or so. Just to incrementally balance out the codexes internally as well as externally,

Sadly I don't see that happening as GW really likes the twice a year point updates approach.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

If GW made an effort to make internal balance as important as external then I'd probably still be playing the game and it gives me reasons to buy multiples of units beyond just buying them for the sake of buying them, which I refuse to do (anymore).

I wish GW was better at this, but for internal balance to actually come they'd need to make point updates every 6 weeks or so. Just to incrementally balance out the codexes internally as well as externally,

Sadly I don't see that happening as GW really likes the twice a year point updates approach.

The problem is to update more frequently we'd need a dedicated balancing team whose whole job was making adjustments, and the rules would need to be in a dedicated digital format that was updated immediately with public notices about changes.

On a different note I was listening to the recent Look Out Sir! Adepticon episode and one of the things they touched on was that maybe bringing tournament play under the GW umbrella might be a source of some of the issues the community is having. When tournaments were left to shape their own fun and the game was more focused on the larger chunk of the player base in a way the game in a lot of ways was healthier, and I don't think they're exactly wrong on that. It really feels like we need a tournament team seperate from the main 40k team who handles that side of the hobby while the rules writers focus on the things they're good at instead of focusing on competetive.

And as I was writing that I had a random thought: maybe the delay on giving CSM 2 wounds was because they were considering rolling wound counts back on Marines in the future as a possible fix and where playtesting out that versus the current 2 wound meta.

Lammia wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
For me, the thing that makes the game last is when every build is a viable option. This allows us to reorganize our armies in many different configurations.

If you're trying to keep the game alive by changing which build is viable as often as possible, you still aren't giving people the tool they need to actually keep the game alive for the greatest possible length of time.

For once I agree with this. When I player I tried to theme my lists (Nidzilla, Flying Circus, vanguard organisms, Necron barge navy, kanoptek army etc). Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't but it was usually clear in the game what units worked and what didn't (lictor spam didn't work btw). Its what killed the game for me. My meta is a "casual but make some effort to win" one so if a unit was flawed then theming lists around their...theme just felt bad.

If GW made an effort to make internal balance as important as external then I'd probably still be playing the game and it gives me reasons to buy multiples of units beyond just buying them for the sake of buying them, which I refuse to do (anymore).

You could give every thing the same statline and same special rules, that would make everything even. The probem is you move away from that the margin of error increases and better/worse options appear. GW is particularly at the but even their best book of this edition was 'solved' quickly.

Viable is not the same as optimal. I use this example a lot in discussions but when I played Warmahordes I used sub-optimal warcasters because I found it fun to make them viable via army list and player skill. You don't really get that in 40k. If I take an army with loads of lictors its going to be almost impossible to make it viable because the internal balance is just THAT bad.

Not giving CSM 2 wounds is 100% just because GW doesn't believe in giving out free stuff. That's what you have to buy the codex for. If you have to wait two years because they didn't bother to put the codex out until then, well, suck it up. Or better yet, buy another army in the meantime. That's the "solution" GW likes best.

Even putting out these balance patches is a huge thing for them. I am 100% sure there were voices among the higher-ups that were adamantly opposed to the idea of periodic balance patches precisely because they give out free stuff that should be monetized instead.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

If GW made an effort to make internal balance as important as external then I'd probably still be playing the game and it gives me reasons to buy multiples of units beyond just buying them for the sake of buying them, which I refuse to do (anymore).

I wish GW was better at this, but for internal balance to actually come they'd need to make point updates every 6 weeks or so. Just to incrementally balance out the codexes internally as well as externally,

Sadly I don't see that happening as GW really likes the twice a year point updates approach.

The problem is to update more frequently we'd need a dedicated balancing team whose whole job was making adjustments, and the rules would need to be in a dedicated digital format that was updated immediately with public notices about changes.

On a different note I was listening to the recent Look Out Sir! Adepticon episode and one of the things they touched on was that maybe bringing tournament play under the GW umbrella might be a source of some of the issues the community is having. When tournaments were left to shape their own fun and the game was more focused on the larger chunk of the player base in a way the game in a lot of ways was healthier, and I don't think they're exactly wrong on that. It really feels like we need a tournament team seperate from the main 40k team who handles that side of the hobby while the rules writers focus on the things they're good at instead of focusing on competetive.

How would that work? Rules that don't affect everybody create a mess. 'This is more balanced, but not for you' is just such a bizarre take on game design, and waste of time for designers and players.
What people need to do is stop pretending the 'different types of play' are really distinct or that these issues are coming out of nowhere, rather than being a part of the problem they've always had- they don't create or ignore long term design plans, and change course mid-edition.
Space Marines need to be made more better than other factions has been a repeated, deliberate action multiple times since Rogue Trader. They're very open and unapologetic about it, so overcorrecting armor saves to block the AP that counters the increase to two wounds is entirely expected.

Maybe not in such a clunky and hamfisted fashion, but they've blocked themselves on point values correcting problems (there isn't any more room to move), so we get this kind of thing.

And as I was writing that I had a random thought: maybe the delay on giving CSM 2 wounds was because they were considering rolling wound counts back on Marines in the future as a possible fix and where playtesting out that versus the current 2 wound meta.

No.
Just... no.
There would be no way to handle that debacle with any sort of positive PR. They wouldn't do it. (Even if they were inclined to, which I'm positive they're not- Marines are Better is a company goal)
Also, they've already promised chaos marines 2 wounds, one recently at the end of the adepticon preview. That was the end-of-the-show 'hype.' They're definitely not playtesting that.

Pretty sad they're using 2w CSM for a hype when they shoulda just done it 18 months ago.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Oh look, a thread proclaiming the death of 40K. Must be a day from the past 20+ years ending in y.

Every time an individual player personally gets fed up and decides to quit for the first time they feel like their outrage is more justified than the outrage of all the players who came before, and figure that because they're outraged that must mean there's something sufficiently wrong with the game for lots of people to quit. Let them hang around for a few edition cycles and watch the newbies dismiss them as frustrated old farts who don't know what they're talking about because GW has changed and everything's going to be fine now, and they'll be grouchy and jaded too.

Nice try, but that was more a comment about how people have been doomsaying the imminent death of 40K for nigh on 30 years and continue to be so epicly WRONG.

I wonder if the number of people that do hang around for more editions, specialy if they are not having fun, is bigger then the number of people that start the game wait for the codex, then wait for the FAQ, then CA, then another CA, to finaly see next edition rules make their stuff unfun for them to just quit. I wonder which group is bigger over all. Would be crucial to finding out who the focus group for the hobby is, from GW points of view.

Space Marines need to be made more better than other factions has been a repeated, deliberate action multiple times since Rogue Trader. They're very open and unapologetic about it, so overcorrecting armor saves to block the AP that counters the increase to two wounds is entirely expected.

Odd that it does not show up in the rules though. In 8th most marine armies were bad till 2.0 came out, and then we soon entered 9th and the first books out were marine ones, which mostly focused on nerfing, removing and side grading rules from the 2.0/PA era. From stories people tell about other editions, it was practicaly the same in every other edition too. Marines get more books, more models, rule changes, yet they still aren't the best army, not to mention armies.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


On a different note I was listening to the recent Look Out Sir! Adepticon episode and one of the things they touched on was that maybe bringing tournament play under the GW umbrella might be a source of some of the issues the community is having. When tournaments were left to shape their own fun and the game was more focused on the larger chunk of the player base in a way the game in a lot of ways was healthier, and I don't think they're exactly wrong on that. It really feels like we need a tournament team seperate from the main 40k team who handles that side of the hobby while the rules writers focus on the things they're good at instead of focusing on competetive.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I think it's complicated.

A part of the problem is that many of the people complaining about the impact of the tournament scene upon the game should just STOP PLAYING ONLY THE PART OF THE GAME THAT IS DESIGNED FOR TOURNAMENTS.

When I person tells me they have no choice because that's the only thing that is played in their stores, I get that and I feel for those players, but it leaves me with questions- the main one being "Does everyone at the store feel the way you do?"

If so, why is it so hard to get someone to do something different?

Voss wrote:

How would that work? Rules that don't affect everybody create a mess. 'This is more balanced, but not for you' is just such a bizarre take on game design, and waste of time for designers and players.

What people need to do is stop pretending the 'different types of play' are really distinct

I disagree with this- I feel like the ways to play are distinct- the three modes serve entirely different purposes. Matched play is designed to be the balanced tournament vehicle; Crusade is designed to be escalation campaign play and Open is designed to be a place where anything is possible. Viewed in these terms, 3 modes is a great idea. The fan base for this game is so large and diverse that multiple modes of play is really the only way they can hope to satisfy as many people as they need to.

If it wasn't for Crusade, I would not be playing 9th. Crusade made the game closer to what I wanted- I've said it before: I've wanted Crusade since 1989. The times in the history of 40k where the game was at its best for me were the additions that came closest to the ideal- the rulebooks that contained Kill Team and Combat Patrol and the roughest sketch of a generic progression system were my favourite version until 9th. Players like me are very much a minority, but we do exist.

In some older threads, people talked about even creating a fourth mode, or updating one of the existing modes to better satisfy those looking for casual pick-up games. The Matched Play deck was a good idea to try and make Matched go further, but I think that the frequency of balance patches for matched prevents it from really doing that.

Pretty much every update we've seen is matched only, and until now that has worked really well: I hated the Aircraft changes and the mixed detachment changes, but it was fine because none of those actually affected my games at all. But these changes are different- they are still list as Matched play changes, but for perhaps the first time this edition, that doesn't really work because the changes actually affect unit rules, which are supposed to be common to all modes of play. VH can't have different order traits in Crusade than they do in Matched.

PenitentJake wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:


On a different note I was listening to the recent Look Out Sir! Adepticon episode and one of the things they touched on was that maybe bringing tournament play under the GW umbrella might be a source of some of the issues the community is having. When tournaments were left to shape their own fun and the game was more focused on the larger chunk of the player base in a way the game in a lot of ways was healthier, and I don't think they're exactly wrong on that. It really feels like we need a tournament team seperate from the main 40k team who handles that side of the hobby while the rules writers focus on the things they're good at instead of focusing on competetive.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I think it's complicated.

A part of the problem is that many of the people complaining about the impact of the tournament scene upon the game should just STOP PLAYING ONLY THE PART OF THE GAME THAT IS DESIGNED FOR TOURNAMENTS.

When I person tells me they have no choice because that's the only thing that is played in their stores, I get that and I feel for those players, but it leaves me with questions- the main one being "Does everyone at the store feel the way you do?"

If so, why is it so hard to get someone to do something different?

I agree on that as well. Locally one of our narrative players has complained about the game but refuses to play anything but the GT mission packs at 2k because "it's the most balanced" over literally doing anything else. I've tried talking to them about trying all sorts of stuff (leaving out stratagems, playing smaller games, ect) and in the end they refused only to latch onto One Page Rules for doing the very things I offered to try with them to see if we could make the game more fun for them.

It feels like some people just can't accept the game outside of how GW markets it.