Annd Time of death for 9th is 4/14/2022

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.

**aphyon**

Why not? It being so wouldn't mean the game would be any worse for narrative play.

Because it was never meant to be, it was purposely unbalanced to fit the universe. each faction was strong and weak in different ways that gave it character, as the player it is up to you to figure out how to use those attributes to enjoy the setting. the real slide for me started in late 3rd ed when GW started pushing rogue traders and GTs to promote the game. It drew in some of the worst aspects of the gaming community and started this drive towards the elusive "balance" everybody currently talks about.

I swore off that entire tournament scene in 5th ed and just played fun games with the local crowd at the FLGS. now i have gone back to that when we feel like a romp in the setting. playing with the models i like because i like them or the feel of the faction. when silly stuff happens like a big mek shooting himself through the shokk attack gun or khorne berserkers running the wrong way because they blood frenzied etc.., it makes it that much more entertaining. we have a good laugh, talk gak move models and roll dice.

The mind set is everything. as a casual game 40K can be loads of fun as shown by the fact we are pitting 3rd through 7th ed codexes against each other in our local gaming community with zero problems. however as a tournament system it is a terrible game system. trying to do something it was never meant to be, until the current edition(and failing pretty hard at it even so).

**jeff white**

ccs wrote:
waefre_1 wrote:
ccs wrote:
...A) the squad can do whatever's needed throughout the battle...

And that was always my problem with it. Your squad can do whatever is needed...so long as you never need to shoot a vehicle/MC and an infantry unit at the same time. The AT is there to put hurt on the big fish, the lasguns/bolters/shootas/whatever are there to keep the small fry at bay. If it's all cultists within 24", cool, the AT can pop a head real good and the small arms aren't wasted (literally or figuratively). If there's only vehicles/MCs within 24", great, the AT can do what it's supposed to do and the small arms (while unlikely to do anything) don't have anything better to shoot at so what the hell, why not? If there's both a cultist unit and a vehicle/MC within 24"...suddenly you're being forced to effectively waste the AT or the small arms for what feels like purely game-y reasons. To me at least, it feels pretty similar to the gripes re: Command Points/Stratagems these days - I've got smoke launchers on all my Rhinos, but I can't use that smoke on more than one Rhino at a time for purely artificial reasons. Balanced or not, it just feels wrong to me.

Well, having to occasionally make that choice of what to shoot in previous editions was a helluva lot better than not being able to choose at all.
And here in 8th/9th? I will happily split my fire.

I wonder why GW doesn't work it into a squad upgrade such that in paying for the upgrade to this squad, one pays for both the weapon as well as the extra training necessary to 'split fire' when targets of opportunity present themselves e.g. tanks with lascannons or kommandoz with the heavy bolter? Somthing like "Heavy weapons specialists have a dual role, to add weight of fire to the unit directly, and to identify when to split fire away from the unit toward targets of opportunity which take advantage of the extra firepower that heavy weapons represent."

**Nevelon**

In prior editions they did price heavy weapons in tac squads lower, to reflect how they were not as efficient.

Didn’t change the fact that a dev squad wanted to have all it’s guns able to fill the same role. Taking the one of everything WD special was just shooting yourself in the foot. Unless you were long fangs and got split fire before everyone else.

**Daedalus81**

Jidmah wrote:
You just stop doing it when it stops being fun.

Or you light it on fire like that Dark Elf guy did.

**Insectum7**

Hecaton wrote:
aphyon wrote:
I do not want 40K to be a balanced game for tournament play.

Why not? It being so wouldn't mean the game would be any worse for narrative play.

I think the issue stems from how 40K is balanced for tournament play, which often seems at the cost of narrative.

AoC might be fine for propping up winrates of Marines, but the the Eldar players who JUST got their Shuriken Catapults upgraded to where they should be, it's a slap in the face. It also goes against a long heritage of Dire Avengers being roughly on-par with Space Marines in a firefight, hurting the narrative.

Autowound on 6s might help IG winrates, but why are Lasguns outperforming Boltguns against Orks? Winrates more balanced, but narrative eroded.

The wrong decisions are being made because of an over-emphasis on tourney winrates to the exclusion of other factors. Or just stupidity.

**kodos**

the problem is, the game is not balanced

it is just that tournament play does not care of something is balanced or not because you just take the strongest list anyway

it does not matter if there is just 1 faction with 1 list that is playable or 100 different lists
some tournament players even prefer of not having to many good factions as this would mean more rules to learn (so just having always the same 3 factions to deal with is easier)

if 40k would be a balanced game, narrative would gain more from it than tournament play

if the game is balanced for tournaments, this just no one cares if it is balanced or not, you just need random changed from time to time so that the meta keeps changing

**Jidmah**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
You just stop doing it when it stops being fun.

Or you light it on fire like that Dark Elf guy did.

I relate to how someone might enjoy setting models on fire more than 7th edition

**Blackie**

kodos wrote:

it is just that tournament play does not care of something is balanced or not because you just take the strongest list anyway

This is not true. Don't mistake "tournament play" with what the most hardcore meta chasers (who are a minority) bring to tournaments. Even at major events there are tons of players bringing mid or even low tier armies. And also tons of players who don't bring the most common (and powerful) lists when they use the top tier armies.

Most of the players, including those who regularly go to tournaments, take the strongest list considering what they have. Not the strongest list that can be created on paper. And sometimes even if they can field the strongest list they don't do since they want to be counter meta and surprise the other players.

**kodos**

Blackie wrote:
Even at major events there are tons of players bringing mid or even low tier armies. And also tons of players who don't bring the most common (and powerful) lists when they use the top tier armies.

Most of the players, including those who regularly go to tournaments, take the strongest list considering what they have. Not the strongest list that can be created on paper. And sometimes even if they can field the strongest list they don't do since they want to be counter meta and surprise the other players.

this is why you call those people usually competitive players and not tournament players, yet if the game is balanced for tournaments it means exactly that, written for the hardcore meta chasers

being a balanced game, and being balanced for tournaments is not the same thing

**PenitentJake**

Hecaton wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
And hearing some people talk about how their whole scene has faded because the rules are bad... How does that happen? Like how does anyone invest the time and money to play 2k Matched, decide they don't like that experience... And immediately jump ship for another game, requiring additional expenditures of both money and time, rather than trying an alternative way of playing the game for which they already own painted models.

I'm taking this to mean that your later comment about the things you find important about 40k isn't really accurate; top of the list, and more important by an order of magnitude than anything else is SUNK COST FALLACY, and specifically the manifestation where you get upset or stressed when other people don't experience the same angst over their sunk cost, and leave to find better things to do with their time.

That is fair, and I could see how my choice of words would support that conclusion; also, Sunk Cost Fallacy is certainly part of what keeps me in 40k, but it is a small part.

What I meant in the piece that you quoted though is that people have written on Dakka about FLGS groups who only ever tried 2k GT Mission Pack Matched, didn't like it and immediately went to a different game without ever trying any of the other options before switching. That's the thing that I find odd- that an entire group of people (not just one dude, but an entire scene) is so hung up about playing with 2k army and so hung up about playing the same way it's done at tournaments that they would rather buy a new game and spend the time painting the new minis than trying something different.

I don't understand the mentality. It feels like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

For the people that DO explore the game beyond 2k GT Mission Pack Matched and still don't like it? All the power to them- they've tried the alternatives, and they're still not satisfied, then for sure, they should definitely move on, and that's totally cool.

The people I don't understand are the ones who say "Well, if 2k matched sucks, I guess everything must suck. Time to sell all of my stuff, by some Infinity and paint it all before I can play another game." It just doesn't make sense to me. And Sunk Cost may be a small part of why i can't relate to these folks, but it's not the whole story.

**ERJAK**

Jidmah wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
You just stop doing it when it stops being fun.

Or you light it on fire like that Dark Elf guy did.

I relate to how someone might enjoy setting models on fire more than 7th edition

I actually did burn the 7th edition knock off witch hunters codex that included literally no updates for Sisters in it AT ALL once the indexes dropped.

**Hecaton**

aphyon wrote:
Because it was never meant to be, it was purposely unbalanced to fit the universe. each faction was strong and weak in different ways that gave it character, as the player it is up to you to figure out how to use those attributes to enjoy the setting. the real slide for me started in late 3rd ed when GW started pushing rogue traders and GTs to promote the game. It drew in some of the worst aspects of the gaming community and started this drive towards the elusive "balance" everybody currently talks about.

Nah, I'm not interested in a game where Space Marines win everything forever, and nobody should be.

aphyon wrote:
I swore off that entire tournament scene in 5th ed and just played fun games with the local crowd at the FLGS. now i have gone back to that when we feel like a romp in the setting. playing with the models i like because i like them or the feel of the faction. when silly stuff happens like a big mek shooting himself through the shokk attack gun or khorne berserkers running the wrong way because they blood frenzied etc.., it makes it that much more entertaining. we have a good laugh, talk gak move models and roll dice.

Eventually the "latest broken codex wins all the time" joke gets old.

aphyon wrote:
The mind set is everything. as a casual game 40K can be loads of fun as shown by the fact we are pitting 3rd through 7th ed codexes against each other in our local gaming community with zero problems. however as a tournament system it is a terrible game system. trying to do something it was never meant to be, until the current edition(and failing pretty hard at it even so).

To be frank, I don't believe there were "zero problems." The balance is horrible in a lot of that material too. A certain degree of balance is needed to be able to have a meaningful game.

**JNAProductions**

aphyon wrote:
Because it was never meant to be, it was purposely unbalanced to fit the universe. each faction was strong and weak in different ways that gave it character, as the player it is up to you to figure out how to use those attributes to enjoy the setting. the real slide for me started in late 3rd ed when GW started pushing rogue traders and GTs to promote the game. It drew in some of the worst aspects of the gaming community and started this drive towards the elusive "balance" everybody currently talks about.

Different armies having different strengths and weaknesses is fine.

One army just being another army but across the board better or worse... That's not fine.

**EviscerationPlague**

ccs wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:

And hearing some people talk about how their whole scene has faded because the rules are bad... How does that happen? Like how does anyone invest the time and money to play 2k Matched, decide they don't like that experience... And immediately jump ship for another game, requiring additional expenditures of both money and time, rather than trying an alternative way of playing the game for which they already own painted models.

Probably because you can use the models with rules for a better game.

40k fething sucks, man. Units and ENTIRE armies are terribly imbalanced and it's stuck in the ancient IGOUGO turn method. Inertia is literally all it has. You would NOT play this game without the IP you remember fondly a decade or two back. That's just a fact.

A fact huh?

Yes a fact. Any other IP for a game with these rules would be laughed at. You give it a pass because 40k.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:

And hearing some people talk about how their whole scene has faded because the rules are bad... How does that happen? Like how does anyone invest the time and money to play 2k Matched, decide they don't like that experience... And immediately jump ship for another game, requiring additional expenditures of both money and time, rather than trying an alternative way of playing the game for which they already own painted models.

Probably because you can use the models with rules for a better game.

40k fething sucks, man. Units and ENTIRE armies are terribly imbalanced and it's stuck in the ancient IGOUGO turn method. Inertia is literally all it has. You would NOT play this game without the IP you remember fondly a decade or two back. That's just a fact.

A fact is that you can't tell me what I would or would not do in any situation because you do not know me.

I have said before, many times that the IGOUGO format is one of the many things that I like about 40k. And you might have trouble understanding that it is possible for people to like different things than you, but I assure you, I like long, slow rhythms more than fast jumpy ones in games, books, music and movies. To me, the ability to coordinate the action between all of the units in my army is more exciting than the potential to disrupt my opponent's ability to do so. Some people have ADD; I have the opposite condition- that which does not require an extended period of attention from me is just not enough for me to sink me teeth into and comes across as boring. You say the phrase "One page rules" and I can tell you without reading it that it will bore me to tears. Note that I'm not saying One Page Rules is a bad game- it probably is a great game... But that doesn't mean I'm going to like it.

Balance is probably about number four on my list of priorities in a game. I "care" about it- games are better with it than they are without it, for sure.

But Dust? Couldn't care less about it, even though it's more balanced than 40k ever will be or has ever been. Ditto on Chain of Command. X-wing and Battletech have a better chance of appealing to me, but honestly? It's still a real longshot for someone with my particular set of preferences. Notice again how I didn't say any of those are bad games either? It's because I recognize that there is no such thing as an objectively "good" or an objectively "bad" game- it's all about either how well a game does or does not conform to specified set of parameters, and in the absence of a specified set of parameters, it's about how well a game conforms to one's own preferences.

To me, it is far more important that every faction has distinct subfactions which perform differently enough from the others than it is to be balanced. The only editions of 40k that have ever offered this are 8th and 9th. And before anyone pipes up about the editions that had awesome Chaos subfactions, kick ass Tyranid biomorphs or wicked guard regimental traits, let me state that I've played Sisters since 2nd and an OoOML and a Bloody Rose sister have performed identically on the battlefield in every edition until 8th. And it never mattered how diverse Chaos, or Tyranids or Guard were when I played sisters.

To me it is more important that the game includes a progression system with built in escalation mechanics than it is for a game to be balanced.

To me it is more important that the progression system includes faction specific elements that are only available to that faction... And quite frankly, 40k would be even closer to suiting my particular tastes if there were subfaction specific elements of the progression system that were only available to those subfactions- the Eldar dex comes closest to this ideal, though even it doesn't go as far as it could.

To me, it is more important that there is ongoing narrative support for an evolving, shared story than it is that the game be balanced.

If you took any of these four things away from 9th ed and spit it back to me perfectly balanced, I personally would like it less.

Since I know me better than you know me, I'm gonna say that one more time for the cheap seats:

IF YOU TOOK ANY OF THESE FOUR THINGS AWAY FROM 9TH ED AND SPIT IT BACK TO ME PERFECTLY BALANCED, I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE IT LESS.

Does that mean that 9th ed as is would be better than your ideal version? No. Because again, objectively "good" and objectively "bad" are things that don't exist.

Are we getting this yet?

So no, you wouldn't buy into another game with these rules.

**Hecaton**

Insectum7 wrote:
I think the issue stems from how 40K is balanced for tournament play, which often seems at the cost of narrative.

They don't have to do it that way, though. So putting that blame on "balance" is wrongheaded.

**Karol**

Well that is important. But the strenght vs weaknesses thing is not something GW balances well. Probably can't. They do it over and over again, where they claim to make eldar faction the precision glass hammer type armies, when in reality they are both a hammer and super resilient through a combination of rules. Or they do stuff like, make scoring objective crucial to an edition.Then don't that something like knights, can't play the objective game for what 2 years of an edition?

Yes a fact. Any other IP for a game with these rules would be laughed at. You give it a pass because 40k.

If a game came out today, and it didn't have a monopoly on players, but cost 1000$ to enter, had rules set as good as w40k and was updated the way w40k gets updated aka you wait for 2-3 years to get something, and you may get nothing, and then it is back to waiting another 2-3 years. Then a game like that would just crash and burn. It probably wouldn't last an edition.

**Hecaton**

kodos wrote:
it is just that tournament play does not care of something is balanced or not because you just take the strongest list anyway

it does not matter if there is just 1 faction with 1 list that is playable or 100 different lists
some tournament players even prefer of not having to many good factions as this would mean more rules to learn (so just having always the same 3 factions to deal with is easier)

No, if there was only one viable list in one faction for any length of time the tournament scene would suffer. More balance means more people are interested in tournaments.

I'm guessing you don't play in tournaments much.

**Karol**

GK use the same list that was considered optimal in 8th ed. maxed NDKs, minimal strikes, maximum interceptors and nothing else. If someone bought a "tournament" GK lists at the start of 8th, they will be playing with the same army right now.

**Racerguy180**

Hecaton wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
I think the issue stems from how 40K is balanced for tournament play, which often seems at the cost of narrative.

They don't have to do it that way, though. So putting that blame on "balance" is wrongheaded.

You're right, they don't have to. But the two are intrinsically linked as far as GW is concerned. So unless you throw the baby out with the bathwater... it isn't wrongheaded or if it is, that's on GW. Good luck getting them to change.

I don't understand why people can't take charge of their own fun, rather than relying on a clearly incapable entity to do so for you. But I guess some people like being TOLD what to do instead of thinking for themselves.

**JNAProductions**

Racerguy180 wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
I think the issue stems from how 40K is balanced for tournament play, which often seems at the cost of narrative.

They don't have to do it that way, though. So putting that blame on "balance" is wrongheaded.

You're right, they don't have to. But the two are intrinsically linked as far as GW is concerned. So unless you throw the baby out with the bathwater... it isn't wrongheaded or if it is, that's on GW. Good luck getting them to change.

I don't understand why people can't take charge of their own fun, rather than relying on a clearly incapable entity to do so for you. But I guess some people like being TOLD what to do instead of thinking for themselves.

Yes, how dare people expect the product they pay hundreds of dollars for work out of the box!

**Unit1126PLL**

Racerguy180 wrote:
I don't understand why people can't take charge of their own fun, rather than relying on a clearly incapable entity to do so for you. But I guess some people like being TOLD what to do instead of thinking for themselves.

I mean, I have. I've been playing 4th edition at every opportunity.

BUT

Don't you think people who pay a bunch of money for rules ought to get their money's worth?

**Hecaton**

Racerguy180 wrote:

You're right, they don't have to. But the two are intrinsically linked as far as GW is concerned. So unless you throw the baby out with the bathwater... it isn't wrongheaded or if it is, that's on GW. Good luck getting them to change.

People should demand more of them.

Racerguy180 wrote:
I don't understand why people can't take charge of their own fun, rather than relying on a clearly incapable entity to do so for you. But I guess some people like being TOLD what to do instead of thinking for themselves.

Yeah, shove it up your patronizing ass. I'd rather support companies that put more and better effort into rules design. You insisting on supporting GW even though they don't is doing exactly what GW's telling you to do... so don't give me that crap.

**auticus**

I don't understand why people can't take charge of their own fun, rather than relying on a clearly incapable entity to do so for you. But I guess some people like being TOLD what to do instead of thinking for themselves.

I know where I came from, taking charge of my own fun led to a lot of drama from the community for deviating from standard.

Its all well and good to take charge of your own fun if you dont mind playing with yourself, but if you are after playing with others that is not always feasible and you have to rely on the official entity to create those standards and rules that everyone uses.

GW charges mint for their product. I expect a mint-level product, not the smoking garbage fire that they are fine shoveling out because the community is fine opening up and saying ahhh.

**kodos**

Hecaton wrote:
No, if there was only one viable list in one faction for any length of time the tournament scene would suffer. More balance means more people are interested in tournaments.

you mean like chess?

but than, the tournament scene is bigger than it ever was, and there are less viable tournament lists in total than in previous editions
so there must be something else that compensates for the suffering than

please tell me the hidden secret that makes 40k tournaments being so popular now although they should be much less than in the past

**Hecaton**

kodos wrote:

you mean like chess?

People who like chess are already playing it.

kodos wrote:
but than, the tournament scene is bigger than it ever was, and there are less viable tournament lists in total than in previous editions
so there must be something else that compensates for the suffering than

please tell me the hidden secret that makes 40k tournaments being so popular now although they should be much less than in the past

There are other factors. Increased popularity of nerd hobbies in general, the pandemic giving a lot of people time to finally finish that army, and so on.

**Racerguy180**

I haven't bought rules in decades, I buy the models I like. Seems pretty simple to me. The minute GW makes rules that are worth more than the paper they're written on, I'll buy them. Till then, I'm gonna keep on keepin on.
If you like the current setup and find value in the books/rules, keep buying and consume mass quantities. Cuz GW will supply you with as much worthless stuff as you'll throw $€£¥ at them.

STOP PAYING THEM FOR STUFF THAT IS WORTHLESS. If you continue to pay for rules that you don't like I really dont know what to tell you. If the models sucked you can be sure as gak I wouldn't buy them.

What a novel idea.

**auticus**

STOP PAYING THEM FOR STUFF THAT IS WORTHLESS

100% for sure. I haven't given GW a dime in several years now. Even if I love their models, I have nothing to use them in right now.

**Tyran**

kodos wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
No, if there was only one viable list in one faction for any length of time the tournament scene would suffer. More balance means more people are interested in tournaments.

you mean like chess?

but than, the tournament scene is bigger than it ever was, and there are less viable tournament lists in total than in previous editions
so there must be something else that compensates for the suffering than

please tell me the hidden secret that makes 40k tournaments being so popular now although they should be much less than in the past

I think you are massively overestimating the number of viable tournament lists in previous editions.

**ERJAK**

PenitentJake wrote:
Hecaton wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
And hearing some people talk about how their whole scene has faded because the rules are bad... How does that happen? Like how does anyone invest the time and money to play 2k Matched, decide they don't like that experience... And immediately jump ship for another game, requiring additional expenditures of both money and time, rather than trying an alternative way of playing the game for which they already own painted models.

I'm taking this to mean that your later comment about the things you find important about 40k isn't really accurate; top of the list, and more important by an order of magnitude than anything else is SUNK COST FALLACY, and specifically the manifestation where you get upset or stressed when other people don't experience the same angst over their sunk cost, and leave to find better things to do with their time.

That is fair, and I could see how my choice of words would support that conclusion; also, Sunk Cost Fallacy is certainly part of what keeps me in 40k, but it is a small part.

What I meant in the piece that you quoted though is that people have written on Dakka about FLGS groups who only ever tried 2k GT Mission Pack Matched, didn't like it and immediately went to a different game without ever trying any of the other options before switching. That's the thing that I find odd- that an entire group of people (not just one dude, but an entire scene) is so hung up about playing with 2k army and so hung up about playing the same way it's done at tournaments that they would rather buy a new game and spend the time painting the new minis than trying something different.

I don't understand the mentality. It feels like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

For the people that DO explore the game beyond 2k GT Mission Pack Matched and still don't like it? All the power to them- they've tried the alternatives, and they're still not satisfied, then for sure, they should definitely move on, and that's totally cool.

The people I don't understand are the ones who say "Well, if 2k matched sucks, I guess everything must suck. Time to sell all of my stuff, by some Infinity and paint it all before I can play another game." It just doesn't make sense to me. And Sunk Cost may be a small part of why i can't relate to these folks, but it's not the whole story.

One problem is you assume that a player that doesn't like 40k anymore just instantly sells their army. It's a lot harder to offload an army for a reasonable price than people give it credit for. Also, most people just mothball their stuff.

The rest is a hierarchy. Most people who play games competitively or semi-competitively are aware they like that type of play and aware that GW games often don't support that type of play (at least not for all factions at the same time) with their poor balance.

Therefore, players who know there are going to be times where they step away from 40k for a bit are highly iikely to have secondary and tertiary games they can jump into at any time. These secondary games are often more enjoyable than an alternate playstyle of 40k, even if that playstyle is generally better than standard matched play 40k.

Example: Let's say Fred really like to play his Deathguard at RTTs. He was getting A+ Level enjoyment out of it, even when he did poorly, until Custodes dropped. The current game makes it really, really hard to get a decent game in for that army. So his overall enjoyment of 40k matched right now is a C-.

If he played Crusade, he generally doesn't enjoy narrative play as much and he doesn't follow the lore all that closely, BUT the games are much more interesting and the crusade rules help spice things up a bit so it bumps 40k up to a B-

Now, let's say he has a Marvel Crisis Protocol force and an Age of Sigmar Stormcast army. Age of Sigmar isn't having the same issues 40k is and Stormcast are a good army, but his local scene isn't great so give that a B.

His Marvel Crisis Protocol force is fun to play and the game is pretty well balanced and he has local tournaments every month with some pretty decent guys so A-.

So in that hierarchy, Crusade is better than RTT play, but still isn't as good as Sigmar or MCP. So naturally if Fred finds he's not having fun with 40k, he just drops into the next best rung on his hierarchy, which in this case is MCP.

**Karol**

Yep, and it falls apart as soon as someone is in a situation when they have or can have only one army. Then having unfun rules means sitting out an edition. And it shows. There weren't many or any, GK players in the game until the NDK/interceptor list became a power house.

Racerguy180 804585 11354269 wrote:
I don't understand why people can't take charge of their own fun, rather than relying on a clearly incapable entity to do so for you. But I guess some people like being TOLD what to do instead of thinking for themselves.

Because this way of playing is a luxury, and people very much think for themselfs saying no. Let people house rule their own rules sets and suddenly you have the biggest group at the store calling the shots, saying how you will play, what you can take, what rules will be added etc And if you are not part of the group the chance that your changes will be accepted is close to zero.