<![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths""]]>

<![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths""]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/6.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"
Without actually comfirming or denying anything directly at the meet and greet at games day, the games designers in attendance did suggest the following:

There is at the moment no ink being lain on an Eldar or ork codex, but both are scheduled, a lot of hats in the ring for the ork book
A Lot of focus being placed on tau (suggestions of play testing), direct questions were met with smirks and sidelong glances to one another sorry I didnt press this further, but there were a crush of questions being hurled and each one was met with an eagerness to answer but a very measured response
Lots of new models with individual rule sets will be released in the next few months
Codices are now being worked on in blocks of three, ostensibly this is to help balance, but is not indicative of release schedule
The play styles within GW (even during play testing) tend to lean towards the cinematic rather than competitive
All designers were very excited while describing the volume of new models due to be released over the next few months, and hinted that recent releases are indicative of the volume we can expect with regularity
Possible new tyranid anti-flyer unit
Company wide changes to bring forge world, wd, digital, and core releases into alignment are underway
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4587898.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4587898.page GMT GW GD Update: "From the horses' mouths" Designer Discussion http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4587924.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4587924.page GMT Re:From the horses' mouths WD? Possibly those WD codices they were hinting at?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4587933.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4587933.page GMT From the horses' mouths GW, despite that every question put to them was about what's to come.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

unmercifulconker wrote:New models with their own rule sets? Does this correlate to that rumour on natfka were it was said codices will be constantly updated in the WD? Possibly those WD codices they were hinting at?

I believe this was a direct comparison to how the stormtalon and ork flyers were released, so yeah i'd feel comfortable standing on the same ground. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4587937.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4587937.page GMT From the horses' mouths

junk wrote: The play styles within GW (even during play testing) tend to lean towards the cinematic rather than competitive

That is not going to go well with the crowd

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4587995.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4587995.page GMT From the horses' mouths
In one example, Jes Goodwin was 'running' a game where space marines had to siege an imperial stronghold to overthrow a renegade governor... at a certain point in the game, the governor was revealed to be a daemon and the surviving space marines and IG had to then join forces to defeat a daemon army allied with traitor guard. They recounted the game as one of their favorites.

Most of us never even consider story when we're lining up our 1850 vs. but the fathers of 40k always do. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588090.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588090.page GMT From the horses' mouths terrible way to test for issues with the rules.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588121.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588121.page GMT From the horses' mouths

H.B.M.C. wrote:And that's a terrible way to test for issues with the rules.

And that's probably the most fun way to play. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588132.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588132.page GMT Re:From the horses' mouths GW to make the games more cinematic than competitive.
This is, after all, a game, and should be fun for players on both sides.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588311.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588311.page GMT From the horses' mouths http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588353.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588353.page GMT From the horses' mouths 40k never struck me as being designed for competative play. There is a very vocal minority that has been trying their best to assert that it should be played in a very competative fashion, but this reaffirms the way that i have always felt about the game.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588360.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588360.page GMT Re:From the horses' mouths
I hope that if they plan on releasing more rules in White Dwarf that GW will actually put those rules on its website in PDF form for those of us who don't get the magazine in time. I feel bad for those Sister of Battle players who never got their hands on their new "codex".]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588364.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588364.page GMT From the horses' mouths GW continues to put out new and fun models with White Dwarf rules support then I will buy them. Hears to hoping for that faster codex release schedule. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588378.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588378.page GMT Re:From the horses' mouths

Chaos Legionnaire wrote:I actually prefer this move by GW to make the games more cinematic than competitive.
This is, after all, a game, and should be fun for players on both sides.

But they're not. Their own actions prove it: to make the game more cinematic, they have to supplement it with a GM.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588456.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588456.page GMT From the horses' mouths
The new book plus all recent communication with them screams this. I know what people want however its not what they are going to be offering, much less gearing themselves for. They are also not trying to be deceitful as is insinuated from various negative posters. They want to tell a story.

They have an idea for their hobby, you are more than welcome to come along or take what you buy from them and do any number of things with it.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588536.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588536.page GMT From the horses' mouths GWs new keyword to justify any failing in their game design or play testing.....]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588621.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588621.page GMT From the horses' mouths

KarlPedder wrote:Cinematic GWs new keyword to justify any failing in their game design or play testing.....

Ha, indeed.

I also like how the word is flying around so much after GW started using it on their website and in the rulebook to describe the game now. I don't think the game feels more "cinematic" now than it did before, but since GW said it is everyone else thinks so. If you just keep repeating it eventually people start believing it I guess.

cincydooley wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:And that's a terrible way to test for issues with the rules.

And that's probably the most fun way to play.

But they're supposed to be catching loopholes and fixing other problems with the rules as they become apparent during testing, that's their job.

That may be a fun way (for you) to play the game but that's kind of irrelevant when the designers aren't really being paid to "have fun" all day. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588634.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588634.page GMT From the horses' mouths

KarlPedder wrote:Cinematic GWs new keyword to justify any failing in their game design or play testing.....

A cinematic gaming narrative has been GW's goal since basically forever. If you think the "cinematic" stuff is new in any respect, you haven't been paying attention.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588644.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588644.page GMT From the horses' mouths

Sidstyler wrote:
But they're supposed to be catching loopholes and fixing other problems with the rules as they become apparent during testing, that's their job.

That may be a fun way (for you) to play the game but that's kind of irrelevant when the designers aren't really being paid to "have fun" all day.

Well no, their job is to make a game that will sell. If they don't feel it's worth spending more time fine tuning some rules, that doesn't mean they're not doing their job, it just means they're not making the game you personally want. They're still making a game, which is still doing their job.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588669.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588669.page GMT From the horses' mouths

cincydooley wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:And that's a terrible way to test for issues with the rules.

And that's probably the most fun way to play.

Nothing I said contradicts your statement. And vice versa.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fetterkey wrote:A cinematic gaming narrative has been GW's goal since basically forever. If you think the "cinematic" stuff is new in any respect, you haven't been paying attention.

But it's quite stupid to think that a cinematic game cannot also be a good competitive game. Writing balanced rules doesn't reduce cinematic appeal - it benefits everyone. A tightly written well-tested set of rules means that competitive types can have their tournaments and not worry about fighting the dumb-ass rules, whilst the casual players can keep doing whatever they want, because the rules don't matter that much to them.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588674.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588674.page GMT From the horses' mouths

H.B.M.C. wrote:But it's quite stupid to think that a cinematic game cannot also be a good competitive game. Writing balanced rules doesn't reduce cinematic appeal - it benefits everyone. A tightly written well-tested set of rules means that competitive types can have their tournaments and not worry about fighting the dumb-ass rules, whilst the casual players can keep doing whatever they want, because the rules don't matter that much to them.

Why is this so hard to understand? Making the rules more competitive doesn't invalidate casual play, in fact it doesn't affect you in any negative way whatsoever.

So I don't get why people fight the idea so fething hard.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588687.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588687.page GMT From the horses' mouths GW's designers can-- and in my view generally do-- write rules that are both balanced and characterful. One doesn't necessarily subtract from the other.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588706.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588706.page GMT From the horses' mouths pvp wargame, like RT was!

It's so funny how people keep bitching about GW not doing what THEY want. Just because it is not what YOU want dose not meen it is wrong. I'm sorry, but "casual" players do care about rules, the idea that rules don't matter is rubbish. Just because it is not how you want to play dose not make it wrong. It's not that they are not trying to make a balanced game, but that making a balanced game with so many rules is almost impossible. No other game, as far as I know, has so many diffrent units and forces.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588708.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588708.page GMT From the horses' mouths

cincydooley wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:And that's a terrible way to test for issues with the rules.

And that's probably the most fun way to play.

First of all, that's entirely subjective. Second, it doesn't matter whether it's more fun or not. A play tester's job is not to have fun. Their job is to find holes, see how far they go, and report them.

What they're talking about isn't playtesting, it's playing. Those are two very different things. This whole 'cinematic' hot word that they've been spouting endlessly is just bs used to cover up the fact that GW's rulesets are now compised of lazily edited, lazily written rules with lazy testing.

It's like saying the suffocatingly small house is just 'cozy,' and the broken piping and harmful mold build up is 'character.']]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588714.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588714.page GMT From the horses' mouths

Fafnir wrote:First of all, that's entirely subjective. Second, it doesn't matter whether it's more fun or not. A play tester's job is not to have fun. Their job is to find holes, see how far they go, and report them.

What they're talking about isn't playtesting, it's playing. Those are two very different things. This whole 'cinematic' hot word that they've been spouting endlessly is just bs used to cover up the fact that GW's rulesets are now compised of lazily edited, lazily written rules with lazy testing.

It's like saying the suffocatingly small house is just 'cozy,' and the broken piping and harmful mold build up is 'character.'

Just because the designers like to play narrative battles (this should be obvious to anyone who has read the 6th edition rulebook-- have you SEEN the crazy space station scenario?) doesn't mean that they don't test the game normally. It seems to me that GW's rules have followed a fairly steady trend from Rogue Trader until now-- a trend of generally getting "tighter" and with fewer loopholes. Claiming that GW's rulesets are "now comprised of lazily edited, lazily written rules" doesn't seem to hold water-- if you think the current rules are lazily edited or lazily written, I shudder to think what you would have thought of 4th edition!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588752.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588752.page GMT From the horses' mouths

H.B.M.C. wrote:

But it's quite stupid to think that a cinematic game cannot also be a good competitive game. Writing balanced rules doesn't reduce cinematic appeal - it benefits everyone. A tightly written well-tested set of rules means that competitive types can have their tournaments and not worry about fighting the dumb-ass rules, whilst the casual players can keep doing whatever they want, because the rules don't matter that much to them.

Exactly.

I don't want a 'super competitive game' but I do want balanced, well written rules and armies.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588767.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588767.page GMT From the horses' mouths

Fetterkey wrote:I don't fight the idea. I'm a moderately competitive player and like playing in tournaments. But I think that, just as it is stupid to attack attempts to make the game more balanced/competitive on the grounds that the game should be more narrative, it is stupid to attack attempts to make the game more cinematic as if they inherently come at the cost of game balance. GW's designers can-- and in my view generally do-- write rules that are both balanced and characterful. One doesn't necessarily subtract from the other.

A tightly written and tested set of rules has zero impact on how fun it is to play. Ludo, snakes and ladders etc are all fun games where the rules have been extensively described to eliminate and ambiguity. D&D, Pathfinder, etc are all very complex rules-wise, but each has been written so that each individual power, weapon, armour, ability, feat, etc has its rules or at least the scope to account for pretty much everything you could ever do if you want to play the game that way. There is very little in the way of "turn to Page xyz for the actual rule you are looking at here, then actually you have to go and look at Rule K on Page abc and sacrifice a small goat while dancing anti-clockwise around the carcass bathed in the blood of a mouse" like there is in GW's rules.

I've had more fun playing D&D than I ever have playing 40K and I'm all for more of a D&D feel in my 40K games, but that doesn't mean they can be sloppy and lazy when writing the rules. Stopping every few minutes to discuss exactly what something does, or never being sure exactly what interpretation of the rules the other player has just kills any enjoyment you get from playing the actual game.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588781.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588781.page GMT From the horses' mouths
I should have recorded the conversations to better report the content, rather than recounting my impressions, but again, there was a crush of questions and answers flying around, and people seemed as keen to express their own opinions to Phil Kelly and the other designers, as press him for his own.

In discussions about sixth edition, a few things stood out. The challenge system had at some point been far more involved, almost like a mini-game that played out within the game, and the version that was finalized for the rulebook was a simplified version of the model they had extensively playtested. The simplification to its current incarnation was made as a concession to competitive play.

You'll have to forgive my reporting for being anecdotal, I had intended to press for far more specificity, but as you can imagine, the volume of questions (and repeated questions at that) was a confusing mess.

I would be doing them a disservice if I did not, however, plainly state my impression that the designers with whom I spoke seemed to be great fans of the game, and treated each aspect of the rules, the background, and the models as a labor of love; their passion was universal and obvious. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588826.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588826.page GMT From the horses' mouths GW doesn't want to design with competitive players in mind because the effort involved in making a tight set of rules is something they dont want to bother with. I actually think the only reason they bother trying to clarify things is because they know there are competitve players out there, but the inconsistent ways they go about that makes me wonder if they actually employ someone that determines how the rules should play out or they just say whatever feels right at the moment. The "most important rule" is insulting and really undermines any image of authority GW has.

They keep saying they're in the model making business not the rules business. I really wonder why they bother with the game at all, if they're going to suck at it why bother? Because its the game that drives the sale of models. If they get down to it and make some solid rules they could just spend their time on adding to the game. They could actually push out the competition that way.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588858.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588858.page GMT From the horses' mouths
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588859.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588859.page GMT From the horses' mouths

junk wrote:
I would be doing them a disservice if I did not, however, plainly state my impression that the designers with whom I spoke seemed to be great fans of the game, and treated each aspect of the rules, the background, and the models as a labor of love; their passion was universal and obvious.

A love for the job does not necessarily make them fit for it. I'm a music junkie, but any work I've done with music has been an absolute failure.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588983.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588983.page GMT From the horses' mouths

SalamanderMarine wrote:If this is true then good news all round.

Oh yeah, fantastic.

People in Oceana better get their Forge World orders in ASAP before that part of the company is redesigned to screw us over as well!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588993.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4588993.page GMT From the horses' mouths

junk wrote:Company wide changes to bring forge world, wd, digital, and core releases into alignment are underway

Wait, just noticed this. What does this mean?

Are they going to start shipping FW items over to Australia and keep a big stock of them, double the price, and then forbid us from ordering them from the UK website without a massively inflated (and downright dishonest) "shipping fee"? I guess we'll pay double the digital codices as well.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4589029.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4589029.page GMT From the horses' mouths http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4589044.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4589044.page GMT From the horses' mouths

Fafnir wrote:

cincydooley wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:And that's a terrible way to test for issues with the rules.

And that's probably the most fun way to play.

Care to explain exactly how the example given in any way lessens the creators ability to play test the game? Were they in some way not using the mechanics of the game? Does making a model turn into a Daemon Prince in some way change their ability to see how units interact....... oh wait it is a pretty good way to see how the new allies rules work isn't it.

How about instead of getting all butt hurt over someone playing a different way than you you actually think about what they are doing instead of jumping all over it. As described that scenario is a perfectly fine way to playtest 40k. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4589219.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4589219.page GMT Re:From the horses' mouths
For me, the game system is the founding block in which the entire structure of any game is build upon, "fluff" is good, models are good, but the place were all come together is the game system, it is were the models and fluff come together, if the game system is solid, it can be a foundation for a skyscraper, if it is not then whatever is build will be on shaky foundations, ready to fall on the first problem.

Clarity, loophole proof and balance are what a game system really needs, none of these detract from a game been fun, competitive or both, on the contrary in my opinion, all are needed for the game to be fun and competitive, trying to figure out how rules really work is neither fun, nor helps in a competitive play, having imbalanced armies either internally or externally is not fun in both categories and especially for "fun" games and by those I mean fluff driven, custom build scenario, games, the more solid the system is the easier is to balance the scenario, the clearer the rules are, the least possible is an odd rule to come up and ruin an otherwise great scenario game.

The above mentioned way of play-testing a game system, a game master making a scenario, fixing the forces running the event is a really bad way to test a game system, when everything is fine-tuned by a third person to be balanced, which can include house rules to better suit the scenario, then nothing is learned on how the rules and the forces will behave in the wild, when two players take their codex, make their force and play, what in my opinion they should be doing is test the system on clarity and loophole proof and this is done by releasing it in a controlled "wild" environment, because the developer has a bias on finding things that can go wrong (he or she has already envisioned how things should happen, the playtesters job is to find out if the way the rules are written can be interpreted in another way and give a not desired result) and test the various forces both internally and externally for balance, if an army is clearly out of favour, or some units are blatantly overlooked in favour of other units then the balance has failed, again the playtesters job here is to find if the units are balanced, desirable and how they interact with other forces.

For me GW has never progressed much from the 1st edition mentality of "things will be balanced by a game master" and frankly by releasing the codexes the way they do, they cannot balance them, because the old ones are clearly out of sinc and the new one must either fall in the same out of sync state the older are, or set a new precedent and hope the codexes after it will keep up with it and not treat it as an out of sync codex when they are written.

Its meant to be played for fun, should never be an excuse.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4589327.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4589327.page GMT From the horses' mouths
I was briefly discussing this with Andy Hoare a few hours ago, and while we don't see perfectly eye-to-eye on this subject, he did say one thing that I found amusing. (Paraphrasing) He said that whenever he or anyone was asked how often they play-tested any given release, the number given was always 'not enough' in the eyes of many people, no matter what it was.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4589458.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4589458.page GMT From the horses' mouths GW picked up imbalances in whatever playtesting they did, then these comments wouldn't get made. I mean, I don't care how much playtesting they do, as long as the game works pretty well.

I'm not a fan of needing a GM for my wargames- I got roleplaying games for that

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4589480.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4589480.page GMT From the horses' mouths GW could turn out the most craptacular set of rules and it would still sell. And people would still defend them and say the rules are "cinematic" and "characterful". GW rules sell mainly because of their history and because of momentum in the market place. Oh, and because people have thousands of dollars invested in little plastic men. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4589628.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4589628.page GMT Re:From the horses' mouths RPGs and wargames. It is impossible to recreate every possible scenario, because different people/testers play different ways and are motivated by different things. Whats worse is, the rules writers will often assume something is common sense (and it often is), but when the tickey-tackey rules lawyers and power gamers that comprise a significant portion of the gaming populace get ahold of the rules, everything gets over analyzed and sweeping assumptions are made because "its not specifically stated in the rules".

The worst thing about the "Its Not Specifically Stated In The Rules" argument is that it can be used by both rules lawyers trying to police the game and power games seeking to gain an edge. One will say, "But it doesn't say you can do exactly that in the rules, its vague so you have to go by my literal interpretation" and the other will say, "Oh yeah, well it doesn't specifically say I can't do this!".

In my opinion, the main rules for 40K seem generally written well enough. Sure, some clarification is needed here and there, but overall, its not bad, its not broken. Anybody that has played WFB or 2nd Edition 40K is probably a little familiar with the ins and outs of the 6th edition rules. The real problems usually arise out of future codex releases because the power creep starts to set in after the first wave of releases is done, although after hearing the rumors about the upcoming Chaos Space Marines codex, I'm starting to wonder if they are getting an early start.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4589763.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4589763.page GMT From the horses' mouths

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:A cinematic gaming narrative has been GW's goal since basically forever. If you think the "cinematic" stuff is new in any respect, you haven't been paying attention.

I think it's totally cinematic. I mean.. don't you guys remember when Kyle Reese was fighting the terminator and the car blew up and flipped over that the action just stopped completely while the two of them argued about the physics of the explosion and which direction it should flip over? It was totally awesome when they just decided to rock/paper/scissor it when they couldn't come to an agreement in the next scene.

Being forced to stop the actual play of the game to argue over a poorly written rule is never cinematic. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4589779.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4589779.page GMT From the horses' mouths
The winner gets to choose rule interpretations (and you never have to play them again if you think their cheating)

For tornaments the organiser should have a complelty clear set of interpretations to hand out (it IS their job after all, lol)]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4589914.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4589914.page GMT From the horses' mouths

Veldrain wrote:Yes, and my fun decreases with each instance of a rule question that could have been caught with a real game instead of the designers telling a bettime story acted out with models.

Then maybe you should stop playing with little toy soldiers and go play chess against the other crusty old retirees down at your local park? Your griping will be in good company there

Leave the rest of us to enjoy our "bedtime stories" while you "real gamers" play your super-awesome "real games".

Seriously, what is it with the hardcore competitive crowd? You KNOW 40K isn't a super-balanced tournament ruleset, you KNOW the strength of the franchise has always been the pretty figures and the background material, yet every single edition, every single codex release, every single little snippet of information we hear about which points to a culture of narrative gaming at GWHQ leads to the same outpouring of pointless vitriol.

Football is not Rugby, Hockey is not Cricket, and Warhammer is not Chess. You have two choices: accept that and leave to play something else, or accept that and suck it up. Please, please hurry up and choose one, because I'm tired of every bleeding thread about 6th, new codices, or rumours in general turning into the same pointless whinging by "real gamers".

warboss wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:A cinematic gaming narrative has been GW's goal since basically forever. If you think the "cinematic" stuff is new in any respect, you haven't been paying attention.

But it's quite stupid to think that a cinematic game cannot also be a good competitive game. Writing balanced rules doesn't reduce cinematic appeal - it benefits everyone. A tightly written well-tested set of rules means that competitive types can have their tournaments and not worry about fighting the dumb-ass rules, whilst the casual players can keep doing whatever they want, because the rules don't matter that much to them.

I think it's totally cinematic. I mean.. don't you guys remember when Kyle Reese was fighting the terminator and the car blew up and flipped over that the action just stopped completely while the two of them argued about the physics of the explosion and which direction it should flip over? It was totally awesome when they just decided to rock/paper/scissor it when they couldn't come to an agreement in the next scene.

Being forced to stop the actual play of the game to argue over a poorly written rule is never cinematic.

Case in point. You are not forced to quibble over every word of the rulebook like a five year old screaming "NUH UH, I SHOT YOU FIRST" in the playground. That is a choice YOU have made, it is a mode of play YOU subject yourself to, and that isn't a position you can argue against because most of us just get on with it; a poorly written rule is no more an inconvenience than when one player forgets something and needs to look it up, or is confused by a rule from their opponent's book and asks to see it. Which is only on the occasions that such things actually become an issue, which in my experience is much less often when not playing with tournament-obsessed whackaloons who scour every word of the rulebook with the Oxford English Dictionary open at their side, seeking every last grammatical error, spelling mistake, and poor word choice they can find to twist to their own advantage.

Stop treating the rules like they're a weapon with which to attack your opponent, and are rather there to facilitate an enjoyable hobby; stop playing against the type of person who will cause a giant ruckus over every tiny issue they can, and you'll find that your problems just melt away.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4589978.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4589978.page GMT From the horses' mouths

Yodhrin wrote:Then maybe you should stop playing with little toy soldiers and go play chess against the other crusty old retirees down at your local park? Your griping will be in good company there

Leave the rest of us to enjoy our "bedtime stories" while you "real gamers" play your super-awesome "real games".

As I've been obliged to point out before, the comparison is meaningless. Chess is an abstract strategy game, 40k is a simulationist tactical game. The real question which a growing number of us are asking ourselves is "Why don't I go and play Warmachine/Malifaux/Dark Age/some other game whose designers don't find it impossible to integrate fluffy, narrative-driven play with a balanced tactical game.".

Yodhrin wrote:Seriously, what is it with the hardcore competitive crowd? You KNOW 40K isn't a super-balanced tournament ruleset, you KNOW the strength of the franchise has always been the pretty figures and the background material, yet every single edition, every single codex release, every single little snippet of information we hear about which points to a culture of narrative gaming at GWHQ leads to the same outpouring of pointless vitriol.

Football is not Rugby, Hockey is not Cricket, and Warhammer is not Chess. You have two choices: accept that and leave to play something else, or accept that and suck it up. Please, please hurry up and choose one, because I'm tired of every bleeding thread about 6th, new codices, or rumours in general turning into the same pointless whinging by "real gamers".

Ah, I see that those of us who expect meaningful tactical depth from our wargames are having the wrong sort of fun... good to know.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Writing balanced rules doesn't reduce cinematic appeal - it benefits everyone. A tightly written well-tested set of rules means that competitive types can have their tournaments and not worry about fighting the dumb-ass rules, whilst the casual players can keep doing whatever they want, because the rules don't matter that much to them.

HBMC makes a very good point here, why don't you try to address it rather than calling him names?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4590066.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4590066.page GMT From the horses' mouths
I'm sick of reading page after page of whining that the game isn't the way people want it to be. If you don't enjoy it, move on.

I enjoy going to my gaming club and playing old friends and relative strangers. I talk to them and laugh and joke while I play the game. If I win great, if I don't it doesn't matter I try and learn something that makes it less likely I will lose the same way again. If I took it as seriously as others on here appear to, I would have to question my priorities.

It amuses me that in the OP it is mentioned that codexes are developed in blocks in order to try and PRESERVE balance, yet that has been pretty much overlooked as it would undermine individual's attempts to be whiny and butthurt.

I appreciate it is always the vocal minority that tend to surface on forums like this, but there are plenty of people that are happy In the little gaming bubble we've made for ourselves, and to constantly hear other people complaining about a situation that is totally within their power to change is kinda wearing.

/rant ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4590119.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4590119.page GMT From the horses' mouths

English Assassin wrote:

Yodhrin wrote:Then maybe you should stop playing with little toy soldiers and go play chess against the other crusty old retirees down at your local park? Your griping will be in good company there Leave the rest of us to enjoy our "bedtime stories" while you "real gamers" play your super-awesome "real games".

Yodhrin wrote:Seriously, what is it with the hardcore competitive crowd? You KNOW 40K isn't a super-balanced tournament ruleset, you KNOW the strength of the franchise has always been the pretty figures and the background material, yet every single edition, every single codex release, every single little snippet of information we hear about which points to a culture of narrative gaming at GWHQ leads to the same outpouring of pointless vitriol.

Football is not Rugby, Hockey is not Cricket, and Warhammer is not Chess. You have two choices: accept that and leave to play something else, or accept that and suck it up. Please, please hurry up and choose one, because I'm tired of every bleeding thread about 6th, new codices, or rumours in general turning into the same pointless whinging by "real gamers".

Ah, I see that those of us who expect meaningful tactical depth from our wargames are having the wrong sort of fun... good to know.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Writing balanced rules doesn't reduce cinematic appeal - it benefits everyone. A tightly written well-tested set of rules means that competitive types can have their tournaments and not worry about fighting the dumb-ass rules, whilst the casual players can keep doing whatever they want, because the rules don't matter that much to them.

HBMC makes a very good point here, why don't you try to address it rather than calling him names?

Again what is the point of these comments? Its not how they are going to be handling their IP and game system. Find like-minded people and make your own ruleset or accept what they are doing or move on. Im with the competitive crowd in wanting tighter rules however since that isn't their goal on any level I am going to take what is given and derive enjoyment where I can. All I will say is that the ally rules probably did more for competitive balance in 40k (-Tyranids as always) than anything they have ever done.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4590150.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4590150.page GMT Re:From the horses' mouths
I love playing 40k, bought version 1 on the week of release, am still playing it now. 6th ed, I have to say, flows a bit more than the previous one. SO Im a fan, of the current game, of the system, of the figures the whole lot. but....

The book is lazily written and edited. The amount of reprinted artwork is horrendous. Ok, there are some recoloured images, but its a swizz for £45. Ok the book is nice, but its lazy. I tried to look up an obscure rule in the book and found it didnt exist in the index! As are the codex books. THey will often go out of the way to obfuscate clear reading. I am using the tyranid codex, which splits the rules on you army weaponry on either side of the colour section! Also, for example, looking up the Bio Plasma rules in the reference section it tells me to "go look it up" instead of simply reprinting the weapon profile. Madness! And lazy and badly designed.

So the main point is this: The books are lazily designed and confusing, yet the game is pretty much THE world wide standard game. GW founds its business on the impression of the international and consistent nature of its product, yet fails to deliver. The rules should be water tight, they should be precisely written and the books well layed out.

GW should be able to make a solid no fuzzy, rigid game where all the armies they sell have current codex books. I say do all the army lists in 1 book, and the fluff in another.

I have written and published my own game, and its hard enough to make a good rule book on your own. However, its written and edited y how many people? The example of the nid codex has 5 people involved with the writing and layout alone, and yet none suggested that they didnt split the functional rules out to make easier use of the book?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4590179.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4590179.page GMT From the horses' mouths Agreed that more balance would be nice in the game, but the group of gamers that seeks out the most broken combinations, and then uses them to grind down all the local gamers at their FLGS in order to feel like they are better tacticians are just deluding themselves. Not everyone wants to play like that. These are usually the same gamers who field unpainted armies because that way they dont hurt the resale of their man-dollies when they rush out to buy the newest netlist.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4590194.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4590194.page GMT Re:From the horses' mouths

Yodhrin wrote:...a poorly written rule is no more an inconvenience than when one player forgets something and needs to look it up, or is confused by a rule from their opponent's book and asks to see it.

Of course a poorly written rule is an inconvenience. It is an inconvenience for the game to come to a halt a few times so that the players can try to figure out a poorly written rule. That doesn't make both players WAAC guys, and it doesn't imply that there is a lot of arguing going on like you imply in your post. Sometimes it just means two friends who want to get the rule right so that it doesn't interfere with their games in the future.

If GW wants a 'narrative' or 'cinematic' style game it still needs a solid rule-set to make work smoothly. I'm not even sure what a more narrative or cinematic game is supposed to mean. I certainly don't play 40k for the fabulous rule-set they have. I can play Infinity if I want a great sci-fi rule-set. I play 40k because I love the fluff and the miniatures. It makes it pretty cinematic in my mind while playing a game, which is only interrupted when I have to spend ten to fifteen minutes figuring out the cryptic rules from time to time.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4590230.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4590230.page GMT From the horses' mouths

brettz123 wrote:

Fafnir wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:And that's a terrible way to test for issues with the rules.

And that's probably the most fun way to play.

First of all, that's entirely subjective. Second, it doesn't matter whether it's more fun or not. A play tester's job is not to have fun. Their job is to find holes, see how far they go, and report them.

What they're talking about isn't playtesting, it's playing. Those are two very different things. This whole 'cinematic' hot word that they've been spouting endlessly is just bs used to cover up the fact that GW's rulesets are now compised of lazily edited, lazily written rules with lazy testing.

It's like saying the suffocatingly small house is just 'cozy,' and the broken piping and harmful mold build up is 'character.'

Playing the game "the way you know its intended to be played" doesn't actually test the rules as written. If they actually wanted to fully test the rules, they should recruit people with no experience in the game and film them playing each other. The way to find rules ambiguities is to find people who didn't have prior experience and see how they interpret what you've written.

Also, broken combos tend to slip through because the designers are playing with an ideal of "fair play" not actually codified in the rules, and using a 3rd party to arbitrarily declare things ingame rather than fix the problems in the rules.

The design team are all Timmys, and think Spikes and Johnnys are invalid playstyles. That's a critical failing.(Just like D&D 3rd edition was ruined by Monte Cook being a Spike/Johnny and thinking Timmies were idiots to be punished.)]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4590302.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4590302.page GMT From the horses' mouths

Yodhrin wrote:Stop treating the rules like they're a weapon with which to attack your opponent, and are rather there to facilitate an enjoyable hobby

Except broken rules and glaring imbalances make it impossible to properly enjoy the hobby for me, and it would seem for a lot of other people as well, since the main complaint from people who have bent over and accepted GW's excuses for putting out a gakky game is that all this "whining" never stops.

azreal13 wrote:II appreciate it is always the vocal minority that tend to surface on forums like this, but there are plenty of people that are happy In the little gaming bubble we've made for ourselves, and to constantly hear other people complaining about a situation that is totally within their power to change is kinda wearing.

Then use your fething ignore button. Not all of us live in your happy little gaming bubble, not all of us subscribe to your world view, and I personally don't think I should have to censor myself because you're growing "weary" of my opinion.

sennacherib wrote:I Second the suggestion that gamers who arent happy with the game move on to a different game system.

If 40k didn't cost me more than a hundred bucks then I would just chalk it up as a piece of gak game system and find something better.

As it is, I can't fething quit, I've invested too much into it and it would all be for nothing if I stopped playing the game. So no, I can't just "move on", I have hundreds of dollars worth of 40k models that are only really usable to me in 40k. I want the game I already wasted my money on to be good, I don't want to waste even more money on another one.

helium42 wrote:If GW wants a 'narrative' or 'cinematic' style game it still needs a solid rule-set to make work smoothly. I'm not even sure what a more narrative or cinematic game is supposed to mean.

I honestly don't think GW knows what it means, either. It's just a meaningless buzzword they use to make the game sound cooler.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4591207.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4591207.page GMT From the horses' mouths

Sidstyler wrote:

sennacherib wrote:I Second the suggestion that gamers who arent happy with the game move on to a different game system.

Go to eBay or the Swap Shop here and put it up for sale, or trade it off for a different system. You may not get every dollar you put into it, but cut your losses and find a game you enjoy. As it is, you spend probably more of your time here complaining about the game than you have actually playing it.

There's plenty of people willing to trade their PP minis for 40k, so go out and find them and save yourself a lot of time complaining and get busy with playing the type of game you keep demanding of a company who has no intention of making the game you want. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4591218.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4591218.page GMT From the horses' mouths

sennacherib wrote:I Second the suggestion that gamers who arent happy with the game move on to a different game system.

I propose that people unhappy with complaints about the game simply move onto a different thread. My proposal doesn't require you to either shelve a $5,000+ collection of miniatures or go through the effort to post dozens to hundreds of auctions on ebay... yours does. I don't know if I'll end up liking this edition overall as I don't have much experience with it yet but I sure as hell know I don't like someone telling me what to do with a dozen years of hobby work/collecting.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4591278.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4591278.page GMT From the horses' mouths

Starfarer wrote:There's plenty of people willing to trade their PP minis for 40k ... the game you want.

Not quite fair though, is it?
Hey. I like WM/H. I'd like 40K to be as airtight as that. it's one of the things (and the resulting smoothness of play) WM gets very, very right. If you're looking for something in the niche that 40K occupies (number of models, mix between skirmish and mass battles rules) you'll be hard-pressed to find something. WM is a different game, it's not that simple.
Warpath might do it, someday. Not yet though. I'm not planning on playing much WFB anymore; KoW is the alternative I like better now. it's gotten sufficiently mature and diverse to fulfill that role. there's **no** such alternative for 40K and let's face it, even then we all like **this** background story and **these** models; a lot of us would like to keep using them.
besides, there's a lot of things very "right" in 6th edition; it's just immensely frustrating to see how some more rigorous testing would benefit everyone (yes, it would. smooth rules are great, moreso for the casual gamer who doesn't even like rules arguments. I have fun debating the finer points of a stupidly specific rule in a ditto situation. the fluff-only crowd? not so much, haha), yet the devs refuse to do that.
Sidstyler might be a bit abrasive at times (and more than a bit the rest of the day

) but he's not alone in his frustrations; a lot of us would like to see that little bit more effort and professionalism on the devs' part. If you can deal with the current situation, fine. Good for you, even! I understand; I like D&D 3.5 just fine and still play it a lot. It's horribly written, loopholes the size of a mountain andsoforth, but the amount of source material keeps my group in. It's just that while I can deal with ambiguity and contradiction just fine in an RPG setting, I do NOT want to have need of a DM in a wargame. Why is that so strange an argument to many folks here? How would an airtight ruleset keep the fluffbunnies from doing what they like? How does it impair "cinematic" play to consider more than just the "cool"factor in a vacuum, as they seem to do now?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4591292.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4591292.page GMT From the horses' mouths

warboss wrote:

sennacherib wrote:I Second the suggestion that gamers who arent happy with the game move on to a different game system.

I wasnt complaining. nor was i telling you what to do with your 5000$ man-dolly collection.
If the changes in the rules set cause such great emotional distress to you, then it would be healthy to just move on.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4591386.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4591386.page GMT From the horses' mouths
Anyway I don't see how adding story detracts from the rules; in this edition it seems that the rules have greater support for story than in previous editions, and are not any less competitive.

Finally, the tone of this conversation has made me regret my initial post on the subject as nearly every impression I've conveyed has been extrapolated upon to a ridiculous degree.

I retain the impression that the designers gave consideration to competitive and narrative players, and I concede that this edition does not overwhelmingly satisfy many of my own gripes, I recognized no indication that there should be credence given to accusations of laziness or disconcern.

Again I will add a disclaimer that these are my compiled impressions and nothing more concrete, but upon reflection of yesterday's experience, I am left with the image that there is a bulk to games workshop, an inertia that must be overcome with each significant change to the game. And as any 40k player must realize, getting a large group of creative types with a penchant for wargaming to agree on even the slightest detail is a hurculean effort. So must it be at the design studio, where each member of the team who has cultivated opinions and desires for change over a far greater experience than that of the casual wargamer, that producing a new edition of the rules is most likely a bit more difficult than the detractors here should make it seem.

Personally, should I occasion to speak with the designers again, I will press harder for more specific information regarding how specific rules were crafted and tested, though, I'd hazard that any of you have just as likely an opportunity as myself, and urge those of you who are the most vocal in your distaste with the game, to take up your complaints in the form of letters put directly to those with whom you have found offense rather than one another.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4591404.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4591404.page GMT From the horses' mouths

Sidstyler wrote:

If 40k didn't cost me more than a hundred bucks then I would just chalk it up as a piece of gak game system and find something better.

As it is, I can't fething quit, I've invested too much into it and it would all be for nothing if I stopped playing the game. So no, I can't just "move on", I have hundreds of dollars worth of 40k models that are only really usable to me in 40k. I want the game I already wasted my money on to be good, I don't want to waste even more money on another one.

Sure you can sport! I did at the end of 2nd. Walked away, gave my model collection to a mate to sell and that was it, no more 40k for more than a decade. You just don't appear to want to make that decision, yet appear to be unable to make peace with the fact that the game isn't what you want it to be.

Do you buy a family car, then insist the manufacturer change it to be a sports car because you didn't buy what you thought you wanted? No, you sell it and buy the right thing that you want. Everyone buys the wrong thing from time to time, there's no shame in admitting it.

But then if you played a game you enjoyed what would you have to come on the internet and post hyperbole and mild abuse to total strangers about?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4591408.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4591408.page GMT From the horses' mouths

sennacherib wrote:
I wasnt complaining. nor was i telling you what to do with your 5000$ man-dolly collection.
If the changes in the rules set cause such great emotional distress to you, then it would be healthy to just move on.

Pretty much sums it up. At the end of the day if your upset and feel this game isn't how you want it, really not my deal. However the forums here plus ones own personal level of general happiness in life would be improved if they stopped involving themselves in things that cause them this type of implied distress. We have only a few moments of time in life and its better served finding your happy place than bludgeoning a square competitive peg into a round hole.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

azreal13 wrote:
Sidstyler wrote:

If 40k didn't cost me more than a hundred bucks then I would just chalk it up as a piece of gak game system and find something better.

As it is, I can't fething quit, I've invested too much into it and it would all be for nothing if I stopped playing the game. So no, I can't just "move on", I have hundreds of dollars worth of 40k models that are only really usable to me in 40k. I want the game I already wasted my money on to be good, I don't want to waste even more money on another one.

Sure you can sport! I did at the end of 2nd. Walked away, gave my model collection to a mate to sell and that was it, no more 40k for more than a decade. You just don't appear to want to make that decision, yet appear to be unable to make peace with the fact that the game isn't what you want it to be.

Do you buy a family car, then insist the manufacturer change it to be a sports car because you didn't buy what you thought you wanted? No, you sell it and buy the right thing that you want. Everyone buys the wrong thing from time to time, there's no shame in admitting it.

But then if you played a game you enjoyed what would you have to come on the internet and post hyperbole and mild abuse to total strangers about?

The specific term that is looked for here is the sunk cost fallacy. What was already invested is gone, go forward from here since previous investments cannot be recouped beyond their ongoing effects. Look where your at now, if its not what suits you then stop punishing yourself over past events and make your own enjoyment from future actions.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4591413.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4591413.page GMT From the horses' mouths Excellent post.

Of course the sunk cost fallacy is offset by the surprisingly buoyant second hand miniatures market. One could recoup all money invested or even make a small profit if they're well painted, and a substantial percentage if they're not. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4591438.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4591438.page GMT From the horses' mouths 40k because I like the lore, the diversity, and the hobby as a whole. I don't play as much as I used to because the game has steadily declined since second edition to be too streamlined, boring, and broken.

This is supposed to be more than a hobby. If GW can't bother themselves to make it as such, they should hand the development of the rules over to someone else that can manage it.

This is a game. It's meant to have winners and losers and it should be up to them to decide how much fun they had doing it. Terrible rules, especially at the expense of everyone who doesn't support the Space Marine train, doesn't help make the game more enjoyable, it makes it more painful to play.

They need to sit down with their rules, find a point value they're happy with where the game can be competetive and balance the game around that point. This way they can actually show up to gaming events without feeling embarrased about how terrible their system is compared to the majority of other ones out there.

If they want this game to be a large narrative or cinematic in some fashion (I laugh out loud every time they they use this as an excuse for their shoddy rules) then have that occur outside of the above mentioned point total.

Their problem is they've scared away all but the faithful with their prices, have made it impossible for new blood to enter the system, and have determined the only way to keep those of us with a vested interest in the hobby to keep handing out money is to keep making the game more and more out of whack where the only time there can be any hope of actual balance is at an ever increasing number of points.

And if you don't believe this then look at one of the main changes that came about in 6th edition: allies.

Can't get your game balanced with the amount of diversity you've introduced? Rebalance the game around 2500pts and allow people to take a second army to remove all the diversity. I mean what do they care, we're buying models right?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4591446.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4591446.page GMT From the horses' mouths

ThomasPolder wrote:

Starfarer wrote:There's plenty of people willing to trade their PP minis for 40k ... the game you want.

This has nothing to do with fair. I want GW to produce a skirmish level game within the 40k setting, aside from Necromunda that focuses on the larger 40k universe, but that's not a game they want to make. I can't fault GW for not catering to my personal desires. But complaining endlessly and hammering on the same points constantly is not healthy, frankly. My genuine advice for anyone that has as much animosity towards a company and game would be better suited finding another activity to spend their time on. It may not be exactly the game you prefer, but if it hits more points on the things you desire out of a game than not, it's probably worth the switch.

azreal13 wrote:

Do you buy a family car, then insist the manufacturer change it to be a sports car because you didn't buy what you thought you wanted? No, you sell it and buy the right thing that you want. Everyone buys the wrong thing from time to time, there's no shame in admitting it.

But then if you played a game you enjoyed what would you have to come on the internet and post hyperbole and mild abuse to total strangers about?

That is the exact analogy I was going to use. Wanting a product to be a product other than what it is, or was advertised as is crazy to me. Nowhere does GW claim 40k to be a competitive tabletop game - Privateer Press does. They are pretty clear on what they offer, and being let down is somewhat understandable if you didn't really know the difference when you started out. But knowing that alternatives that fit the game type you want and sticking with the one you don't like, is no one's fault but the person too stubborn to move to a game to a product that better suits their desires, rather than insisting a company change their game to suit them.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4591453.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4591453.page GMT From the horses' mouths

Nvs wrote:I 'play' 40k because I like the lore, the diversity, and the hobby as a whole. I don't play as much as I used to because the game has steadily declined since second edition to be too streamlined, boring, and broken.

This is supposed to be more than a hobby. If GW can't bother themselves to make it as such, they should hand the development of the rules over to someone else that can manage it.

This is a game. It's meant to have winners and losers and it should be up to them to decide how much fun they had doing it. Terrible rules, especially at the expense of everyone who doesn't support the Space Marine train, doesn't help make the game more enjoyable, it makes it more painful to play.

They need to sit down with their rules, find a point value they're happy with where the game can be competetive and balance the game around that point. This way they can actually show up to gaming events without feeling embarrased about how terrible their system is compared to the majority of other ones out there.

If they want this game to be a large narrative or cinematic in some fashion (I laugh out loud every time they they use this as an excuse for their shoddy rules) then have that occur outside of the above mentioned point total.

Their problem is they've scared away all but the faithful with their prices, have made it impossible for new blood to enter the system, and have determined the only way to keep those of us with a vested interest in the hobby to keep handing out money is to keep making the game more and more out of whack where the only time there can be any hope of actual balance is at an ever increasing number of points.

And if you don't believe this then look at one of the main changes that came about in 6th edition: allies.

Can't get your game balanced with the amount of diversity you've introduced? Rebalance the game around 2500pts and allow people to take a second army to remove all the diversity. I mean what do they care, we're buying models right?

They are not going to listen to you, worse yet they are doing exactly what you don't want them too. With that stated and done with we now move the conversation forward to what you are going to do. This conversation very much is about the disgruntled player here. Circling around gawking at the same tire fire wont put it out, do something. Bond together all the competitive people and make a ruleset, diverse into a different game system, do a different hobby altogether, or do nothing, or, or, or. Unless it gives you satisfaction to banter the exact same dead horse well past its flesh flensed off move on to sunnier pursuits that make you smile.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4591507.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4591507.page GMT From the horses' mouths

Da Boss wrote:I think that if GW picked up imbalances in whatever playtesting they did, then these comments wouldn't get made. I mean, I don't care how much playtesting they do, as long as the game works pretty well.

I'm not a fan of needing a GM for my wargames- I got roleplaying games for that

Yeah but that's the entire point: GW treat this much more like a roleplaying experience than a competitive experience. This is about forging narratives, creating cinematic experiences that are, in a holistic manner, awesome. At the end of the day, GW are selling you an orange and your feedback to them is that this is the worst deal on apples you've ever gotten. I'm a competitive player but I'm still thrilled GW has taken the approach of being completely hands off:

* 40k is a terribly complex product and it provides a much better competitive environment when players organize tournaments, FAQs and rulesets themselves, from a common foundation. The turnaround on having to rely on GW updating, balancing etc on the fly wouldn't really work until they reach a point where they're a much more digital company. The second part is that it's resource intensive and outsourcing this to the playerbase makes a lot of sense.

* There are virtually no games where the hardcore competitive crowd are the majority of your customers. That might sound odd, because hardcore player will gravitate towards other hardcore players so you create this experience where your surroundings aren't representative of reality. Not a lot of players understand this, but the casual and laid back players are by far the largest consumer group. Designing so they can enjoy the game and letting the experts create a framework that suits them is a solid strategy.

* Playtesting will never uncover every single cornercase you can find. I don't think GWs issue is lack of playtesting or the people participating being bad at it, I think it much more comes down to their strategy. Most digital games that launch will have a period over the first few weeks where they patch issues and errors and that doesn't seem to be GWs strategy. I suspect that the more they get into digital, the more we can see a quicker turnaround. For anyone in computer software, you'll always know that internal testing by x number of people will only uncover a fraction of the issues compared to when thousands start testing (or well, using) your product. The difference again comes in turnaround time. Again, I don't think that GW are bad at playtesting, I think their big issue is that they don't have a strategy with a quick turnaround on changes. Should they reprint codexes every week? Have an update section in WD? The easiest solution would be to do frequent updates to digital products, which they seem to be heading towards.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4591907.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4591907.page GMT From the horses' mouths

Stoffer wrote:

Da Boss wrote:I think that if GW picked up imbalances in whatever playtesting they did, then these comments wouldn't get made. I mean, I don't care how much playtesting they do, as long as the game works pretty well.

I'm not a fan of needing a GM for my wargames- I got roleplaying games for that

No offense, but given their repeated statements that they are neither interested in nor working towards balancing the rules, in what sense are they "outsourcing"? Or, put another way, how does this outsourcing differ from "not giving a crap"?

Stoffer wrote:* There are virtually no games where the hardcore competitive crowd are the majority of your customers. That might sound odd, because hardcore player will gravitate towards other hardcore players so you create this experience where your surroundings aren't representative of reality. Not a lot of players understand this, but the casual and laid back players are by far the largest consumer group. Designing so they can enjoy the game and letting the experts create a framework that suits them is a solid strategy.

Waaa? This statement is way too broad. Off the top of my head, Magic and Warmachine/Hordes both have very, very competitive scenes. From what I understand Infinity is also considerably better balanced then 40k, and has demanding players. Heck, reports are that the Mantic rules sets are more balanced. Actually, it might be easier to list rules systems that are less balanced then GW's (if only in the interest of preserving time...). Now, you may say "Oh, but the majority..." Where did you get the figure to back this up? Who makes this decision and what is it on? Besides, the issue isn't "hardcore" players, but players that desire more balanced rules (if for no other reason then Hardcore is impossible to quantify outside of Diablo...).

More importantly, why does it matter if the majority is "hardcore" or not? Suppose only, say, 20% of 40k players can accurately be described as "hardcore". Are the people in this thread counseling the exodus of the "hardcores" really under the impression that losing a significant minority like that will have a positive impact on GW? Don't get me wrong, I would like nothing better then to see people migrate away from GW to PP and CB.

Stoffer wrote:* Playtesting will never uncover every single cornercase you can find. I don't think GWs issue is lack of playtesting or the people participating being bad at it, I think it much more comes down to their strategy. Most digital games that launch will have a period over the first few weeks where they patch issues and errors and that doesn't seem to be GWs strategy. I suspect that the more they get into digital, the more we can see a quicker turnaround. For anyone in computer software, you'll always know that internal testing by x number of people will only uncover a fraction of the issues compared to when thousands start testing (or well, using) your product. The difference again comes in turnaround time. Again, I don't think that GW are bad at playtesting, I think their big issue is that they don't have a strategy with a quick turnaround on changes. Should they reprint codexes every week? Have an update section in WD? The easiest solution would be to do frequent updates to digital products, which they seem to be heading towards.

Yeah... no offense, but the capacity to continuously update has been available for years now. PP and WotC have both done so for some time (and Wizards especially has devoted a lot of resources to getting this right). The barrier to keeping things balanced hasn't been an efficient way to do it, it's been an institution that has no interest in doing it. There doesn't particularly seem to be any statement that indicates that's changed. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592013.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592013.page GMT From the horses' mouths

Buzzsaw wrote:

Stoffer wrote:
Da Boss wrote:I think that if GW picked up imbalances in whatever playtesting they did, then these comments wouldn't get made. I mean, I don't care how much playtesting they do, as long as the game works pretty well.

I'm not a fan of needing a GM for my wargames- I got roleplaying games for that

Yeah but that's the entire point: GW treat this much more like a roleplaying experience than a competitive experience. This is about forging narratives, creating cinematic experiences that are, in a holistic manner, awesome. At the end of the day, GW are selling you an orange and your feedback to them is that this is the worst deal on apples you've ever gotten. I'm a competitive player but I'm still thrilled GW has taken the approach of being completely hands off:

* 40k is a terribly complex product and it provides a much better competitive environment when players organize tournaments, FAQs and rulesets themselves, from a common foundation. The turnaround on having to rely on GW updating, balancing etc on the fly wouldn't really work until they reach a point where they're a much more digital company. The second part is that it's resource intensive and outsourcing this to the playerbase makes a lot of sense.

Stoffer wrote:* There are virtually no games where the hardcore competitive crowd are the majority of your customers. That might sound odd, because hardcore player will gravitate towards other hardcore players so you create this experience where your surroundings aren't representative of reality. Not a lot of players understand this, but the casual and laid back players are by far the largest consumer group. Designing so they can enjoy the game and letting the experts create a framework that suits them is a solid strategy.

Stoffer wrote:* Playtesting will never uncover every single cornercase you can find. I don't think GWs issue is lack of playtesting or the people participating being bad at it, I think it much more comes down to their strategy. Most digital games that launch will have a period over the first few weeks where they patch issues and errors and that doesn't seem to be GWs strategy. I suspect that the more they get into digital, the more we can see a quicker turnaround. For anyone in computer software, you'll always know that internal testing by x number of people will only uncover a fraction of the issues compared to when thousands start testing (or well, using) your product. The difference again comes in turnaround time. Again, I don't think that GW are bad at playtesting, I think their big issue is that they don't have a strategy with a quick turnaround on changes. Should they reprint codexes every week? Have an update section in WD? The easiest solution would be to do frequent updates to digital products, which they seem to be heading towards.

1. I don't disagree that they don't give a crap; I'm saying that to a large extent, them not giving a crap provides a better tournament circuit. Would you have liked GW to force you to spend the entirety of 5th playing their terribly boring scenarios, or playing the great systems made for the GT tournaments for example? I think the more freedom the players have to shape the competitive scene, the better. Regarding unit balance, there are virtually no games with perfect balance, which I'm not sure is even a good goal. If I could chose between a balanced game and a game with a dynamic powershift based on a mix of releases and meta, I'd take the latter. Balance is terribly boring and pretty much impossible to achieve.

2. It matters because as a company, catering to a minority of your playerbase isn't necessarily the best strategy. If you have 20% of your playerbase asking you to spend your time making changes that aren't necessarily valuable to the larger audience, that's not time well spent for a company. Design for the majority and let your expert users make changes afterwards to suit their needs.

Magic and Warmachine have really good competitive scenes, but again the people who show up to the tournaments aren't the large majority. We had a 40k tournament last Saturday at our FLGS, only 8 to 10 people turned up. That's a fairly small number in a community where there is probably 100-200 people who "buy models". It's probably also a fairly accurate representation between the different userbases. If you're interested in this kind of stuff, there is a great book on UI design that outlines a lot of the differences between regular users and expert users, called "Simple and Usable" written by Giles Colborne.

3. It's been available sure, but it's not until now GW have started doing it. I also think that a year or two down the road, GW will be much better at this. Companies don't change overnight, the fact that GW have hired an external partner to deal with their online strategy speaks volumes of their ability to do this on their own. They're doing a lot of stuff better though; monthly releases, moving all their codexes to digital etc. I don't disagree that they've been doing it wrong, what I'm saying is that there seems to be an interest in doing it right in the future. Once the entire set of codexes and rules are digital, they can actually start doing the changes we've been used to getting from every other game company for years.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592100.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592100.page GMT From the horses' mouths

Stoffer wrote:
* There are virtually no games where the hardcore competitive crowd are the majority of your customers. That might sound odd, because hardcore player will gravitate towards other hardcore players so you create this experience where your surroundings aren't representative of reality. Not a lot of players understand this, but the casual and laid back players are by far the largest consumer group. Designing so they can enjoy the game and letting the experts create a framework that suits them is a solid strategy.

...Guilty Gear, Armored Core, King of Fighters, Virtua Fighter...

There are plenty of games centered around the competitive crowd. The average consumer base just doesn't know about them because they're not targeted to them. Hell, fighting games as a genre maintained much of their popularity over the years (especially before the recent resurgence of the genre) thanks to their competitive communities. They may be videogames, but that doesn't make the point irrelevant.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592101.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592101.page GMT Re:From the horses' mouths
I'm reminded of a GW HQ person doing an AMA on Reddit where he stated that game balance wasn't that important and then three posts later mentioned he never played games against non-staffers because competitive players always tabled him. I read the thing and thought "what a scrub".

If the game actually had strong balance, and the rules as written actually matched with rules as intended, than the casual player could go into a tournament with an army consisting of units he liked and actually stand an okay chance as long as he knew his army, instead of running facefirst into Paladins abusing Look out Sir! and mech IG armies with an absurd number of fliers.

Another thing to remember is that

A: Casuals will get in fewer games than hardcore players.

B: Random bad things will tend to stick in the memory more than random good things.

Nobody is gonna think "It was so awesome when my opponent's gunline moved into position and got ate by carnivorous plants due to a Mysterious Terrain roll." unless they're 9. You're much more likely to remember the time when your assault troops were 5" away from the enemy, overwatch ate three guys, and you then rolled a 4. You'll never remember making a Hail Mary assault roll because Overwatch heavily discourages players from trying to assault from more than 8" away.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592126.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592126.page GMT Re:From the horses' mouths
I view this element as one of pure good for the game and for the players. It'll keep things fresh, and theoretically help stifle codex creep.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592137.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592137.page GMT Re:From the horses' mouths

RogueRegault wrote:The thing they seem to be missing is that designing a competitive ruleset would actually be a lot more casual friendly than expecting people to play "In the spirit of the game." If a unit is overpriced/underpowered a competitive player simply won't take it. A noncompetitive player will buy it because it looks cool and then see it disappoint them ingame.

I see this said a lot, but I've never experienced it. I've never taken the 'optimal' units the internet thinks are the best. I mean, I use Carnifexes instead of Trygons, I use Tyranid Warriors, I use Hormagaunts instead of Tervigon buffed Termagants. The units I've been most disappointed in have been the units the internet tells me to use, like my Hive Guard repeatedly do nothing to even light vehicles. My friend plays a semi mechanised Wych army, but certainly doesn't run everything optimised. Neither do any of my other friends who play, and we all use sub optimal units that don't underperform.

However, I do agree if that person was playing those suboptimal units in a competitive environment he'd be continually disappointed with them, but that's where this argument breaks apart. There's more chance of someone playing casually being in a group of people who play the same way, and these sub optimal units don't really handicap anyone unless they're completely terrible (like Pyrovores or Mandrakes). That's who GW is aiming at, not the one casual person playing in a group of tournament players. It's these people who will play in the spirit of the game, not care if a rule isn't as refined as it could be, and will house rule things they don't like. They also very definitely are the majority of GW's customers, which is why they focus on them.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592154.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592154.page GMT Re:From the horses' mouths

Actually it does, because they are all in part designed to be catered to competitive players. They are literally Designed to be for competitive game play, which as 40k makers have stated, it's not supposed to, it's the Super Smash Brothers of the Competitive world if you wanted to have it placed there.

Nobody is gonna think "It was so awesome when my opponent's gunline moved into position and got ate by carnivorous plants due to a Mysterious Terrain roll." unless they're 9. You're much more likely to remember the time when your assault troops were 5" away from the enemy, overwatch ate three guys, and you then rolled a 4. You'll never remember making a Hail Mary assault roll because Overwatch heavily discourages players from trying to assault from more than 8" away.

Hm, because everyone who doesn't agree with this is underage compared to you.

I remember the good and the bad personally, I remember the three 12" assault rolls, the time I went into the hyperslime river with a mega nobz squad that seemed to enjoy their dip far longer more then they needed, the time my enemy walked into a razorwing nest, and the time I was forced to take cover behind a Fuel Reserve and hoped it wouldn't explode against the face of my enemies superior firepower. (It didn't, and they survived

)

If all you can remember are the bad, than you really need to enjoy yourself more, lighten up and take the good with the bad. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592161.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592161.page GMT From the horses' mouths
If Billy is playing casually with a bunch of friends, and one of his friends seems to constantly beat him with a loadout or strategy of his, and Billy develops a strategy to beat it, that's an aspect of competitive development within Billy's community, even if said community may not consider themselves to be competitive. The metagame grows and evolves around the discovery of new strategies, which are made within a competitive mindset, even if it's not viewed strongly as such.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Actually it does, because they are all in part designed to be catered to competitive players. They are literally Designed to be for competitive game play, which as 40k makers have stated, it's not supposed to, it's the Super Smash Brothers of the Competitive world if you wanted to have it placed there.

Except Smash Bros (at least Melee and Project M) has an extremely strong competitive community built around the games. It may not be as large as the casual fanbase, but it's still quite large.

Melee was designed to be played by both the competitive and casual crowd, and was immensely successful for both, and remained popular for almost 10 years. Brawl was designed to alienate competitive players, and its fanbase has already begun to die off outside the modding community.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592171.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592171.page GMT From the horses' mouths
GW flat out says their game is not meant to be balanced. They tell you right off the bat. They focus more on the cinematic narrative because they value it more than game balance.

So when people complain about a game being well balanced, when the designers flat out state the game isn't designed to be balanced, is silly really. If balance is more important to you then go play a balanced game, or convince the designers to create more balance. Good luck with the latter.

And to all the people who say that games are inherently competitive, no they're not. Yes there's a winner and a loser, but that has nothing to do with the reasons why the game was created, nor does it define the purpose of gaming. Games were designed to pass time, to interact with someone, and yes, to compare skill at some points. But if two players play the game without caring about comparing their skills, and simply play for the sake of playing, then the game can't be considered competitive, can it? Both players were ignoring the competitive aspect of the game. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592188.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592188.page GMT Re:From the horses' mouths

Except Smash Bros (at least Melee and Project M) has an extremely strong competitive community built around the games. It may not be as large as the casual fanbase, but it's still quite large.

Melee was designed to be played by both the competitive and casual crowd, and was immensely successful for both, and remained popular for almost 10 years. Brawl was designed to alienate competitive players, and its fanbase has already begun to die off outside the modding community.

I've honestly never seen actual statistics presented that melee or brawl was beginning to die off, I know melee has had a far more vocal minority complaining about everything within brawl, but it's hard to tell if it's actually popular or just has a far more vocal minority. Rather like how everyone assumes 40k's competitive fanbase outnumbers most, yet it's because most of them are online compared to casuals who enjoy their game and play it.

Needless to say I honestly cannot stand the Melee competitive fanbase. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592196.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592196.page GMT From the horses' mouths

Fafnir wrote:

Stoffer wrote:
* There are virtually no games where the hardcore competitive crowd are the majority of your customers. That might sound odd, because hardcore player will gravitate towards other hardcore players so you create this experience where your surroundings aren't representative of reality. Not a lot of players understand this, but the casual and laid back players are by far the largest consumer group. Designing so they can enjoy the game and letting the experts create a framework that suits them is a solid strategy.

Yep, another game that comes to mind is ARMA, which is suddenly selling a lot of boxes because of the press DayZ is getting it. Usually though, the people who buy an ARMA game are the ultra hardcore tactical shooter players. The point is though, 40k isn't those games and probably never will be. Those companies all settled on creating their little niche part of the market and that seems to be a very different approach from 40k. It's a mainstream game universe that like many people have pointed out, isn't built for competitive games to the extent that the designers will tell you this straight up.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fafnir wrote:The thing is, there isn't some big red line that separates competitive and casual play.

It's more like a massive red ocean than a line

The design considerations are completely different, the way your resource your development is different and the game in general is completely different.

If you have x hours to develop a product, do you spend those hours balancing different unit composition to make sure the playingfield is even, or do you sit down and work the ruleset towards the goal of creating cinematic gameplay?

Is the game ruleset built to be simple enough that players can very quickly figure out effective strategies or do you have a level of complexity that means deep knowledge gives you a massive advantage?

Is your budget spent on hosting 40k tournaments or painting tournaments?

There are a ton of small considerations that you need to make to shape your product. One fairly common thing that underlines how mainstream a game is designed to be is the frequency of random. The less random a game is, the more it relies on a players skill (Starcraft for example is very deterministic). One common design tool to level out a playing field is "crit chance", which essentially gives a player of any skill level a great tool to win a fight and feel good about himself. There is a lot of random in 40k

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592208.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592208.page GMT Re:From the horses' mouths gw is for play testing a game that way. Which then led to a crazy off topic non rumor based argument.

All because some dude said, "I really enjoyed a game i played once with a bunch of co workers." And it got read "We play tested all of 6th ed in this fashion." ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592280.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592280.page GMT From the horses' mouths

azreal13 wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

If 40k didn't cost me more than a hundred bucks then I would just chalk it up as a piece of gak game system and find something better.

As it is, I can't fething quit, I've invested too much into it and it would all be for nothing if I stopped playing the game. So no, I can't just "move on", I have hundreds of dollars worth of 40k models that are only really usable to me in 40k. I want the game I already wasted my money on to be good, I don't want to waste even more money on another one.

The car analogy doesn't quite fit into this example. Imagine buying the car that you liked, and then three or four years later the car transformed itself into a car you didn't like. You could sell it at a loss and buy another car, but you've already invested into it and feel that you have a right to vent a little about the imposed changes to it.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592337.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592337.page GMT Re:From the horses' mouths
IMHO this game should be brain vs brain (chess) with some small variable (dice rolls) but at the moment is Codex vs Codex.

Any fluent-know-rules gamer can easy eat you Tyranids if he plays with GK ... Right? How would have fun in this game? Both players? Dont think so. Seen a lot of frustrations over Robins baby called - Codex Tyranids on internet.

Good balanced rules/codexes does not cost GW a penny its only a hard work they have to put on, which they seems to avoid.

And after all, we pay for this hobby, in some cases 1000$+ so we should demand from GW a good quality product, balanced and so on...

Also, if for you is a FUN to own badly balanced codexes = see your sexologist as looks like you have some problem with your Mojo

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592428.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592428.page GMT From the horses' mouths

helium42 wrote:
The car analogy doesn't quite fit into this example. Imagine buying the car that you liked, and then three or four years later the car transformed itself into a car you didn't like. You could sell it at a loss and buy another car, but you've already invested into it and feel that you have a right to vent a little about the imposed changes to it.

Close,

Its like you bought a car and paid the extra money for the performance package with the high horse power motor and then a few years later the company during one of your scheduled tune-ups the dealer, without fore-warning or permission, takes your performance parts and in their place swaps in the economy package that while still working.

Yes, it still drives down thhe road but you now get passed by letter carriers and your property has suddenly been devalued.............hmm devalued.

Wonder if there is a lawsuit there. GW claims to be a hobby / arts studio these days. If the artists are taking steps to intentionally devalue there product after having sold at a premium due to an attested value/worth, there could be a case in the american courts. Might even be considered to be like a criminal scheme due to GW in he past describing their models as collectables.

Not, that I am the sue happy type or that this could/would happen. I just would love the irony of GW being hit with a class-action that uses the same tricks that GW uses to gouge their customers.
If GW got hit by a massive suit, I'd view it as dharma/karma due to how they to sue/bully other companies and some of their customers.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

god.ra wrote:2 Troll cents from me:

IMHO this game should be brain vs brain (chess) with some small variable (dice rolls) but at the moment is Codex vs Codex.

Any fluent-know-rules gamer can easy eat you Tyranids if he plays with GK ... Right? How would have fun in this game? Both players? Dont think so. Seen a lot of frustrations over Robins baby called - Codex Tyranids on internet.

Good balanced rules/codexes does not cost GW a penny its only a hard work they have to put on, which they seems to avoid.

And after all, we pay for this hobby, in some cases 1000$+ so we should demand from GW a good quality product, balanced and so on...

Also, if for you is a FUN to own badly balanced codexes = see your sexologist as looks like you have some problem with your Mojo

Exalted

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592478.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592478.page GMT Re:From the horses' mouths flgs to run a 5th tournie for ya.

This whole GW has wronged me and ruined the game crap is silly. It screams fanboy rage. Play the game, and if you dont like it play something else. If the masses agree with you GW will get the message due to lack of sales. Look at what has happened to D&D and you will see a similar scenario. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592572.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592572.page GMT Re:From the horses' mouths

god.ra wrote:

Good balanced rules/codexes does not cost GW a penny its only a hard work they have to put on, which they seems to avoid.

Of course it costs money - playtesting, revising rules, checking rules revisions against existing rules, checking everything against the dozen mini-rulesets within each codex, hiring outsiders who don't know the system to playtest - none of that is cheaply done. GW does a good job, but they don't do a great job. If you want a great job, it's going to hurt their bottom line more than a little. A focus on digital updates and codex updates helps a lot by providing a ton of free playtesting feedback (from players) at the cost of making the game more cumbersome and difficult for casual players (looking up changes in WD, periodically checking for new downloadable codex updates for their own and other armies, carrying print outs or leaflets to games). Previously, GW were unwilling to make the game tougher for casual players by providing the constant updates and balance changes competitive gamers expect, which meant a degree of unbalanced was accepted as built in.

As far as I can see, GW is currently shifting far more in favor of the non-casual player, for all their talk of cinema. They are following the model of digital companies - putting out a good game of moderate cost rather than a great game of significant cost, and allowing free playtesting by the actual players to mold it into a great game through updates addressing problems located within the system. That's not a poor strategy in my eyes. However, it is a cumbersome one for a game that is not actually played on computer, and I can easily see why they have not even attempted it before now. It may or may not prove effective, but they certainly seem intent on trying it out this edition.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592606.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592606.page GMT Re:From the horses' mouths

dionysus wrote:you do realize that nothing is forcing you to play 6th edition. The perfectly good miniatures you have now work just as well playing 5th edition with your friends. Just find some like minded individuals and go to town playing by whatever ruleset you want. Hell if there are enough of you im sure you could get your flgs to run a 5th tournie for ya.

This whole GW has wronged me and ruined the game crap is silly. It screams fanboy rage. Play the game, and if you dont like it play something else. If the masses agree with you GW will get the message due to lack of sales. Look at what has happened to D&D and you will see a similar scenario.

Your statement here is like The Dealer, in the analogy in the preceding posts, saying, if you don't like that I stole your motor and devalued your car, then don't drive it on the road.

*Priceless

Also, you got the wrong edition. If you were a Tau player you would know that 5th ed was not the good old days. 4th ed was as close as we ever got. Finding individuals that want to play 4th ed is difficult when you travel constantly. I want to be able to walk into a gamestore (Any gamestore that has accomodations for 40k, that is) and be able to find a pick-up game using my Tau army and all of its models. I don't think that is too much to ask in this highly mobile world we live in.

Tau players have been patiently waiting, paying their dues, to get back to just having our 4thed balanced army level restored. Most of us don't want to the over-powered newcron or FlotM Gk or BAs treatments. We want a balanced well-written ruleset that that leads to enjoyable games rather than being auto-losing to necrons or, like when the Tau Empire codex came out) constant arguments as to what our wargear and armies abilities can do.

Now, I do agree with you that if GW goes this route that it might be time for a massive player exodus like D&D ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592611.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592611.page GMT Re:From the horses' mouths

Tau players have been patiently waiting, paying their dues, to get back to just having our 4thed balanced army level restored.

I played against Fish of Fury players, so I'll be kinda honest in that I really don't want that sort of level returned a bit, but that's due to my hatred after playing a long 4th edition of skimmerspam thanks to a large number of 4th edition Eldar and Tau.

The problem is 4th edition wasn't even your height, as it was simply a very weak rehashing of the 3rd edition dex and probably one of the most piss-poor updates to a codex that didn't devalue it to a high level (Like chaos 4th edition) ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592619.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592619.page GMT From the horses' mouths gw waved their magic wand and created a perfectly balanced rules set with 6th ed. All codex were suddenly made equal come the release of the 6th ed FAQ's. Would competative gamers be made happy or just really upset. You wouldnt be able to rush out and buy an advantage by purchasing the newest and most OP models. I bet there would suddenly be tons of nerd rage as people got upset that their carefully constructed net lists failed to give them an edge.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592649.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592649.page GMT From the horses' mouths

sennacherib wrote:I wonder. IF gw waved their magic wand and created a perfectly balanced rules set with 6th ed. All codex were suddenly made equal come the release of the 6th ed FAQ's. Would competative gamers be made happy or just really upset. You wouldnt be able to rush out and buy an advantage by purchasing the newest and most OP models. I bet there would suddenly be tons of nerd rage as people got upset that their carefully constructed net lists failed to give them an edge.

I think this post more than any other just proves that you have no idea what competitive play is really all about. Most truly competitive players would love that. I would personally gak myself with joy if I didn't have to worry about if the models I just spent ludicrous amounts of money on are going to be worthless in-game and could just buy whatever I wanted.

The only ones who would be complaining about nothing being obviously "OP" or not being able to "buy an advantage" are likely the douchebags who aren't interested in real competition and just want easy wins because it makes them feel better about themselves. You know, the guys who are actually WAAC, the ones who are most likely to blatantly lie or cheat, or just outright bully people if that's what it takes to win. What you assume every competitive player is like despite having no real reason to think that way.

Seriously though, what has been said in this thread so far that makes you think all of the people who want more balanced rules want GW to keep putting out "OP" models so they can "buy an advantage"? ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592954.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4592954.page GMT From the horses' mouths

cincydooley wrote:
And that's probably the most fun way to play.

Its A fun way to play the game. But by no means the most fun or the only one.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4593028.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4593028.page GMT Re:From the horses' mouths
Kinda like saying the fluff gamers couldn't create an argument because they didn't playtest it enough...

Interesting...

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4593099.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4593099.page GMT From the horses' mouths
If the rules become too unbearable, I'll just fully switch to Tomorrow's War or something. At least I'll finally have some godly space marines

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4593280.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4593280.page GMT From the horses' mouths http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4593338.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4593338.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"
Perhaps If all units had the same exact statlines, sort of like checkers?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4594199.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4594199.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths" FW, constant releases, balancing books, etc.

Bravo!

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4594254.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4594254.page GMT Re:GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths" GW and non GW, the above conversation does not surprise me at all, seen it unfold many times already, what still surprises me is that people follow blindingly the company line, that a well written and balanced product, that is a superior product, is something bad that will ruin the "fun".

Having something well build does not make it bad, a daemon that will ruin the "fun" uncompetitive scene forever and ever and will extinguish the creativity for ever, it just means you have a better product to work wth.

Lets analyse a bit what the two demands the so despised by "fluff" players "competitive scene" wants or demands.

Well written
It means what it means, having the wording on the rules clear leaving no space for interpretation, creative or not, since when is that a bad thing?
For example, yes, you may argue that while it does not explicitly states in the rules that a model can fire only one weapon from all it carries in the shooting face, it would be stupid to argue that it can do so and others could point to models and illustrations of models shooting with two pistols at the same time, never the less the effort to clearly write that in the rules and never have the argument in the first place would be minimal, other such examples are abundant throughout the many editions of 40k and the official solution usually revolved around roll a D6, I would rather have a clear rule showing how the game is intended to be played by the designer, than randomly decide on each battle how a particular situation will evolve, some say tournament FAQs fix this, with all the respect to the really hard working tournament organisers that try to fix the many problems the game system has, its their interpretation on how the game should be played, not the manufacturers and more importantly its not their job to fix the mess, the system should be delivered ready in their hands, not demanding such monumental work for it to be playable.

In short having a clear well written rules that clearly state how the game is played and puts everybody on the same page is beneficial to everybody, I cannot see how it degrades "fun" or makes the game cut-throat that will drive the non competitive players out of it.

Balanced[u]
Balance more or less means that there is no obvious best choice, no obvious bad choice, both internally and externally, so there should be no codexes so blatantly favoured in tournaments, or units that one simply does not even bother with because its so bad or outclassed by everything else in its category.

Again, I fail to see how this would be bad for everybody, it does not mean blunt lists of more or less same things, it simply means that every single choice in a codex, should be equally valid to field and that every codex when faced together should be well matched, of course for that to happen al codexes must be up to date and not having 5-10 years gaps, or 1-2 game system revisions gaps between them, again, I do not see how this would be bad for anybody, how it would sacrifice "fun" or alienate the non "hard core" gamers.

Now the solutions I have seen suggested here gravitate towards, suck it up, deal with it, or just leave you are a vocal minority we do not want you.

If I am allowed to address them in my opinion, when somebody invests the money and more importantly the time for something like a 40k army or a few of them, it means he can demand to have a product that is well made in all aspects of it, rules despite what GW wants everybody to believe is one important aspect of it, they are supposed to bring the fluff and models together, for me they first of all fail to bring the fluff on the table and secondly they are bad at delivering a clear, balanced experience, so its a valid thing for somebody to demand it been fixed as equal as a bad retcon in the fluff or a badly designed model.

Demanding for players that have concerns about the system to either suck it, or go away and move to other systems, "since they do not like it" is a bit one sided and extreme, they have after all invested money and time, not everybody is ready to leave such an effort and monetary investment and simply go away, I think its rightful to demand that their money and time dedicated are met with a good product.

And yes it is evident players do move on, GW's ongoing lower sales show that, little by little the player base is shrinking, yes, there are still many players, enough to make 40k the biggest wargame around by far, but the player base is shrinking, some move to other systems, some go away from the wargames scene altogether, fact remains advocating the shrinkage of a group is never a good idea and little by little brings to the tipping point.

Sorry if the above reads a bit incoherent.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4594853.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4594853.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"
My argument is, as a gamer with slightly longer service than yourself, is that 40k is not and has never been a balanced game, and GW have pretty much declared they have no intention of making it so.

To get riled up about the fact it isn't is as pointless as getting angry at the sky for being blue. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595152.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595152.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"
I would love to see GW evolve 40k into something totally balanced and equal but i doubt it will ever happen. I do agree that if they did this it would be a benefit to the game, and i also feel like they could do a much better job of this than they have. However, i think the likely hood of this every happening is on par with the likely hood that millions of competative gamers will stop combing the rules for every more creative ways to "game" an edge over their oppenents. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595163.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595163.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"

sennacherib wrote:I have been gaming for 30 years, and in my experience the more balanced you want a game system to be, the less variables you can have without some broken combination being found. It is very hard (if not impossible) to make every unit and every playing field equal. This is due to the situational dependance of special abilities. Quantifying how much force a particular ability multiplies a particular units force under a certain situation, and then applying this to how often the situation occures in the game is the issue. Good luck ever resolving this.

I would love to see GW evolve 40k into something totally balanced and equal but i doubt it will ever happen. I do agree that if they did this it would be a benefit to the game, and i also feel like they could do a much better job of this than they have. However, i think the likely hood of this every happening is on par with the likely hood that millions of competative gamers will stop combing the rules for every more creative ways to "game" an edge over their oppenents.

I think people know that it is really impossible to completely balance a game. They just wanting GW to make an honest effort.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595244.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595244.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths" However i think GW does this impart (as suggested by other gamers) because they WANT people to rush out and buy the new uber powerful models. There is a big press on right now of gamers who are buying tons of flyers since right now flyers are hard to deal with. Then some new thing will come out that counters said flyers and everyone will rush out and buy that. Its a bizarre marketting strategy but i really believe that this is what GW is up to.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595416.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595416.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"

azreal13 wrote:I don't think we're arguing the same point. I think a balanced ruleset is perfectly fine and no barrier to a casual gamer having fun.

My argument is, as a gamer with slightly longer service than yourself, is that 40k is not and has never been a balanced game, and GW have pretty much declared they have no intention of making it so.

To get riled up about the fact it isn't is as pointless as getting angry at the sky for being blue.

I argue that because 40k and GW games in general were never good at either clarity, or balance, that's not a reason to accept it and not demand for a change for the better.

sennacherib wrote:I have been gaming for 30 years, and in my experience the more balanced you want a game system to be, the less variables you can have without some broken combination being found. It is very hard (if not impossible) to make every unit and every playing field equal. This is due to the situational dependance of special abilities. Quantifying how much force a particular ability multiplies a particular units force under a certain situation, and then applying this to how often the situation occures in the game is the issue. Good luck ever resolving this.

I would love to see GW evolve 40k into something totally balanced and equal but i doubt it will ever happen. I do agree that if they did this it would be a benefit to the game, and i also feel like they could do a much better job of this than they have. However, i think the likely hood of this every happening is on par with the likely hood that millions of competative gamers will stop combing the rules for every more creative ways to "game" an edge over their oppenents.

My experience defers, there are many wargames out there that have achieved a remarkable level of balance, with factions complexity equal or grater to what GW offers and since smaller companies with less money and workforce than GW have done it, there is no reason why GW should not be able to do it.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595445.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595445.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"

sennacherib wrote:I agree.
However i think GW does this impart (as suggested by other gamers) because they WANT people to rush out and buy the new uber powerful models. There is a big press on right now of gamers who are buying tons of flyers since right now flyers are hard to deal with. Then some new thing will come out that counters said flyers and everyone will rush out and buy that. Its a bizarre marketting strategy but i really believe that this is what GW is up to.

Oh I agree, that is definitely their strategy. They basically swing the balance pendulum around to make short-term profits at the expense of long-term growth.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595466.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595466.page GMT Re:GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths" http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595493.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595493.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"

Noisy_Marine wrote:

sennacherib wrote:I have been gaming for 30 years, and in my experience the more balanced you want a game system to be, the less variables you can have without some broken combination being found. It is very hard (if not impossible) to make every unit and every playing field equal. This is due to the situational dependance of special abilities. Quantifying how much force a particular ability multiplies a particular units force under a certain situation, and then applying this to how often the situation occures in the game is the issue. Good luck ever resolving this.

I would love to see GW evolve 40k into something totally balanced and equal but i doubt it will ever happen. I do agree that if they did this it would be a benefit to the game, and i also feel like they could do a much better job of this than they have. However, i think the likely hood of this every happening is on par with the likely hood that millions of competative gamers will stop combing the rules for every more creative ways to "game" an edge over their oppenents.

I think people know that it is really impossible to completely balance a game. They just wanting GW to make an honest effort.

Agreed.

At this point, I think the guilty party is the core ruleset GW insists on using. It doesn't really allow good strategic play. And in doing so doesn't allow for "cinematic" play either.

I compare with Rome: Total War.

I've often played Rome with friends. While unit selection is a big deal, how the units are fielded on the battlefield makes a far bigger impact on gameplay than anything else. A savvy general can rout an Urban cohort with lowly peasants if they play everything just right and the UC player makes just the right mistake. And it will never be a case of luck- there are never cases where some random roll brings a powerful unit low producing that feeling of being cheated in the player. It's always down to skill. The player may not always understand how their gold/gold/gold unit got driven off, but there's a reason for it. And so when I play Rome with friends, we actually talk about the battles afterwards because they are cinematic. When my friend and I teamed up to hold off an army double our size of gold/gold/gold urban cohorts controlled by the AI, we were furiously clicking and it actually felt like an achievement because we made a plan and pulled it off by the skin of our teeth.

OTOH, 40K has none of that. Certain lists are always better than certain other lists. Once the lists are made, most armies don't worry much about movement or morale. If you're the underdog, it's rare to be able to out-think your opponent unless they make some colossal mistake or don't know some trick of the rule. Your only hope is to throw buckets of dice at something and hope you get lucky. And when that has happened to me, I've rarely felt proud. I've usually felt more like, "Well, hey, that was unexpected. I guess that means I win." Or, "Well, crap, you got a lucky shot and blew up my key troop transport on turn one. Guess I am not going to win this one." The battles are never cinematic because we as players never feel like we're really in control of what happens. We're not really making meaningful choices. It's just rote repetition of obvious tactical doctrine: shoot the high-armour infantry with the star cannons 1,2, shoot the vehicle with the AT weapons 3,4.

What GW needs is to make each unit meaningful. That doesn't mean every unit is equivalently powered to every other unit. But every unit has a strength or a weakness and isn't just an inferior version of something else in the list.

Before on here I've argued that GW needs more rock-paper-scissors style balance in the game, and while I think that would help I bet a lot of people would be afraid of it making the game more complicated. But I really think it's the way to go. The only way to truly make the game more cinematic is to stop it from being so tactically shallow.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595495.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595495.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"

Noisy_Marine wrote:I think people know that it is really impossible to completely balance a game. They just wanting GW to make an honest effort.

I think GW did make an honest effort. They just have a different vision of what they want their game to be. Don't get me the wrong way, I'm fully in the camp of tight rules system. But in the same moment I don't think that GW sets out to write a ruleset that pisses off the populace. The senior designers/staff/who ever agreed to incorporate some new unseen stuff and bring back some things they liked about the previous editions into 6th. I believe they did it with the best of intentions and not chase people off (even though they may have done just that). They care more about having a good time than a good tournament weekend....hence the tournament unfriendly randomality that is warlords, psychics, deadly terrain.

That's not to say tournament organizers couldn't create tourney rules....assign points costs to warlord traits or drop them, specific psychic powers with specific points costs, drop the deadly terrain, define the nebulousity that is the current "power weapon" etc etc etc. But it would be something TO's would do without GW's assistance. Maybe something globally recognized like a GW'less 'Ardboyz ruleset, acknowledged by major tournaments. It might bring more attacks by simply suggesting this, but GW is the way they is. For better, or for worse.

And yes you absolutely can have tight rules without defeating cinematics or whatever they were setting out to do. But 6th ed is tight as it's going to be for the next 6 or more years. You gotta "adapt or die" as the saying goes because 7th edition is a long ways off, sorry to say regardless of much you white knight for them or black knight against them.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595548.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595548.page GMT From the horses' mouths

Sidstyler wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:But it's quite stupid to think that a cinematic game cannot also be a good competitive game. Writing balanced rules doesn't reduce cinematic appeal - it benefits everyone. A tightly written well-tested set of rules means that competitive types can have their tournaments and not worry about fighting the dumb-ass rules, whilst the casual players can keep doing whatever they want, because the rules don't matter that much to them.

Really? So when GW lets rules like the transport rule for Night Scythes slip through, that's fine? When GW fails to say in what order "after assault moves have been made but before blows are struck rules" go in, that's ok? When they fail to say if non-psychic and non-shooting abilities can be used on a vehicle, that's fine?

Go look at the You Make Da Call sub-forum. Each and every one of those arguments could have been avoided if they had spent the extra time on the rules.

I agree with H.B.M.C. A tight, competitive rule-set does not in any way reduce how cinematic a game can be at all, but a lax rule-set can ruin a competitive game. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595589.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595589.page GMT From the horses' mouths

junk wrote:It was kind of fascinating. Apparently, they often employ one of the designers to be a game master that dictates events unfolding on the battlefield, who often doesn't play.

In one example, Jes Goodwin was 'running' a game where space marines had to siege an imperial stronghold to overthrow a renegade governor... at a certain point in the game, the governor was revealed to be a daemon and the surviving space marines and IG had to then join forces to defeat a daemon army allied with traitor guard. They recounted the game as one of their favorites.

Most of us never even consider story when we're lining up our 1850 vs. but the fathers of 40k always do.

Great and all that, however 3 points on the narrative game concept that the fathers play..

1. They do this for a living. (on the clock/time to burn)
2. I don't. (need to make good use of free time, a game like that would take hours and forget about random turn length)
3. They should play the same game the masses are expected to play while meeting strangers at a FLGS. (rule issues would/should be revealed and subsequently addressed)

Does sound fun though!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595623.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595623.page GMT From the horses' mouths

McNinja wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:But it's quite stupid to think that a cinematic game cannot also be a good competitive game. Writing balanced rules doesn't reduce cinematic appeal - it benefits everyone. A tightly written well-tested set of rules means that competitive types can have their tournaments and not worry about fighting the dumb-ass rules, whilst the casual players can keep doing whatever they want, because the rules don't matter that much to them.

Why is this so hard to understand? Making the rules more competitive doesn't invalidate casual play, in fact it doesn't affect you in any negative way whatsoever.

So I don't get why people fight the idea so fething hard.

For the record. Sid was agreeing with H.B.M.C. on page 1 and you're agreeing with both of them. Not trying to start something up. I'm just saying.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595631.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595631.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"
And there's nothing saying the game has to remain balanced after a certain point limit either. Why not just balance the game around 1500 or so points and then give people apocalypse like we have now if you want to go nuts?

As more and more competition comes out, GW will have no choice but to change their tune or die because tournaments and such are cropping up all over and GW is not the leading game at these events despite being the leading company in this franchise. A lot of failed publicity they could be using and eventually their competition is going to learn how to use the internet properly which GW still hasn't figured out.

There's just no buzz about this hobby anymore. Especially since the gamesdays are now such a failure.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595643.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595643.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"

Nvs wrote:If people can manage to balance computer games I'm sure they can manage to balance a table top game with infinitely fewer variables if an honest effort was made.

I take it you don't play any MMO's.

MMO's are constantly fixing and balancing rules and mechanics. Players will find ways to break a game that designers and playtesters never imagined.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595732.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595732.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"

adamsouza wrote:

Nvs wrote:If people can manage to balance computer games I'm sure they can manage to balance a table top game with infinitely fewer variables if an honest effort was made.

I take it you don't play any MMO's.

MMO's are constantly fixing and balancing rules and mechanics. Players will find ways to break a game that designers and playtesters never imagined.

All the time. In fact, I played most every that came out until WoW ruined the genre for life. And yes, they require constant revision, but this is largely due to the fact that they introduce new mechanics on a regular basis. Other games like FPS's, RTS's and the like will get a lot of patches right after release but then often go months without an update for balance and when they come, they're often fine tuning as opposed to giant swings with a sledge hammer.

And you can't deny that they're significantly more complex than 40k is.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595755.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595755.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"

MightyGodzilla wrote:

Noisy_Marine wrote:I think people know that it is really impossible to completely balance a game. They just wanting GW to make an honest effort.

Yeah but if the end result does piss off a bunch of people, something is wrong. I kind of get what they intended with the new edition. But in the end intentions are meaningless. What matters is the end result.

It's like they took a bunch of stuff they liked and threw it all together. Because the stuff they like will surely produce a good final product. And maybe it did, in their eyes. They probably think 6th edition is the best thing ever. And all these people whining on the internet are clearly wrong or stupid or something. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595933.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595933.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"

Nvs wrote:

adamsouza wrote:
Nvs wrote:If people can manage to balance computer games I'm sure they can manage to balance a table top game with infinitely fewer variables if an honest effort was made.

I take it you don't play any MMO's.

MMO's are constantly fixing and balancing rules and mechanics. Players will find ways to break a game that designers and playtesters never imagined.

Yes, but GW can't do a lot of patches at release. This, right now, is "right after release" and the things they overlooked in the core rules are being noticed. In a computer game, the fixes would be in and everyone would be moving on by now. A pen and paper game cannot do that.

And honestly, I don't think a computer game is as complex. There are more variables, but those variables are all under the hood - we don't see them, we don't need to see them, and they all come down to throwing computing power at complicated systems. GW cannot create finely tuned number crunching mechanisms under the hood, they need every gear to be exposed and workable by a 15 year old with some d6. I'm sure GW would LOVE to be able to balance units by giving one a 12.7% greater chance to get a pen on a roll, but that kind of precision is not possible, and the kind of system that gives precision like that is not available to a game that relies on players to run the system. Nor can they just patch their system by moving a few sliding scales here and there. The whole idea of those USR's that interact in weird ways is unessecary in a computer game - a USR is a handy rule designed so players can memorize them. In a computer game, you can balance each unit for what you want it to do, with no worries about whether FnP is too good on Blood Angels and too weak on Arco-flagellants. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595937.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595937.page GMT Re:GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths" d6 system is a horrendous idea. Unbalanced heroic-campaign style gameplay belongs in an RPG like FFG Deathwatch rather than in the wargame.

Also can anyone remember the last time they had an individual 40k release with a WD entry that was actually half decent? The ork jets/stormtalon certainly aren't good. Constantly throwing big expensive kits at the players with terrible rules just doesn't fly with me.

Codexes being worked on in blocks of 3 to promote balance and...weren't they just saying before how they were going for cinematic gameplay over completitive gameplay?

New Tyranid anti-flyer unit? They think that's even close to solving the Tyranid codex issue? I laugh at the idea.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595939.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595939.page GMT Re:GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"

Ehsteve wrote:Cinematic gameplay over competitive gameplay is laughable. Mass dice rolling and rules of 'on a 1 stuff blows up' on a d6 system is a horrendous idea. Unbalanced heroic-campaign style gameplay belongs in an RPG like FFG Deathwatch rather than in the wargame.

Nonsense. The game is perfectly capable of supporting both styles of play. The crux of the issue is that neither way need work in opposition of the other. You can have a narrative game with tightly balanced and written rules. You can have a competitive game that also allows for narrative games.

Neither type of game has to suffer to allow for the other.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595948.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595948.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths" GW just throwing the word around as a token buzzword, but many of the people who fall for it, and on a fundamental level, GW themselves, don't even understand the concept.

The game and its designers, by extension, aren't supposed to develop "cinematics." That's what film and other non-participatory mediums are for. A game should be bound, rather, by its ludic elements, ie the elments of play and the elements that enhance play. Increased random elements that remove control from the player (essentially, random elements acting not as rngs, but as a back-end form of control) end up taking away from this ludic context.

Cinematics are not the job of the game designer. Cinematics, the stories themselves, come from the players. "Cinematics" are a side element of games, an element that develops in the presence of strong ludic context. They're not what happens on the table, but the stories that players take with them beyond it. You can't design a game around that.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595954.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4595954.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths" GW doesn't make honest efforts to the balance the game?

How about "lead by example"?

Check out the WD battle reports.

Ever seen those army lists in your area? No? Maybe play them among friends and you will have interesting games.

Seems balanced to me.

Balance comes down to the players. Warmachine is the animal some 40k players need. (this last stab not directed to anyone here on dakka, FYI)]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4596109.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4596109.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths" Part of the reason that 40k with painted models and well put together terrain is because of the visual impact. it becomes very much like interactive cinema for me. Otherwise 40k could be boiled down to a chit wargame. In movies, there are always plot complications. I have often wished there was more of an impact by wether and other conditions instead of the narrow range of conditions represented within the game. I can agree that for those who bought into the game wanting it to be a strait up wargame, the changes in the rules set may be a dissapointment. I was sorely dissapointed by the changes with the nids dex. So after trying to work with the rules and finding that they didnt suit my taste, i sold the army. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4596140.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4596140.page GMT Re:GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"
I think the EVE Online staff over in Iceland are a great example of what GW should be striving towards.. Like 40k, EVE gets periodic updates, adding new content and changing up the meta. They're And as much as certain fleet doctrines are uber-powerful ("fist" gangs from a while back, bomber fleets, welpfleets... the list goes on.), the developers take the time to look at the analysis the players themselves come up with, hold a pow-wow and intensive testing sessions, and eventually find a balance option that ends up being fairly popular (A great example being the Dramiel, which before was simply broken, but now is just a great, expensive ship). There is no "one setup to rule them all"; I think it would do GW's devs some good to drink beer with the guys at CCP, who, incidentally, love their game and play it for the fluff just as much as the GW guys. To wit, they even made an entirely exclusive ship for 2 players getting married, because they care about their customers -that much-. No wonder I've dropped over $1000 on the game over my lifetime of playing it (hey, that price point sounds familiar).

And EVE just got out of its 10th Alliance Tournament, in which they *challenge* min-maxers to give it the best they've got to build 100-point lists, with given points values for each ship, and limits on gear, slots, etc (hey, that sounds familiar...), get the pilots to fly them, and duke it out for literally thousands of real-world dollars worth of limited edition prizes.

You don't have to do daily/weekly FAQ's or anything drastic like that. All it takes to make people happy is stating that you aren't deaf, are aware of the issues, and how you intend to fix them. Once you tell people what you're going to do, you're already 1/2 of the way there, and are accountable, so you can actually be respected by your players for tackling real issues, instead of derided like Mr. Ward is for just doing his thing regardless. Another good thing would be to let players test new rules for you (a couple dozen dudes who are biased towards how they want the rules to work vs. thousands of people actively encouraged to understand & break the system to get a competitive edge, perhaps for a reward for fixing stuff like how EVE rewards bug-finders), and give them an easily-accessible way of contacting the real movers and shakers in charge of things, like, iunno, a post-count restricted forum with halfway decent mods or something?

It's not like the issues GW is facing from the community overall are really that difficult to find solutions to, if they bothered to actually look. GW seems to be like one of those awful old Free-to-Play MMO's that never get patched except to release another "coolest, most exclusive, more shiny (also it's $50) +5 SWORD OF SUPER AWESOME WHO CARES YOU WIN", except in the next week's patch to make a +6 version instead. I really haven't seen any of those that have more than a handful of valuable, long-term players, to be honest; I've seen more of them go bankrupt than anything else.

@ehsteve, talking about granularity between things, In EVE they recently decided to give a bunch of ships, which previously had 1 slot to mount an item an additional slot. There's really no worse granularity than that. Yes, there's lots of complex rules interactions that would certainly change the meta if, say, marines had a 4+ instead of a 3+, but who says that's what they should do, when they could simply lower the points cost for plasma by one or two, or reword Gets Hot! Maybe TH/SS termies wouldn't be so broken if they only had a 4++ normally, and a 3++ in CC? As you add complexity, the ability to balance becomes far simpler - I think GW is doing the right thing, to a degree, with adding more, they just have to be wary of making gaffes like poorly written rules and cumbersome/obtuse complexity like LOS! and such.

To relate to the OP, I like the blocks of 3 idea - How better to keep power creep than by not testing new rules in a vacuum? That's definitely big progress by GW; if only they didn't keep switching their release style, I might put faith in them for balance... As it is, it's likely only these 3, then back to the usual, then something out of left field like 7th comes with a "factions" book, so everyone has access to all the factions, for a lovely price of $999,999.99 and a shiny sticker that says "Great buy - Less than $1,000,000!!!". Sales rise, record profits, GW buys the universe, world peace ensues as constant galactic grimdark war rages eternally. Or something.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4596142.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4596142.page GMT Re:GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"

Eiríkr wrote:Sometimes I try to take it seriously that I play with plastic soldiers fighting in space. Then I remember exactly that... Damn, this thread went from 'nice' to 'not so nice' in a very short space of time.

I cannot possibly agree with this more.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4596170.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4596170.page GMT Re:GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"

Ehsteve wrote:Also can anyone remember the last time they had an individual 40k release with a WD entry that was actually half decent? The ork jets/stormtalon certainly aren't good. Constantly throwing big expensive kits at the players with terrible rules just doesn't fly with me.

Hmm, I've found Stormtalons and the Ork jets (or at least the Dakkajet and Burna Bommer) to be highly effective. To each his own, I suppose?

Ehsteve wrote:Codexes being worked on in blocks of 3 to promote balance and...weren't they just saying before how they were going for cinematic gameplay over completitive gameplay?

Something can be cinematic and still balanced.

Ehsteve wrote:New Tyranid anti-flyer unit? They think that's even close to solving the Tyranid codex issue? I laugh at the idea.

The "Tyranid codex issue--" if it even ever existed-- was already solved by 6th edition. Tyranids are great now.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4596342.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4596342.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"

Noisy_Marine wrote:

MightyGodzilla wrote:
Noisy_Marine wrote:I think people know that it is really impossible to completely balance a game. They just wanting GW to make an honest effort.

I think GW did make an honest effort. They just have a different vision of what they want their game to be. Don't get me the wrong way, I'm fully in the camp of tight rules system. But in the same moment I don't think that GW sets out to write a ruleset that pisses off the populace. The senior designers/staff/who ever agreed to incorporate some new unseen stuff and bring back some things they liked about the previous editions into 6th. I believe they did it with the best of intentions and not chase people off (even though they may have done just that). They care more about having a good time than a good tournament weekend....hence the tournament unfriendly randomality that is warlords, psychics, deadly terrain.

They have acknowledged this at some point directly, and in fact as much gnashing of teeth it may cause, I believe it was Matt Ward who stated they know they cannot please everyone with their releases. It is the nature of fandom that we all have different ideas of what is "best." They may have pissed off a bunch of people, but there are countless many more happy with what they have done. So if they thrill a ton of people they are obviously doing something right.

This is all relative of course, but the bottom line and the original discussion here, was simply that we as fans cannot dictate the type of game they choose to make. We can either accept the product they offer, or find another product that better suits our interests.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4596395.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4596395.page GMT Re:GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"

Wardolls is SERIOUS business.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4596411.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4596411.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"

Brometheus wrote:
Balance comes down to the players.

If your game requires the players to balance it themselves, that's failed game designing. Balancing the game is part of your JOB.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4596623.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4596623.page GMT From the horses' mouths

junk wrote:...
Finally, the tone of this conversation has made me regret my initial post on the subject as nearly every impression I've conveyed has been extrapolated upon to a ridiculous degree.
...

While I am not happy with more than a few aspects of the game, or the business, I am not jumping on the "whine-wagon" here...

Thank you very much for your post - I appreciate the clarity of your writing, and your taking the time to share your insights and information.

Please do not let the incessant complaints of those who just want to complain ruin the thread.
Again, I have lots that I don't like about the game...but I like playing it, and thanks again for the thread.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4596675.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4596675.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"

Platuan4th wrote:

Brometheus wrote:
Balance comes down to the players.

If your game requires the players to balance it themselves, that's failed game designing. Balancing the game is part of your JOB.

This exactly.

I think GW could get away with this though if they'd just release useful FAQs. How often does an FAQ come out with answers to questions that no one was asking but the 10 intractable questions that we desperately want answered are missing?

I'm totally willing to cut them some slack. This game has a crapton of rules and there are plenty of interactions that might be difficult to consider. I'm even willing to accept that there are a bunch of those interactions that they don't consider because they have preconceived notions of how they're supposed to work and it never occurs to them that it might not be clear. What's totally unacceptable is the fact that they don't listen to the people who play the game. People love 40K. They love it enough that they freely devote their own time to improving it. GW could easily tap the player community and legitimately answer all of the questions we have.

Wrt balance, I'm again willing to cut them some slack. I'm ok with some imbalance. I'm ok with some books being a little stronger with others. My problem is with obviously bad units. When the Sisters WD 'dex was published, it was immediately obvious to everyone that there were a handful of units that were just bad. Not sub-optimal or even below average, but seriously bad. There's no excuse for that. It would be one thing if it was just a single example of a half-assed rulesmaking, but you can easily find these sorts of examples in every single army list.

I've been playing this game forever and still have fun almost every time I'm at the table, so it's just disappointing when the people whose job it is to create the game seem less invested in it than the people who play for fun.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4596797.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4596797.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"

Amerikon wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:
Brometheus wrote:
Balance comes down to the players.

If your game requires the players to balance it themselves, that's failed game designing. Balancing the game is part of your JOB.

Hallelujah brothers, you're preaching to the converted. GW just needs a team of guys on NDAs who are total donkey-caves to play each other. You cannot have buddies playtest against each other and expect any kinda of reasonable balance or clear rulings. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4596925.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4596925.page GMT Re:GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths" GW is going the cinematic route, maybe we finally get Xeno terrain (as rumoured in the Eldar thread).]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4597387.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4597387.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"

Noisy_Marine wrote:

sennacherib wrote:I agree.
However i think GW does this impart (as suggested by other gamers) because they WANT people to rush out and buy the new uber powerful models. There is a big press on right now of gamers who are buying tons of flyers since right now flyers are hard to deal with. Then some new thing will come out that counters said flyers and everyone will rush out and buy that. Its a bizarre marketting strategy but i really believe that this is what GW is up to.

Oh I agree, that is definitely their strategy. They basically swing the balance pendulum around to make short-term profits at the expense of long-term growth.

To anyone following new rule releases closely over the past decade, it has been obvious that rule changes have been made at the behest of the sales department (this has been confirmed by two senior development guys - both past and present). Or, rather than saying "ok, we will change this to work better than this, which should balance things out", instead the priority is, "ok, no-one has this in their collection, we have to make it an essential purchase". The problem is, when this latter priority is in effect (rather than wanting to make a game play well) then of course the way the game plays will suffer.

Saying that the game is more 'cinematic' or not (and what the hell does that even mean?) has nothing to do with it - the game is either an even playing field, or it is not, with varying shades of grey in between.

I think this complete focus on making certain items sell at the expense of others is at their very heart of the issue. It is the reason that the Dakka forums, and every warhammer forum on the internet, is awash with arguments about a particular army being crap or good, and particular units being broken, about unit spams and those who hate playing it, and the reason that the 'sportsmanship score' argument is so prevalent. Having a game where both players feel they have a similar chance of victory, and the odds are not stacked against them, I would argue is integral to the enjoyment of that experience and the shared compact of the social experience.
No other game has these issues - Warmachine/Hordes has some, nothing like on the same scale, but it is interesting to note that such complaints are increasing as Privateer Press seems to move more and more towards the business model presented by GW.

But, as with so many things, GW's loss is the other manufacturers gain. Don't like the poorly balanced rules, and new elements of randomness in 6th edition? There are a host of other options out there. Hell, Mantic has just offered a $1000 to the winner of their KoW tournament, and if that isn't an invite to try and 'break' their system I don't know what is - and I find it interesting that Alessio Calvatore, a game designer who has always had efficiency and balance at the core of his game design philosophy, has parted ways with GW to help make Warpath, KoW and other games.
CB reputedly spent 4 years playtesting Infinity, and the general consensus with the community is that the game is well balanced, and you need never have wasted money on a turkey - you certainly won't have your army made useless by the release of a new codex or rules edition. But then, as I said, it simply comes down to what is the 'target' of the games developers. For GW, the sales department dictates what the objective is - its up to the Games Developers to try and make a balanced game around this, but quite often it is not possible as previous editions of WFB and 40k have admirably demonstrated.

HMBC wrote:I was briefly discussing this with Andy Hoare a few hours ago, and while we don't see perfectly eye-to-eye on this subject, he did say one thing that I found amusing. (Paraphrasing) He said that whenever he or anyone was asked how often they play-tested any given release, the number given was always 'not enough' in the eyes of many people, no matter what it was.

Well, if the games development career doesn't turn out, there is always politics.. )

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4597438.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4597438.page GMT From the horses' mouths http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4597691.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4597691.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths" 40K, there have been rampaging complaints about balance and how X army now sucks and Y army is now over-powered. I've not seen a single edition of this game that was completely balanced across the board. 2nd edition favored long range armies and the almighty IC. 3rd-4th edition favored close combat armies to a fault. 5th edition moved toward mechanized armies. Now 6th is swinging back to ranged armies and ICs, but with flyers now playing a heavy role.

Each focus shift left more than a few armies scrambling because the players had to completely rethink their builds and strategies (and thus buy new stuff). While there are definately some wonky rules in the new edition, many people tend to focus on the "This will totally disrupt my army now" aspect instead of realizing that the same rule often can be made to work in their favor as well with a bit of army tweaking.

For example, as a former Ork player, when I first saw the new Overwatch rule, I immediately thought, "Boy, I'm glad I got rid of my Orks, this will ruin them", but then I realized that a lot of 30 shoota boyz could really bring the pain in OW. Suddenly, Shoota Boyz became a more viable unit that I rarely used in previous editions (which would have then required me to buy more of them had I still played Orks). While the OW rule still changes the tactics used by Ork players, it can also be used in their favor, and GW accomplishes their goal of making old hat players buy more stuff. Its the circle of life for the average 40K player.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4598190.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4598190.page GMT Re:GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths" 40k, risk, Pathfinder, GURPS, and Star Fleet Battles... just to name a few of the more prominent.

To say that 40k rules are convoluted (ie... turn to page xyz, then goto chart abc, rinse, repeat) is a really laziness on the part of the reader. The rules for Star Fleet Battles reads like a tech manual for a submarine (I should know, I was stationed aboard one!). The rules for Star Fleet Battles are very, very competitive, and balanced. Some Tholian players would disagree, but that is another topic.
Star Fleet Battles is also very cinematic. Massive fleet engagements IN SPACE!!!!

Cinematic does not indicate lack of balance... And 40k doesn't "lack" balance... It's just a little skewed. MEQ armies (GK not included), tend to be more costly (points) to field, where Orkz are cheap... Codex creep aside, things tend to be fairly even (again, GK not included).

The bigger issue is personal play style. Forces like GK and Necrons don't require a lot of thought. They are straight forward, and brutal. Currently, due to C-Creep, they are at least somewhat out of balance. But look to the Ork dex...
The Ork dex has been out forever and yet is still competitive. When it first came out, it was out of wack, and considered over powered. Personally, obviously, I play Orkz - but more importantly, I play like an Ork. Just immobilizing that dreadnaught, and destroying all of it's ranged weapons isn't good enough... I need to see it explode! Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!!! I have tried to work with Dark Eldar, to no success. Honestly, because even though I know that they are about finesse, I think like an Ork, and so, race headlong into the embrace of the Dark Prince by running my units dangerously close to their enemies. I am getting better at it, but I really am just a bald, albino ork!

The biggest complaints about balance usually come from Xenos players... And sometimes I want to agree... But the worst imbalance is usually just the latest dex, until people figure out ways around that Draigo-star (by-the-bye: Draigo doesn't work well against Orkz.... Not enough volume of attacks on their part!!!

).

I am in no way, shape, nor form saying, "if you don't like it, don't play it"... But if you don't like it... Why do you want to play? There are other games out there that are more competitive, more balanced... Take Panzer General, for instance. I personally have found more "codex creep" in Warmahordes.
I like the concept behind 40k better, so, I have learned to be a leaf on the wind, and let the designers take me where they will... After all, the fight IS worth all this walkin' and muckin' about!!!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4598466.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4598466.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths" CSM list would probably be more fun, as well as my CD and CF/BT lists. I can actually now have a combo list of CF, IF, and BT for a real Imperial Fist survival army. I like it. I like it a lot!! I could always do CF/IF, but now the BT added in...awesome. So thanks for the info, Junk, and don't let a couple whiners scare you away from helping those who appreciate your effort.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4598707.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4598707.page GMT Re:GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths" GW and game balance:

I'm more than willing to admit that GW has a tough row to hoe to achieve balance in 40K. New codex rules, new units, new combinations of units, and the whole "redundant units/multiple force orgs/varying game sizes" thing all make reliable balancing difficult.

However, rather than using each edition to fine-tune the game, GW uses each edition to reinvent the game, and shape it to another set of sensibilities. Rather than having each edition reiterate the successes of the last and eliminate the failures, each edition has enough system-wide changes that many of the old codexes, and the old 'fixes' to them, work radically differently. Not only are individual units changed wildly in effectiveness, entire playstyles are shifted from competitive to uncompetitive.

If GW could somehow agree and commit to a certain design philosophy, then each edition (and each codex) would slowly improve and move towards a better balanced game. Instead, they reinvent the wheel each time.

On top of that, GW makes the occasional totally boneheaded move that takes days to discover, and takes years to address it. This is an entirely different sort of problem, but it compounds the perception of a badly balanced game. For example, within minutes of opening the Ork Codex, I was appalled at the incredibly useless rules for Tankbustas. They were required to shoot at vehicles in sight, even if out of range? They were required to assault them? GW allowed this situation to continue for several years, even confirming it in their FAQ, then, with a single new FAQ release, made the Tankbustas much more useful in game, by allowing them to disregard targets out of range.

The first type of problem is very difficult to solve, but the second one requires very little time at all. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4600578.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4600578.page GMT Re:GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths" ).

Unless I missed something in the preceeding thread, there's one point that doesn't seem to have been stated: while the model sales angle is likely significant, a balanced rule set cuts into GW's ability to sell you new $75 rulebooks and $33 codicies every couple of years (every couple of decades if you are a Xenos player. ;p). For many players, this sum is dwarfed in comparison with the amount spent on models. I wonder, however, if this is the case for more casual players?

For those players who don't play numerous armies, a balanced system would result in a significantly decreased 'need' not only to buying new units but also the keep purchasing codicies and rules sets. I could sink my $500-$750 into a decent 2500 points (1500 + options), and that would be that. Heck, I could take a 5 year hiatus from buying/painting GW, return to my collection, and hit the table (having possibly read an updated FAQ). And if I did buy a cool new unit that had been released in the interim: it could have its rules included with the unit / in the "living rules" document, working off the same rules framework supporting my good old Termis and Rhinos. But, as I see it, that's not the purchasing/playing/collecting style GW wants to promote.

tl;dr: GW could produce a (more) balanced but 'fun' and cinematic rules set if it wanted to. GW chooses not to, for a variety of reasons (primarily commercial). I don't see this as being connected to designers personally / professionally enjoying playing a more 'relaxed' style of game. Just my 2 ep, anyway.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4600786.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4600786.page GMT Re:GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths" Isn't that how cinema goes? Scary bad guys threatening the galaxy are stopped by bad ass good guys against the odds?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4600876.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4600876.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"

Not many movies out there where the baddies win. A few, but not many ....

Just gives us one more reason to be extremely horrible to those goody-two-shoes...

*edit for stoopid autocorrect **]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4600967.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4600967.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths" http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4600986.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4600986.page GMT Re:GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"

Da Butcha wrote:On top of that, GW makes the occasional totally boneheaded move that takes days to discover, and takes years to address it. This is an entirely different sort of problem, but it compounds the perception of a badly balanced game. For example, within minutes of opening the Ork Codex, I was appalled at the incredibly useless rules for Tankbustas. They were required to shoot at vehicles in sight, even if out of range? They were required to assault them? GW allowed this situation to continue for several years, even confirming it in their FAQ, then, with a single new FAQ release, made the Tankbustas much more useful in game, by allowing them to disregard targets out of range.

The first type of problem is very difficult to solve, but the second one requires very little time at all.

I'm in no-way defending GW, but it's easy to see why the Tankbusta situation wasn't addressed before - pre-measuring!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4601465.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4601465.page GMT Re:GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"

Archonate wrote:I could be completely off base with this comment, so please correct me if I'm grossly oversimplifying, but doesn't "more cinematic" mean "space marines win 90% of the games"??
Isn't that how cinema goes? Scary bad guys threatening the galaxy are stopped by bad ass good guys against the odds?

The games I play aren't very cinematic then. Huarhuar.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4601473.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4601473.page GMT Re:GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"

Redgar wrote:tl;dr: GW could produce a (more) balanced but 'fun' and cinematic rules set if it wanted to. GW chooses not to, for a variety of reasons (primarily commercial). I don't see this as being connected to designers personally / professionally enjoying playing a more 'relaxed' style of game. Just my 2 ep, anyway.

I'm not entirely disagreeing, but I think there's a counterpoint to be made here. For all of the "shifting goalposts" that comes from new rules sets and unbalanced armies you end up emphasizing sales for the hot new thing and de-emphasizing the stuff that's no longer as good. Some of that could be intentional (flyers and fortifications, whether good for the game or not, is an obvious money grab) but even if it is, I'm not convinced that it's a good idea.

If we set the minimum standard and say that the armies are balanced within their own codexes, that should by itself increase sales. How many Tau players use Vespids, Ethereals, or even more than the minimum amount of Fire Warriors? How many Eldar players use Guardians, Shining Spears, Vibro Cannons, and Night Spinners? What about IG players? How many of them even consider buying Ogryns or Stormtroopers? There's no shortage to the number of really bad unit choices in this game.

For every bandwagoner chasing the latest rules change, there must be loads of casual gamers (or even competitive gamers who have an emotional attachment to their main army) that look at Unit X and say "Man, that's so cool, I wish it wasn't completely useless."]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4603193.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4603193.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths" GW makes the next codex significantly better than the last one to increase sales of that army, but that completely wrecks the balance of the game. For all the people who say the game isn't meant to be competitive should take into account that there is a point system. Other non competitive rulesets such as too fat lardie's stuff forgo the point system entirely. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4603336.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4603336.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"
I've play tested for a lot of games and different companies. The player base will play more games and come up with combinations than the designers and play testers will be able to.

A small group of people will, in the span of a few months, hammer out rules that thousands of people will spend years picking apart to find the best combinations.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4609495.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4609495.page GMT GW GD: Designer Discussion "From the horses' mouths"

adamsouza wrote:The point system is to ensure it's more or less balanced. They do not use an actual equation to figure out the point values. They guestimate, play test, and adjust values based on gut feeling and feedback.

I've play tested for a lot of games and different companies. The player base will play more games and come up with combinations than the designers and play testers will be able to.

A small group of people will, in the span of a few months, hammer out rules that thousands of people will spend years picking apart to find the best combinations.

And that's why Privateer released their Beta Test rules set for Warmachine nearly a year before the new book came out and asked the community to break them, then tell them about it. *coughcough* Just sayin']]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4609926.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/466001/4609926.page GMT