6th ed... still not good enough

[theHman]

I was cautiously excited for the new edition (been playing 40k since rogue trader and have seen GW pull every shenanigan in the book and then some)...

While I actually like most of the new rules they've added/changed, after having played a couple games, I find it lacking in one major area:

Tactics.

My first impression is that 40k is still lacking the tactical & strategic depth that I crave and love in my tabletop games.

Anyone else find this?

[daboarder]

I was going to go into a lengthy dissertation about how you are wrong but it got lost when my connection dropped.

40k is all about tactics, tactics of manoeuvre, target priority, mission objectives, how to act once specific objectives are achieved.

I put it to you this way, how many of your units realistically survive in isolation? if the answer is all of them then the solution to your problem is simple, 40k is not lacking in tactics your group is.

If the answer is none of them then the answer is simple, you just don't have a very good grasp on what tactics mean.

Take the relic for example.

My strategic goals are to win by achieving the most points.
Usually the simplest way is to seize the objective in the middle. My opponent however is playing a very shooty army that will obliterate mine if I move into the open, therefore I decide that I will go for first blood and linebreaker in order to achieve victory. I drop my terminators on his flank and kill a transport. I now have his attention divided and am forcing him to react. ultimately the game ends up with no one controlling the relic but I still achieve my strategic goal of obtaining the most points.

[Mr Mystery]

Erm....6th Ed has dragged tactics back into it. Infantry can now ebb and flow in the face of oncoming enemies. The days of transports just dumping troops into never ending assault rounds are gone. The surest way to handle the game now is a mixed arms approach, rather than spamming a single unit.

Sorry to say it dude, but you are in fact wrong. The tactics are there, and more so than before. 2nd Ed? Hello. This is my tooled up Level 4 Librarian in Terminator Armour with a Force Rod. I've cast Iron Arm on him and he's just popped his combat drugs. Hurr. I r tactical genius.....

And exactly what sort of tactics do you mean? Surely you have your own definition to compare and contrast with?

[antennafarm]

it sounds like you want a totally realistic wargame that accurately depicts combat.

go join the infantry. maybe you'll get your chance (because paint ball and airsoft probably don't have enough logistical and strategic complexity to impact tactics in a meaningful way, beyond allowance money buying only so many paint balls).

[Lexington]

Kinda? It's as tactical as 40K has ever been, to me, but the problem is that a lot of effective tactics in 6th call for playing in ways that contradict the new edition's intentions. See LoS Wound Allocation shenanigans and Bullet Bending tricks.

[Uncle Nutsy]

I gave 6th a run today and I found it to be much more tactical than 5th ed.

for instance, I was able to run two beastmasters with khymare in a reverse V shape on each side of my duke/trueborn unit. Not only did the trueborn not get touched by anything that could assault, I was able to force the opponent into combat with the demon dogs. Duke and his boys were backup in case things went wrong. The dogs ATE two daemon princes, and the duke killed the powerfist wielder right off the bat. I hate powerfisters and now i can kill them before anything else happens.

I never really had to do a run but re-rolling the run was actually pretty cool. I never did get much of a run out of the duke (3") but the potential for a full run is there. so that gets a thumbs up from me.

Using the ravagers to full effect turn after turn, even though I had a couple hull points stripped off allowed me to kill a landraider by glancing it to death. Even deep-striking them wasn't as risky as it was in 5th.

[DarkLink]

Reserves are more reliable, so in general it's a better option than it was. Only units that relied on assaulting from off the board were hurt, all other reserves/outflankers/deepstrikers were buffed quite a bit.

[GrogDaTyrant]

6e is probably the most strategic/tactical that 40k has ever been.... but IMHO it's still a far cry from the likes of Epic, or numerous other non-GW wargames. And no, I'm not talking about the one that's "Magic: The Gathering in miniatures form".

[Mr Mystery]

Reserves are more reliable, so in general it's a better option than it was. Only units that relied on assaulting from off the board were hurt, all other reserves/outflankers/deepstrikers were buffed quite a bit.

I'm quite liking the no assaulting from reserves at all ever rule. It always irked me that certain units could be used to good effect with no real risk to the player. Made the units too dependable, and too easy to use.

And I think that is a fair statement about 6th Edition as a whole. Whilst it's not done quite the same balancing act as 8th did for Fantasy, it has forced some of the more complained about lists to work harder for the victory. Wound allocation has helped somewhat, and whilst Lexington is right to point out it's simply opened other gamey tricks, to my mind it's by far a better way to run things. Sure you can deploy and arrange your units to suit, but that in itself is a tactic. Put the meatshield spods toward the enemy, keeping the tasty elements behind. Furthermore, this can be countered with the manouevring of enemy units, making it harder and harder to effectively hide the more useful elements of your squad.

The general boost basic infantry got has made a difference, at least to my Necrons. It's allowed me to adopt a much more fluid battle line, where my centre comprised of Warriors and Immortals can ebb and flow in response to the enemy allowing me to keep him at arms reach. Having played a couple of games, I think I'll be keeping my Lychguard as a rearguard unit, hanging out with the centre. That way I can (in theory) get them to where I need them when a concerted push is made.

Overall I'm not longer seeing a single 'power phase' where the game is truly won or lost. For 2nd Ed, it was the Psychic Phase, 3rd to 5th with differing degrees of success, it was the assault phase. In 6th Edition assault remains as potent as it was once you get stuck in it's just take a lot more effort to protect your assaulting units.

It's still not perfect, and due to each gamer having their own preference and peccadillos, it never really can be perfect. But as far as I'm concerned 6th Edition is very much a crowd pleaser!

[the jeske]

ay . lots of options too , if you happen to have a good dex. Is some stuff stupid ? of course First blood shouldnt be there too big of a buff for someone who can go first more offten [in the long run it will mean people will stop using stuff that can be focused fired , unless its deep in reservs] . of course Look out wound jumping and character units shouldnt be there[or they should be given to all armies] . Precise for Character is another stupid thing buffs armies that have access to characters outside of HQ slots. But stupid does not equal bad.
Rhino/loS sniping in the 4th was one of the most stupid tactics ever and there it is back again . Either one lives with the changes and can make a working list under those rules or not . Sucks for those with bad dex[they got worse] and win for those with good dex[their dex got a lot better].

[Mr Mystery]

ay . lots of options too , if you happen to have a good dex. Is some stuff stupid ? of course First blood shouldnt be there too big of a buff for someone who can go first more offten [in the long run it will mean people will stop using stuff that can be focused fired , unless its deep in reservs] . of course Look out wound jumping and character units shouldnt be there[or they should be given to all armies] . Precise for Character is another stupid thing buffs armies that have access to characters outside of HQ slots. But stupid does not equal bad.
Rhino/loS sniping in the 4th was one of the most stupid tactics ever and there it is back again . Either one lives with the changes and can make a working list under those rules or not . Sucks for those with bad dex[they got worse] and win for those with good dex[their dex got a lot better].

One the subject of Characters...

1) Look at the index, it lists a what's what of your army. Every unit champion is now a character, so everyone but Nids have access to plenty of them.

2) Wait for your new Codex! 6th Ed is what, 3 weeks old? There's rules in there no unit currently has. Wait and see what the new books bring!

[Renegade]

6t is fine, the game was never meant to be any more serious than a couple of friends having fun.

[DarkLink]

6t is fine, the game was never meant to be any more serious than a couple of friends having fun.

That's a terrible excuse.

[Mr Mystery]

That's a terrible excuse.

Excuse for what? You don't criticise a Ford Fiesta for not performing as well as say, a Subaru Impreza. Both are cars. Both are aimed at different markets. The Fiesta will have better fuel consumption for town driving, whereas the Impreza is apparently built for speed.

The game isn't aimed at competitive play, nor is it designed to be battlefield simulation. It's a narrative wargame. Now whether it succeeds or not in that capacity is down the individual.

[DarkLink]

If I buy a deck of cards, and I realize it's missing an ace when I go to play poker with some friends, handwaving the lack of quality control as "well, just play casually" is a terrible excuse.

I'm not saying 6th ed is terrible. I like it a lot. But there are some big flaws in it, and they stem mostly from the 'less balanced, more cinematic' approach. Look Out Sir make the otherwise simple wound allocation rules extremely complex, very clumsy, and actively annoying in a lot of cases. Cinematic, maybe, whatever that means, but it's a clunky rule that's extremely awkward to play.

Plus, you can't use the 'it's not meant to be competitive' excuse for a lot of these rules, because things like Look Out Sir are what allows the whole competitive optimization in the first place. People will play it competitively, both in and out of tournaments, so GW had better man up and start taking the quality of its rules seriously. Laziness is not an excuse for clunky rules and poor balance.

Overall, I like 6th ed a lot, though.

[the jeske]

1) Look at the index, it lists a what's what of your army. Every unit champion is now a character, so everyone but Nids have access to plenty of them.
true , but there is the problem of champions being most of the time 1W i4 dudes . sure some are the awesome like sang guard ones or SM honor guard ones or termi sgts , but all other dudes die rather fast.
From a personal point of view nids are one of my two main armies , so you know ...



2) Wait for your new Codex! 6th Ed is what, 3 weeks old? There's rules in there no unit currently has. Wait and see what the new books bring!
am already waiting for chaos a whole edition and nids wont come withing the next 2 years . As the age of the 6th goes. Good armies are doing just fine . GK/SW/IG ? the big three changed lists switched gear ,but unless someone is trying to play with a 5th ed army [which is always a bad idea] everything is fine . Other armies got a lot better , like necrons[not that they were bad or anything] , BAs are/will start using more jump packs/DC etc [freaking tycho is good 0_0] . But what is most important is the what you pointed at . The future. FW fully legal , new dex [where you can be sure there will be 2 big kites , new flyers etc] . Awesome for the armies with the new dex [unless your play style happens to suck . I dont envy guys who actualy liked playing mecha razors] and for those who can ally. But again on a personal level this is a nerf for me , nids cant ally , they dont get buffed up with FW stuff[unlike imperials] .

I mean am looking at the rules and unless the nid codex is going to be totaly rewriten playing them doesnt make much sense in the 6th . nids have huge problems with the main new mechanic of an edition [again] . the buffs/debuffs to hth dont matter if they cant actualy get in to hth and when the main builds for 6th are going to be shoty [because of some hth nerfs , first blood VP etc] at the core . Struggling against other armies is something I can accept[I have been doing this with chaos since 5th ed dex started coming out] , struggling against main edition mechanics is not something I can accept .




The game isn't aimed at competitive play, nor is it designed to be battlefield simulation. It's a narrative wargame. Now whether it succeeds or not in that capacity is down the individual.
I congratulate you then on playing in an enviroment where people use different builds for tournaments and different builds for all other games .






Excuse for what? You don't criticise a Ford Fiesta for not performing as well as say, a Subaru Impreza. Both are cars. Both are aimed at different markets. The Fiesta will have better fuel consumption for town driving, whereas the Impreza is apparently built for speed.
because for a large part of the people playing this hobby the game is not just about playing with friends since early 2000s. And with how PP works in the euro market , you may as well be saying to a realy large group of people "write your own set of rules or dont play at all".

[Mr Mystery]

true , but there is the problem of champions being most of the time 1W i4 dudes . sure some are the awesome like sang guard ones or SM honor guard ones or termi sgts , but all other dudes die rather fast.
From a personal point of view nids are one of my two main armies , so you know ...


am already waiting for chaos a whole edition and nids wont come withing the next 2 years . As the age of the 6th goes. Good armies are doing just fine . GK/SW/IG ? the big three changed lists switched gear ,but unless someone is trying to play with a 5th ed army [which is always a bad idea] everything is fine . Other armies got a lot better , like necrons[not that they were bad or anything] , BAs are/will start using more jump packs/DC etc [freaking tycho is good 0_0] . But what is most important is the what you pointed at . The future. FW fully legal , new dex [where you can be sure there will be 2 big kites , new flyers etc] . Awesome for the armies with the new dex [unless your play style happens to suck . I dont envy guys who actualy liked playing mecha razors] and for those who can ally. But again on a personal level this is a nerf for me , nids cant ally , they dont get buffed up with FW stuff[unlike imperials] .

I mean am looking at the rules and unless the nid codex is going to be totaly rewriten playing them doesnt make much sense in the 6th . nids have huge problems with the main new mechanic of an edition [again] . the buffs/debuffs to hth dont matter if they cant actualy get in to hth and when the main builds for 6th are going to be shoty [because of some hth nerfs , first blood VP etc] at the core . Struggling against other armies is something I can accept[I have been doing this with chaos since 5th ed dex started coming out] , struggling against main edition mechanics is not something I can accept .


I congratulate you then on playing in an enviroment where people use different builds for tournaments and different builds for all other games .





because for a large part of the people playing this hobby the game is not just about playing with friends since early 2000s. And with how PP works in the euro market , you may as well be saying to a realy large group of people "write your own set of rules or dont play at all".

It's not saying that at all, and I would debate the ratio of 'competitive' players out there. 40k has the widest appeals of wargames that I'm aware of. Historical stuff is great if that's your thing, but for a sandbox player it has clear restrictions. Warmahordes is apparently good for competitive play, but as a player not fussed for competition, I found it too power gamey, so I didn't get on with my opponents. 40k does all this to some degree or other. Look at Forgeworld. The campaign books might be made up stuff, but they present definitive lists of those involved, and even have 'historical' missions. I can't remember if it was this thread or another, but I referred to 40k as a crowd pleaser. Sure, you might find Game X satisfies craving Y better, but everyone can find something in 40k that tickles their fancy. That is the genius of it's design.

The rules aren't the problem. Wound allocation works nicely. Once the odd armour saved guy is there, it simply slows down a bit. Roll look out sir, then take the appropriate save. With your opponent deciding which batches you roll each time (but of course no mixing) it's pretty straight forward stuff. It adds a distinct tactical nuance, as your opponent needs to plan his shooting phase. Before, I didn't. I tended to just blast away willy nilly until my target was vaped. Now? I'll save my heavy hitter unit until the end, possibly charging into combat to take the unit out completely.

At no point have the rules been designed for competitive play. The writers come from a narrative approach, and wanted to write a cinematic feeling game. It's not that the two are mutually exclusive, but sacrifices and compromises would have to be made, and clearly the authors felt they detracted from their vision, and so stuck to their guns. There are competitively designed games out there, so why try to specialise and compete when your hearts not in it? 40k to me is the embodiment of 'rule of cool'. And I loves it!

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

true , but there is the problem of champions being most of the time 1W i4 dudes . sure some are the awesome like sang guard ones or SM honor guard ones or termi sgts , but all other dudes die rather fast.
From a personal point of view nids are one of my two main armies , so you know ...With 'nids, remember: since your army has very few characters, your opponent cannot stop your assault units by tying up the sergeant.

If an Assault Squad charges my Tacticals, the guy with the Tacticals can use Challenges to disable the Assault Sergeant. If a unit of Ymgarls charges, the Tacticals are boned. Remember, having a unit's main assaulty punch be tied up in a character can be a bad thing.

[Mr Mystery]

With 'nids, remember: since your army has very few characters, your opponent cannot stop your assault units by tying up the sergeant.

If an Assault Squad charges my Tacticals, the guy with the Tacticals can use Challenges to disable the Assault Sergeant. If a unit of Ymgarls charges, the Tacticals are boned. Remember, having a unit's main assaulty punch be tied up in a character can be a bad thing.

Flipside to that of course is that you can't attempt to assassinate the opponents heavy hitter by return, meaning that powerfist is more likely to get a swing in...

[DarkLink]

Wound allocation works nicely. Once the odd armour saved guy is there, it simply slows down a bit.

Right. I'll actually amend some of my previous statements, and clarify that it's not Look Out Sir that bogs down the rules. It's the 'roll one save at a time' part that bogs down the rules. Combined with Look Out Sir, you roll one dice, then based on the results you roll a second dice, then based on those results you might have to sit and think about which model you want to take the wound, and that's only for a single wound. Take twenty wounds on a unit of Paladins with Driago, and it'll literally take 5 minutes to correctly resolve the rule unless you're lucky enough to kill Driago quickly.

But if you take away the 'roll one wound at a time', then Look Out Sir becomes a lot easier. It's basically just another save you can fast roll.

So overall, I like the 'remove the closest model' rule a lot more than last edition's wound allocations. But the combination of the mixed armor rules and Look Out Sir is too complicated. Conceptually, Look Out Sir is cool, but that aspect of the rules is poorly implemented.

That's what I was talking about in my previous posts in this thread. It's not about being competitive or not, it's just that some specific rules are clunky and sloppily implemented. It's not that streamlining the Look Out Sir would make the game more or less competitive or something, it's just that the rule is currently very clunky and I don't want to spend a half hour per game rolling one dice at a time due to overly complex rules because GW couldn't think of a better system.

Look Out Sir/Multiple Saves wound allocation rules are one of the few things that I think could have been done better. Overall, the rules are pretty solid. It's just a few specific items that needed more polish.


I congratulate you then on playing in an enviroment where people use different builds for tournaments and different builds for all other games .


+1

Games aren't competitive/non-competitive, players are. Claiming a game isn't intended to be competitive is a cop-out.

[Mr Mystery]

Games aren't competitive/non-competitive, players are. Claiming a game isn't intended to be competitive is a cop-out.

I'll leave the other bit as that's already well covered.

But here I again disagree. Many games are designed for competitive play, where the winning is the game. Take Warmachine. It's not objective based, it's about pulling off your Feat at the right time and drubbing the enemy. Page 5 makes that abundantly clear.

Once you introduce objectives, it invites a narrative. What are you fighting over? Why are you fighting over it. Is it just a border skirmish, or is it a pivotal battle in a wider campaign? And once the narrative is invited, that in itself can become the aim of the game, to tell a story, and continue it on to the next.

Yes some people will always play competitively, but 40k and Fantasy are designed for the narrative. That's the sort of game the designers want to play, and hence it's the kind of game they create. It's hardly a cop-out by any stretch of the imagination. To play 40k or Fantasy purely competitively where it's all about winning the battle is missing out on so much more. And this might sound happy-clappy, but win or lose, where the narrative has been there I always enjoy the game, even when I'm hopelessly out matched by my opponents list (history is replete with examples of battles where one side was horribly outmatched in terms of the enemies armanent, numbers or training). With a narrative game this can be written into the scenario with altered victory conditions. For instance, a forlorn hope might only need to breach the walls of the citadel in a couple of places, even though it's wiped out to a man. 40k allows this.

Again I come back to my fundamental point that 40k like Fantasy is a hugely successful game system because it is a crowd pleaser. It appeals to all. To switch to rules written for competitive play changes this, as it attracts a more specific group of players, players which in my case I struggle to enjoy playing against!

[the jeske]

It's not objective based,
0_0 what ? caster kill is just one of ways to win . Each seson WM gets new scenarios and new game conditions [think GW giving totaly new sets ups and scenarios every 4+ months] .


Once you introduce objectives, it invites a narrative.
Warmahordes has objectives and you dont get people doing narrative most of the time .


What are you fighting over?

a gaming board most of the time ?



. To play 40k or Fantasy purely competitively where it's all about winning the battle is missing out on so much more
and playing not to win doesnt make you miss much more ? I mean you are not going to tell me that you enter a shop or a club and start the game with a 30+min declamation of why the armies[not the players] are actualy playing the game . I mean that is one step away from writing fiction about your army and/or its battles , which is beyond silly considering this is a game . Only person who can/could write stuff about their w40k/WFB games should be those that can live out of it .




To switch to rules written for competitive play changes this, as it attracts a more specific group of players, players which in my case I struggle to enjoy playing against!
I remember the time when they made the 3.5 dex for chaos , it was suppose to be a tournament one . then they made the gav dex and it was suppose to be[alonge side the DA one] the "for fun" dex. And behold both sold bad [comparing to the later tournament Ward dexs for example] , had communities getting smaller [and with that there was both less dudes doing "gaming" and "fluff heading" for chaos].
Also I think everyone remembers how "popular" those necron and DE dex were . they were bad from the start . no one wanted them . And again behold them being top tier and sells rise . I realy love how you fluff guys say that it is because of the fluff sells rise , when it is actualy the opposit[GK fluff=the horror . GK sells=the bomb].


If an Assault Squad charges my Tacticals, the guy with the Tacticals can use Challenges to disable the Assault Sergeant.
If he is runing RAS then this is BAs . he is runing assault HQs with those RAS[am going gold fish build here. because with ally added and possible 2k the possible number of builds is rather high to ponder in a single quote anwser] . He will have an HQ or an elite chappy[also an HQ with those squads] he will have HQs or sgts made for tanking [ss or art armors] . the only tarpiting will come from the fact that meq Ld rules are stupid and that in assault you have to kill them all and it in general takes more then a single turn of a player.



If a unit of Ymgarls charges, the Tacticals are boned. Remember, having a unit's main assaulty punch be tied up in a character can be a bad thing.
only they are A eating a flamer before charing[possibly too because adding a combi on a sgt actualy makes sense in this edition] and snap fire B they are charging through cover so marines are striking first . C 2 flamer and bolters may equal no succesful charge And even if it does they are still not kill 10 meq in a single charge unless there is some realy brutal rolling involved . And with the neq FAQ inc end of summer we dont know how long they will be able to charge after arriving on the table .
ah and the last thing your comparing a 1 unit per army upgrade to something a marine player can run x3-4 nowadays .



At no point have the rules been designed for competitive play.

realy ? and I remember the 2000s very well and GW being very interested in the tournament sceen growth. FAQ and errate exist only because tournament players found them important . JJ is still crazy enough to say stuff like "if there are problems roll" or " your opponent/friend is a nice chap as you are so he will surely let you do X".
You know why they are interested in people that are playing this game to play it and not write long stories about their armies ? because those dudes buy armies and are gone and replaced by more people that buy armies. Fluff heads buy stuff , but they offten play too much[like longer then 1 edition] and buy less stuff then a new gamer would . I mean they have rules only because they generate more sells . If it was only about the fluff , they would let people play the game with what ever rules they want .

[Mr Mystery]

Wow. You really don't understand the design concept at all, do you?

[velox atrum]

Seems in some ways we are back at rouge trader, that could not decide if it was a table top war game or an RPG.

As a design concept.. the idea of "narrative" is great for an RPG for a table top game not so much, in effect the "designers" are saying.. "look we made some mediocre rules that conflict a lot but it up to you the players to make it work thanks for the cash good luck.

I wish I had been able to read the new book a lot more before I bought it, I would probably have waited for the small edition book from box set, bought on secondary market.

[DarkLink]

But here I again disagree. Many games are designed for competitive play, where the winning is the game. Take Warmachine. It's not objective based, it's about pulling off your Feat at the right time and drubbing the enemy. Page 5 makes that abundantly clear.

I think you're mixing 'competitive' with 'balanced' and/or 'tactial vs random'.

Are you playing against another person for a mutually exclusive objective? Yes. The game is thus inherently competitive. The player may choose to be super competitive or super casual or anything in between, but in reality 40k, Warmachine, Chess, Go, whatever, is inherently competitive.

Each of those games has different degrees of balance and tacticality, though (I'm not sure if tacticality is a word). Neither balance nor tacticality is a requisite for competitiveness. Just go to any place where money is made off of gambling.

So the whole 'it's not a competitive game' is just a cop out, and excuse for the real problem with the game, which has to do with that balance and tacticality.

40k has some balance issues, and there are some issues with 40k's position on the sliding scale between tactics and randomness. That's unquestionable. GW tries to avoid dealing with these issues with the 'not competitive' excuse.

With some effort and playtesting, 40k could have it all. It could be balanced, it could be more tactical/strategic, it could retain key random elements, and it could do it all while keeping both competitive and casual players happy. In fact, both types of players would greatly benefit from the improvements that could be made. But GW doesn't invest enough effort in making its rules to accomplish this.

That's what I mean when I say that 'not a competitive game' is an excuse. It's fundamentally a misnomer, and it prevents you from seeing the true issues with 40k and trying to address them.



Plus, it's kind of a fundamentally flawed argument. It's usually casual, anti-hardcore types that say 'it's not meant to be competitive' as an excuse almost to defend the imbalances in the system, yet then they turn around and complain about how 'waac ******s always take those cheesy lists'. You can't have it both ways.

[cobra6]

I seem to recall that it used to be much more likely to fight to a draw in a game of 40K, or at least have narrative qualifiers like "minor victory." It seems much more clear-cut now in terms of there being a "winner" and a "loser." That sounds more competitive to me.

[Iyandagar]

Getting to spend time with my friends, having a laugh (usually at my Orks' expense) really is the main reason I play. I enjoy the social aspect, and I have also played tournament, the last of which was in June bidding farewell to 5th...

If I take it too serious it ceases to be a fun pastie as I am more concerned with obliterating those pesky Space Puppies... From te Ames I have played in 6th thus far, I am happy; I like the change of dynamic. I still lose spectacularly.

[Mr Mystery]

I think you're mixing 'competitive' with 'balanced' and/or 'tactial vs random'.

Are you playing against another person for a mutually exclusive objective? Yes. The game is thus inherently competitive. The player may choose to be super competitive or super casual or anything in between, but in reality 40k, Warmachine, Chess, Go, whatever, is inherently competitive.

Each of those games has different degrees of balance and tacticality, though (I'm not sure if tacticality is a word). Neither balance nor tacticality is a requisite for competitiveness. Just go to any place where money is made off of gambling.

So the whole 'it's not a competitive game' is just a cop out, and excuse for the real problem with the game, which has to do with that balance and tacticality.

40k has some balance issues, and there are some issues with 40k's position on the sliding scale between tactics and randomness. That's unquestionable. GW tries to avoid dealing with these issues with the 'not competitive' excuse.

With some effort and playtesting, 40k could have it all. It could be balanced, it could be more tactical/strategic, it could retain key random elements, and it could do it all while keeping both competitive and casual players happy. In fact, both types of players would greatly benefit from the improvements that could be made. But GW doesn't invest enough effort in making its rules to accomplish this.

That's what I mean when I say that 'not a competitive game' is an excuse. It's fundamentally a misnomer, and it prevents you from seeing the true issues with 40k and trying to address them.



Plus, it's kind of a fundamentally flawed argument. It's usually casual, anti-hardcore types that say 'it's not meant to be competitive' as an excuse almost to defend the imbalances in the system, yet then they turn around and complain about how 'waac ******s always take those cheesy lists'. You can't have it both ways.

And yet the issues are entirely perceived, and dependant on any given gamer seeking an advantage from the rules. Contrary to what others are claiming, I very much doubt the games developers sat down and decided 'sod it, let's just throw any old crap together, it'll still sell'. Instead, as is self evident from the book itself, they decided the direction to go in was one where the rule of cool is applied. This inherently clashes with a particular notion of 'balance'. A truly balanced game, such as Chess is BORING. You will rarely beat a superior player, and you won't often get a chance to learn how to play better thanks to a comprehensive thrashing you never saw coming. And it is very, very dull. 40k however is a game of tanks, psykers and stupid great big guns. It is designed to appeal to the widest possible audience. Believe it or not, but the majority of players aren't at all fussed for comprehensive balance. We'd rather have our cool lists and personal themes. Full balance restricts choices, and takes it's further and further away from any notion of realism.

Taken a Gaunt horde and run up against an armoured column? Tough break dude, but that's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes. Taken Draigowing and run up against an army with horrendous firepower that can keep out of your reach? Same again. Doesn't stop the games being enjoyable, unless your sole reason for playing is to beat the snot out of someone. You want to win all the time? Why not go Boxing with a kid in a wheel chair? That's apparently competitive! :p

40k is never going to be the game some people want it to be, because it's written by human beings with their own preferences, which happen to be for a narrative wargame, where people name their characters, and develop grudges against old opponents. It positively encourages player lead creativitiy, whether it's creating your own background for your Chapter of Space Marines, or designing an entire sub sector for your local groups battles and wars to take place in, with a running saga of great deeds. There's even groups out there with a divergent timeline, where once a Special Character snuffs it, that's it. It is a sandbox, and hence the monicker of 'hobby wargame'.

Compare to Warmahordes...'several upon a time, Sorcha was out for a wander and just happened to bump into Asphyxious again and gave him and his troops a proper shoeing. But Sorcha knew it was all for naught, because thanks to a lack of non-named army commander, Asphyxious will be back, unscathed tomorrow'. Just doesn't work as well because your forces must be lead by an existing, named character, and a named character who is functionally immortal, as they can't be killed off in the background ever.

Ditto skirmish games. They can be pretty well balanced, because most forces have a handful of units. Compare that to the entire GW range for 40k (not including Forgeworld). There's what, 12, 13 armies (more?) out there. How do you balance that perfectly? Can you even get anywhere near? Why yes, yes you can. GW have managed it, somehow. But look out, here comes Billy Bellend (not a reference to anyone here btw, just an example fictional character). He's determined to trounce all opponents with the minimum effort, and has netgineered his list explicitly for that reason. Look, no one wants to play him, because he's obnoxious. Now Billy is blaming this on the game design, rather than his own lack of social skills.

The game, works. And it works beautifully. Yes, there are situations you'll run into where you literally can't win. Deal with it. You can't expect an easy game all the time, and every army has it's nemesis (not sure how my Necrons will deal with a full on horde....) which again is part of the beauty of the game. But even then, those situations are extremely few and far between, and only tend to crop up when both players have taken highly themed lists, leaving out certain capacities in favour of a cool looking/playing army.

[Iyandagar]

where do you find the wheelchair bound kids? I could use another victory...

[DarkLink]

And yet the issues are entirely perceived, and dependant on any given gamer seeking an advantage from the rules.

Most of what you're saying is not incorrect, but it doesn't change the fact that 40k has some balance issues and some sloppy rules, many of which are pretty obvious. Hand any codex to a group of competitive players, and in a week or two they'll have figured out which units are clearly better than others, which units are useless, and which units are mediocre. Whatever playtesting GW does currently isn't enough to iron out all of that.

And then there are rules like the combination of Multiple Saves Wound Allocation and Look Out Sir. Put twenty wounds on a complex unit, say a tactical squad with an attached terminator captain, or a unit of characters, and suddenly you have to roll one save at a time, and after you roll that one save at a time you have to roll one look out sir at a time, and after concluding those you have to go back to allocate the wounds again. It's just plain clumsy. It would have been better to use the wound allocation from the leaked pdf.

There aren't that many instances of problems like this. But there are some, and it would unquestionably make the game better if GW did something to address them, rather than waiting five years to completely rewrite the rulebook and solve some issues but introduce others.

At the end of 5th, when everyone was complaining about GKs all over the place, I could have, after playing the codex for six months, fixed basically every balance problem with the codex in about five minutes with a sharpie. Cross out a few items (rad/psykotroke grenades), adjust the wording on a few others (cleansing flame only hits engaged enemy models, not every single one), and tweaked a few points values (psybolt ammo on Dreadnought would be ~20pts instead of 5), and the codex would have been golden. It would still be powerful, it would still play essentially the same, but all the little balance issues would have been sorted out. All you needed to do was hand the codex over to some competitive players for a few months to identify the problems, and then you have a better game for it.

This isn't about whether or not it's a competitive game. It's about the quality of the product. The quality of GW's rules have improved lately, but they're still sloppy and ill balanced in a lot of little ways. And quality is something you should always aim to improve.



I see no reason why GW can't add in some minor rule tweaks in their FAQ/Errata section for each codex every six months or so. Just browse some forums, see what people are complaining about, and issue a tweak to balance it out. The game would be better for it, and it would help keep old outdated books in the game and selling well.



Either that or GW intentionally imbalances the rules to sell models. Wouldn't surprise me, but that doesn't change the fact that ironing out sloppy rules and imbalances makes the game better.