How is 40k 7th edition "less competitive" than 40k 5th edition

[Auticus]

A topic that is brought up often, but one that rarely has any real insightful answers:

5th edition is considered the paramount of "competitive" editions... and 7th edition is "not competitive" and for RPG gamers that want to forge a narrative.

So how exactly is 5th edition more competitive than 7th?

Some cite game balance, however that is a very large laugh. Game balance was shoddy in 3rd, shoddy in 4th, shoddy in 5th, shoddy in 6th, and shoddy today. Every edition has had reams of topics on how the game is not balanced yet people tried tournament gaming them anyway.

However with 6th suddenly you just couldn't do that anymore, people claimed.

No - game balance definitely is not the real answer to me. No one can say that if they had lived through the eldar starcannon spam days, or the blood angels rhino rush days, or the chaos 3.5 codex days, or the leaf blower guard days, or the draigo and his buddy paladins days that nearly 4 out of 5 gamers around my parts pushed.

Balance - lol that one is a red herring. Most guys that want competitive tournaments actively try to break the game in the list building phase. The list building phase is the biggest factor in tournament gaming if you are playing to win - show up with a weak list and no matter how good you are you are going to be at a severe handicap.

Also things like super heavies being in normal games is also a red herring because most tournaments don't allow those or seriously restrict them in some ways.

Still others cite shoddy rules - but again the rules have always been complained about. Every edition there have been reams of threads about how crappy the rules are, but still tournament players were content with rolling until 6th.

So what were the biggest changes? What happened in 6th? Balance and shoddy rules are often cited but those existed in every edition and were complained about in every edition LOUDLY.

Wound allocation? That certainly shouldn't cause the game to be less competitive. Some may find it more annoying because you have to remove closest models but that doesn't really cause a game to be less competitive. It killed off the favored power build of the day (draigo and his paladins) but that is true with any edition change as one powerlist gives way to the other.

I think the biggest change that is commonly griped about are two fold:
1) allies
2) forge world

How so?

In 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition there were usually three power builds that the vast majority of players took (i am speaking from heavy 3rd and 4th tournament experience and saw it in 5th after i had gotten out of tournament play). You went in with one of the power lists, hoping to play the list you hard countered, and praying you didn't meet your hard counter that could beat you.

In 6th and 7th with allies and forge world present, there are many more combinations that result in having six or seven power builds present... which can hard counter a number of extreme lists themselves.

This makes it more difficult to list build against. (the misnomer "Take All Comers" list that people want is not really a "Take All Comers" list, it is a "Take on the Other Power Build I expect to face and Min/Max the Meta")

I think that this is the biggest gripe at the root.

Forge World was lobbied against for pretty much a decade because gamers:
1) didn't want to have to buy those books to memorize the rules too (or be at a disadvantage - something seen as heresy if you are a serious tournament player)

2) cited how "imbalanced" they were (with a straight face, while pushing the latest power build that broke the game)

When you get down to its base - I feel strongly that its not really about balance or shoddy rules or any of that - but more about you can't list build as effectively as you could in the past because the diversity is a lot greater today on what you can face that is still effective whereas in the past you had to worry about three on average powerlists (and you were bringing one so you had to know how to fight the other two)

Today you can face six or seven power lists and the listbuilding phase is much harder to win in.

[ShadowcatX]

Honestly, it sounds like your own personal bias is in the way. Any time you discount a legitimate complaint with "its a laugh" as you have here you pretty much invalidate your claims.

[Auticus]

I wish someone could quantify that legitimate complaint.

[Erik Setzer]

Eh... I don't know what the deal is. I do know there are days when I play a game or two of 40K and then feel so disheartened that I just want to go home right then and forget the game exists. Last weekend was yet another day like that, I first faced off against the new Necrons, where Nightbringer was absolutely ridiculous (granted, this was a 1000 point game). Sure, some of that game was down to meh dice rolls, but it just felt like I could throw everything at one model and it'd soak it up and not care, and dish out a lot more damage in return. The next game was Grey Knights... three Dreadknights in a 1000 point army. They mauled my army. On Saturday I'll likely be facing the infamous Space Wolf/IG hybrid with Endurance and Telepathy and a unit of Thunderwolf Cavalry that at best I might be able to fling something in front of to slow them down, so that probably won't help.

Maybe I'm just getting old or something, but I never felt this bad this often. I build armies that are designed to be balanced and fit the fluff... and they end up getting destroyed easily. For me to match these other armies, I'd have to go find the really hard stuff, and build a list around that.

I know balance has been crazy at times in the past. I haven't played Blood Angels since 3rd edition because I felt so dirty playing them at the time. Then there were the Iron Warriors armies, which I found out you could beat by just being a complete lunatic and confusing your opponents by doing things no sane person would do. And the 4th edition Space Marine codex could allow for some fluffy builds (and I'm really annoyed I can't do the one I wanted any more)... but then you had things like my dad's gun line army with multiple Devastator squads with Tank Hunters or Infiltrators, an army I borrowed once and snoozed through a tournament with. So yeah, not going to claim there was ever a magical perfect time.

I think part of it, for me, is the lack of viable assault without those killer units. Part of the fun of the game has disappeared because it seems to come down to uber-units either shooting or assaulting each other. But that's not so much an issue of "competitive," except I guess that you can't do the kind of list I consider fun and still be competitive.

I do believe that 7th edition gets its reputation mostly from Unbound and Tactical Objectives. Unbound removes all restrictions and lets you take the cheesiest buggery you want, and Tactical Objectives are incredibly random and bad luck on the draw could lose you a game before it's really started. Now, sure, you don't have to go crazy with Unbound, and Tactical Objectives should mostly be for fun games, but the perception of them remains at all times.

I haven't personally seen any tournaments in 7th yet, outside of Unbound tournaments, which went all kinds of silly. I've seen the results of tourneys at stores around town, and it seems the Eldar tend to grab the top spot most of the time, but that's not really new.

[Auticus]

Thanks for the reply Erik.

When I first started in 3rd my first army was Dark Angels and I was owned quite a bit because my army just wasn't up to snuff against what was the common builds of the day (mostly space wolves and blood angels rhino rush with a smattering of star cannon spam)

The day I picked up eldar star cannon spam, I went on a year and a half mauling of everyone I played. I lost two games (both in tournaments) - one to an ork player the other to a nid player. I went from losing every game to winning every game because of my army choice. That was 1998 - 2000.

When I tried playing a fluffy army in 4th, I went back to being owned half the time. When I switched to leaf blower - same thing. Won most of my games. My first chaos army was thousand sons. Owned most of the time. Switched to power list 3.5 dex - won most of the time.

I do think you hit the nail on the head though - its the perception that unbound can exist that has people steamed. Most of the big tournaments I've seen don't allow unbound and don't allow super heavies or heavily restrict them, so when I see 7th edition tournaments I note that they play out a lot like 5th edition. There are two or so builds that usually dominate and the rest fall where they may.

This is where I don't see how 7th is less competitive than 3, 4, or 5th.

[40kGamer]

I think you've hit near the heart of the current competitive complaints quite nicely. The game has progressed from a few spammed power builds that everyone could anticipate to a limitless supply of stinky cheese lists. This state of complete imbalance has now created a weird pseudo balance in and of itself. Such as you may as well take what you like cause there are a bazillion different lists that can wipe the table with whatever you choose anywho.

My biggest complaint at the moment is the plethora of rapid fire rules changes that have lead created an environment where rules errors are the norm rather than the exception. It is also essentially impossible to 'know' everything, so as a player you're not going to realize that things were played wrong until long after an event has closed. Either that or you burn a lot of game time clarifying and researching rules.

[Defenestratus]

Talking about a game of dice and plastic dolls in any sense that its a competitive endeavor is silly at the onset.

[Auticus]

My biggest complaint at the moment is the plethora of rapid fire rules changes that have lead created an environment where rules errors are the norm rather than the exception.

This is true and something that my own group has to deal with on a constant basis. This is where I think the ruleset should really be pared down to its core and the excess special rules be hemmed out.


The game has progressed from a few spammed power builds that everyone could anticipate to a limitless supply of stinky cheese lists. This state of complete imbalance has now created a weird pseudo balance in and of itself.

This is how I see it as well - and the diversity actually makes me happy because I got really burnt out on the same 2-3 builds always showing up. I haven't seen this much diversity in list building in pretty much forever (though the imbalance itself has not changed its just that you can't rock in to an event with a powerlist and expect to know your meta any longer, the list building phase to me stepped up in terms of knowing what combinations you can build, but on the table stepped down because of the diversity present)

My favorite that would bring me back to tournaments would be an environment where list building didn't even exist as a "phase" of the game and where how you played on the table was the most important aspect.

Granted there are players with actual skill that do well at tournaments but I find that most people (myself included) relied on their gimp crutch to get them through and I'd rather a competition be about skill as opposed to rocking into a gladiator arena and your opponent chooses his gladius and you pull out your grenade launcher.


Talking about a game of dice and plastic dolls in any sense that its a competitive endeavor is silly at the onset.

For the most part I agree, however it is a common topic and in this particular scenario (where current edition is less competitive) I feel full of holes so wanted to discuss it.

[Mr Mystery]

Talking about a game of dice and plastic dolls in any sense that its a competitive endeavor is silly at the onset.

Yup.

And can someone please quantify the term 'viable', because to me, with Unbound on offer, anything is viable within your points.

[40kGamer]

This is true and something that my own group has to deal with on a constant basis. This is where I think the ruleset should really be pared down to its core and the excess special rules be hemmed out.

For me the complexity comes from the rise of the formation. The fact that the rules change depending upon how you assemble your force is maddening. Especially when you mix formations into normal lists and create situations where some models now have a special rule and some of the same models on the table do not.... and then we have the formations where the special rules go away if you kill a specific model out of the formation. While I love it from a fluffy bunny standpoint and it works fine with buddies playing in the basement, this makes random match ups at events annoying as hell!



This is how I see it as well - and the diversity actually makes me happy because I got really burnt out on the same 2-3 builds always showing up. I haven't seen this much diversity in list building in pretty much forever (though the imbalance itself has not changed its just that you can't rock in to an event with a powerlist and expect to know your meta any longer, the list building phase to me stepped up in terms of knowing what combinations you can build, but on the table stepped down because of the diversity present)

My favorite that would bring me back to tournaments would be an environment where list building didn't even exist as a "phase" of the game and where how you played on the table was the most important aspect.

The diversity in current 40k is wild. You now see anything and everything on the table which is fun! I don't think it's possible to weed out the list lawyer phase of an event unless the lists are predetermined... completely impractical but it would be kind of awesome to have an event where you picked the army you wanted to play and someone else built the list taking care to make all the various armies have a fair shot at beating each other.


Granted there are players with actual skill that do well at tournaments but I find that most people (myself included) relied on their gimp crutch to get them through and I'd rather a competition be about skill as opposed to rocking into a gladiator arena and your opponent chooses his gladius and you pull out your grenade launcher.

And some of us can 'get by' with win loss but earn the bulk of our points through paint and sports. Ale anyone? :p

- - - Updated - - -


Yup.

And can someone please quantify the term 'viable', because to me, with Unbound on offer, anything is viable within your points.

Which viable are we talking about? Viable to me is anything I can put on the table that doesn't cause people to fall down laughing. For example a completely nonviable unit is the much maligned Howling Banshees. Having them in an event list grants you bunny status.

[daboarder]

Simple.

Rules are bloated (I like unique rules and flavour options, but its going a little too far in terms of Force construction)
Rules dont work (See psykers and others)
The balance is Borked (Hello wave serpent)
and the missions are ultimately candyland

[Lord Manton]

From what I can tell, it's as daboarder says "the rules are too bloated". Back in the golden age of 5th ed tourneyhammer, the rules were a bit tighter in the sense that there was altogether less going on in the game rules wise. It was a cleaner and simpler rules set, even though it had all the same issues we know and love from GW (shoddy spelling, silly oversights etc).
On top of this there were only the base codex books to worry about. So if you had the cash you could buy them and read them and still have time to shower eat and probably go earn that money. Or if you didn't have the cash, you could easily learn just by playing against the other armies a bit.

Nowadays, good luck getting your hands on all those books ($83 a pop in the land of OZ). And even if you can afford that/are ok with stealing them, good luck getting through it all. And then there's the idea that playing against Necrons is different to playing against necrons in a formation which is different to playing necrons unbound and let's not even talk about allies.
And then we have to add to that the fact that the change from 5th to 6th was considerable and changed the game from one where shooting and assault were as viable as one another, to a game largely dominated by big guns and weight of fire. And then you have the crazy release schedule of main book and a supplement a week later and then at Christmas another 10 data slates, with a few more scattered through the year. There hasn't really been any time for people to settle into 7th ed. (It only came out July last year, remember).

So the easy thing to say is "it's a game for narrative and RPG players" because they're happy to make their own balance and play around with things in ways you simply can't do in a tournament. But really, I think once the dust settles and we can all take a deep breath and a step back, while GW focuses on fantasy for a few months around the 9th ed release, we will see the game settle, the rules will be more familiar and the understanding of the game, that allows for healthy competition will come back.

[Defenestratus]

As someone who is never forced into playing 3 games in a day, I prefer the rules bloat as opposed to the crap we had back in the day. The advent of 3rd edition was a day that lives in infamy for me, and the closer we get back to those halcyon days of 2nd, the better.

If Plastic Doll Rommels want to develop their own "streamlined" rule sets so that its possible to figure out who the best dice-thrower and measuring tape user is by close of business then go for it. Just don't ruin it for the rest of us.

[40kGamer]

I would add that not all event goers are mini-Napoleon wannabe's and that it is entirely possible to have plenty of flavor-flav in the game without needing to memorize and reference the full set of the encyclopedia britannica.

[Auticus]

I'd have to say as i said above - balance was never a good thing in this game, so the balance issue to me is not valid because every edition had broken things.

This edition - wave serpents are obviously broken. In 5th it was draigo, and long fang missile spam, and then there was the lash prince, and iron warriors in 3.5, and then there was the starcannon and the rhino in 3rd.

I'm not sure I understand the rules dont work. The psyker phase works, its just kind of needless because they keep making it an automatic success almost like it was before.

The missions were also largely candyland in previous editions. They were typically the same five or six missions run ad naseum over and over so that things like my gunline imperial guard that castled in a corner every game won pretty much every game in 4th ed (well not pretty much every game, but i was batting over .900 which is very good for just sitting in a corner and not moving and just rolling 200 dice a turn)

[vonDietdrich]

Talking about a game of dice and plastic dolls in any sense that its a competitive endeavor is silly at the onset.

While it's certainly never going to be chess, most 'games with dolls' that sell rulebooks recognize that those rules ought to possess at least some claim to quality, consistency, and fairness for both (or all) players involved. That's common courtesy for a game that you can sink an hour or more into.. and makes people actually want to play the game. You could even argue that competitiveness (which can also be called 'fair chances to win for both players', cetaris paribus) is the main selling point of a rulebook. Nobody wants to sink their time into a game where they've lost at the outset, and they shouldn't have to.

'You're just glorified children, make pew-pew noises instead of having thoughts about things' is not a compelling way to shut down this conversation.

Anyway..

The biggest problems started showing up when GW realized that it could sell formations as a way to guarantee sales of specific kits, imo. Like the Fire Support Cadre and the Ghost Warriors formations that it sold over the holidays a couple years ago, they realized 'hey, if we make rules to make a certain combination of kits better, people will buy more of those kits all at once!'

And then formations started showing up everywhere, and in many cases they completely altered how a unit performed or gave it extra rules.. with no extra point price per model. And as we're getting into 7th, we're starting to see just how much of a pain this is, especially combined with the new Allies rules. The biggest selling point of the day one DLC 'companion codexes' is the formations.

Combine this with the game theory concept of 'dominant strategies', basically, strategies inherent in the game which are literally better than the other options 100% of the time. Many weapons and models in the game have this problem: there is no reason to take quite a few of them, because another choice is just superior in every possible way. GW rules design suffers from this quite a bit, especially in 40k (though I've noticed it in newer Fantasy books also).

The result is, community standards for the game have shifted to be more relaxed and all-inclusive, just like GW wanted them to. Except that also includes 'everyday game' lists with two Riptides, a Baneblade with a dedicated Divination buffer, and all of the other utter nonsense that I see when I look over at the 40k tables of my FLGS these days.

Is it possible to play friendly games? Yes, if you're lucky to have a good community that supports them. But in larger communities, it's drowned out by the cheese-list spam. Fluffy lists are just worse, unfortunately, because they're substantially less points-efficient than the good models. And the prevailing attitude is 'well GW says you can do it in the book, so it's okay for me to bring a Lord of War superheavy to every game'... it's just an arms race for who can buy the silliest models or formations, and that's an attitude I don't want to play with.

[Erik Setzer]

As someone who is never forced into playing 3 games in a day, I prefer the rules bloat as opposed to the crap we had back in the day. The advent of 3rd edition was a day that lives in infamy for me, and the closer we get back to those halcyon days of 2nd, the better.

I loved 2nd edition, and would be giddy if they ever did a true skirmish level 40K again, but I think what he meant was all the rules scattered insanely all over the place. And some of it's in the worst places, like when they did the Cities of Death rules in two White Dwarfs with the cards in those magazines... and if someone doesn't have those issues, they don't have any way to get the stuff to play that style of game. I have the Planetstrike rules and Cities of Death rules, nobody will play them because they can't get the rules easily. Then there's all the various formations and detachments that people can make. And I still have to explain to people that "Battle-forged" doesn't mean just CADs, and how Unbound and Battle-forged actually work. Those are just a few examples. Throw in the "you can mix any allies you want" and it gets a bit insane. 2nd edition had various restrictions. While the core rules were more complex, it was a "simpler" game overall.

[Denzark]

Maybe tourney organisers should ensure that as well as a prize for the death and destruction you cause, which maybe won by a power list, that prizes for overall are also available. Try not to skew scores for painting, death and destruction and comp.

Or maybe they should just award the 'Bellthronk Prize for cheesiest WAAC netlisters' that might discourage people trying to win by list selection...

[Mr Mystery]

Maybe tourney organisers should ensure that as well as a prize for the death and destruction you cause, which maybe won by a power list, that prizes for overall are also available. Try not to skew scores for painting, death and destruction and comp.

Or maybe they should just award the 'Bellthronk Prize for cheesiest WAAC netlisters' that might discourage people trying to win by list selection...

The Golden Douche award? Actual douche, spray painted gold.

[Filthy Casual]

I loved 2nd edition, and would be giddy if they ever did a true skirmish level 40K again, but I think what he meant was all the rules scattered insanely all over the place. And some of it's in the worst places, like when they did the Cities of Death rules in two White Dwarfs with the cards in those magazines... and if someone doesn't have those issues, they don't have any way to get the stuff to play that style of game. I have the Planetstrike rules and Cities of Death rules, nobody will play them because they can't get the rules easily. Then there's all the various formations and detachments that people can make. And I still have to explain to people that "Battle-forged" doesn't mean just CADs, and how Unbound and Battle-forged actually work. Those are just a few examples. Throw in the "you can mix any allies you want" and it gets a bit insane. 2nd edition had various restrictions. While the core rules were more complex, it was a "simpler" game overall.

The Cities of Death rules are in the first Shield of Baal Campaign book. No doubt will also become available as a separate eBook like Planetfall.

New things take a lot of getting use to, people will get the hang of it.

2nd edition was not a simple game by any stretch of the imagination, yes lists were a bit less complicated, but when you had to roll combat for each member of a squad separately and ad up outnumbering bonuses, it bogged down very quickly and became a chore.

People moaned for a long time about White Dwarf not having rules or cards in it, now that it does, people are moaning one more! They literally can't do a thing to please you people.

[CoffeeGrunt]

From my point of view as a relatively new player, the main reasons people seem to think the current edition is the worst ever is price, and nostalgia.

Things are more expensive, which makes the cost of getting new units to keep up with an evolving metagame simply impossible, especially given the speed it's updating in lately. As far as nostalgia, many of the old timers who went over to Warmachine say that 4th Edition - the one they started playing in - was simply much more 'fun and 'balanced,' even though objectively it wasn't. However, that was also when their armies could wipe the opponent from the table, so of course they'd think that was the best era of the game.

Most of the competitively-minded players have moved to WarmaHordes here, thankfully. If they'd just stop harassing other players to get them to join it, I think we'd have a pretty peaceful setup.

[Filthy Casual]

People complain about stuff, thats their nature, especially online, there is never anything that will satisfy people, GW have made and always will make casual wargames for people to play with their cool toys.

The company has, since it was bought out by Brian Ansell of Citadel in 1984, always been about making models, the rules are there as a secondary thing to the hobby of collecting armies, its still an important part of the hobby, but for the last 30 years, miniatures have always come first.

The new rule books spell that out, the fluff is book 1, the models are book 2 and the rules are last. Same in the End Times and the Campaigns, the rules are the least important part of the hobby.

[Auticus]

I think price is definitely a big part of it, but the thing is - price really has (to me) no bearing on the ruleset itself.

I understand that tournament guys in the past owned every book, lobbied against forge world hard because they didn't want to have to buy forge world books too, and memorized the books they had (or in our case we had flashcards of every special rule and unit in the game we'd drill several times a week), and that today thats a lot more expensive and with the number of formations etc out likely impossible - but then again that doesn't make the game not competitive either since anytime someone shows up with something you don't know you can simply take 5 minutes before the game to ask what everything does.

[Filthy Casual]

There is also a lot more random effects in the game now, which competitive types don't like as it can't be factored into their masterful strategy of spamming the best units over and over again.

[Charon]

since anytime someone shows up with something you don't know you can simply take 5 minutes before the game to ask what everything does.

Would not count on that for the same reason as we do not see a lot of horde armies. Time is precious and having to ask or look up a lot of things will delay your game and thus lead o a premature ending as there are time limits in place.
Also I would argue that "more options" does not lead to "more diversity". Once the mass of players have found the best option, this will be played no matter how many options there were.
Just look at Knights. Nights everywhere. Space Marines with Knights, Necrons with Knights, I have eben seen Tyranids with Knights.
Deathstars are still in the game (all imperial ones are intact) and FW heavily favors the imperial faction. So I dont think that more options do lead to more different lists.
Also I can see why TOs try to limit the systems involved.
If you look at a bigger tournament you already have tons of Errata, FAQ and rule clarifications. And thats just the "basic game". Wanna do this for all FW books too?

[Mr Mystery]

Anyone would think the rule set wasn't designed to be played within a specific time period.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Am I the only player that's managed to memorise their Codices? I can write an army list from memory without it and remember all the special rules during gameplay without having to grab the book all the time, most players I know are the same.

[Mr Mystery]

I suffer from mild to severe Edition lag, having been shooting up the Galaxy since 2nd Ed (and some very tentative fumbles with Rogue Trader).

Warhammer is just as bad for me. It's seriously a push to remember Magic doesn't come at the end of the turn any more (and hasn't done for a long old time)....

[Cutter]

Am I the only player that's managed to memorise their Codices? I can write an army list from memory without it and remember all the special rules during gameplay without having to grab the book all the time, most players I know are the same.

Those days are long gone.

- - - Updated - - -


I suffer from mild to severe Edition lag, having been shooting up the Galaxy since 2nd Ed (and some very tentative fumbles with Rogue Trader).

Warhammer is just as bad for me. It's seriously a push to remember Magic doesn't come at the end of the turn any more (and hasn't done for a long old time)....

Our gang have similar issues.

When you edition/games played ratio drops below a certain level, things can get very fuzzy.

[Auticus]

Would not count on that for the same reason as we do not see a lot of horde armies. Time is precious and having to ask or look up a lot of things will delay your game and thus lead o a premature ending as there are time limits in place.
Also I would argue that "more options" does not lead to "more diversity". Once the mass of players have found the best option, this will be played no matter how many options there were.
Just look at Knights. Nights everywhere. Space Marines with Knights, Necrons with Knights, I have eben seen Tyranids with Knights.
Deathstars are still in the game (all imperial ones are intact) and FW heavily favors the imperial faction. So I dont think that more options do lead to more different lists.
Also I can see why TOs try to limit the systems involved.
If you look at a bigger tournament you already have tons of Errata, FAQ and rule clarifications. And thats just the "basic game". Wanna do this for all FW books too?

I played tournaments solidly for years, placed well, won my fair share, took 5th at chicago GW GT, and did not own every book. I always asked to know the rules ahead of time if I came across something I didn't know.

My 4th ed leaf blower guard was also about 150-180 models. Both existed in the knowledget hat there is a time limit in place.

More diversity is simply that - there is more diversity on the table today. Not talking about more options. The only time i don't see a lot of options today is when there's cash on the line, but even the majority of tournaemnts and campaign events I attend have a rainbow diversity of armies that I have never seen in 17 years of playing 40k, through 3rd edition to today.

The last 5th edition tournament I attended there were 22 players. 16 played draigo grey knights. *16*. 5 played long fang spam space wolves. One player was the token necron player.

This was my experience with the 5th edition competitive scene.

The rest does not attest to how the system is less competitive, it is how some people prefer not to have to faq and learn additional rules. That has nothing to do with a system that can or cannot be competitive. That has everything to do with people not wanting to buy all the books because they feel compelled to do so.


When you edition/games played ratio drops below a certain level, things can get very fuzzy.

Absolutely :D it becomes difficult to remember rules from edition to edition - I can attest to that!

[40kGamer]

Maybe tourney organisers should ensure that as well as a prize for the death and destruction you cause, which maybe won by a power list, that prizes for overall are also available. Try not to skew scores for painting, death and destruction and comp.

Or maybe they should just award the 'Bellthronk Prize for cheesiest WAAC netlisters' that might discourage people trying to win by list selection...


I recommended 2 awards at local events... the Asshat award for the most WAAC list and the Fluffy Bunny for the most well rounded. Haven't been able to get a lot of support to move it forward though... :p

- - - Updated - - -


I suffer from mild to severe Edition lag, having been shooting up the Galaxy since 2nd Ed (and some very tentative fumbles with Rogue Trader).

Warhammer is just as bad for me. It's seriously a push to remember Magic doesn't come at the end of the turn any more (and hasn't done for a long old time)....

I feel that. It all blends together to make a wonderful mess of what the rules of the day actually are!

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

On the bright side, it does mean I encounter very, very few of these apparently ambiguous rules, because I'm well in the habit of reading what the rule says, rather than what I want it to say.

[iandanger]

More or less, the argument for 5th Ed as a competitive game is as follows:

In 5th edition, almost all armies could build a take all comers list, which when wielded by a skilled player could compete with any list. This pretty much looked the same, mostly vehicles with lots of melta, and heavily favored imperial armies. The rules were fairly tight and games played quickly. While draigo wing stomped faces among local game stores, at big events with skilled players they never made a major impact. That isn't to say GK with their S8 riflemen didn't have a place, but Paladins died to mass high strength shooting, which all take all comers lists had.

In the end, it was a bland edition, but consistent behavior and the lack of lists that truly broke the game is what a certain set within the competitive community (most of whom are gone on to FSA and Warmahordes) were gung ho about.

Personally I didn't like 5th, but I also haven't enjoyed 6th or 7th much. I don't think 40k is very good as a game. But the fluff and story are fun and heralds of ruin kill team is amazing, so I play despite the fact that I don't particularly enjoy the game mechanics.

[Auticus]

Thats just it though there wasn't really a Take All Comers list - thats just what it was named. TAC was really "Take a list that can fight Draigo, Longfang spam, and necrons". Those were the top of 5th edition and the truly mathematically optimized builds, and what the vast majority of people I encountered fielded.

There is this disparity that big events had these skilled players and local game stores were all a bunch of skill less dreks flinging dice and feces at each other. I went to the big events too - they played out similarly to local game stores and Draigo or Long fang spam were by far the most prevalent lists on the end tables every time (there were always the token anomaly here and there as well)

There wasn't a lack of listst hat broke the game. The top lists ALWAYS set out to break the game. Draigo lists broke the game because if you weren't toting melta and missile spam, you were toast. Thats breaking the game to me. Barring extraordinary luck or a player really being that top 5% of truly great players, if you brought a normal balanced list to a game involving draigo paladins, you were likely going to get rick rolled out of the building.

That there are more than the basic three powergamer lists is what a lot of people complain about now (I have to worry about fliers, I have to worry about super heavies, I have to worry about wave serpent spam, I have to worry about not getting cover saves, I have to worry about people combining those elements from multiple armies, I have to worry about a lot of vehicles, I may have to worry about hordes (not as common since those cost money and tournaments run on time limits but still something that must be thought about)).

The real issue that many have seems to me to be that a desire to return to an edition where you could expect and plan for the same 2-3 builds to be present and where there is no diversity in the armies so that it is easier to plan against.

[Psyfer]

As for combining flavour and balance, all I'll say is thus:

If a company with less then half the experience (Eg. Hawk Games Studio, Spartan games, Corvus Belli, Wyrd miniatures etc) can manage to combine a fairly balanced ruleset, why can't GW? They've been in this business for 30-odd years after all.

[Erik Setzer]

I suffer from mild to severe Edition lag, having been shooting up the Galaxy since 2nd Ed (and some very tentative fumbles with Rogue Trader).

Warhammer is just as bad for me. It's seriously a push to remember Magic doesn't come at the end of the turn any more (and hasn't done for a long old time)....

I have a bad tendency to remember rules as they used to be, not as they are now. Tank Hunters is one example that I get thrown off on, I remember it used to be +1 to penetrate, now it's a reroll (which is more useful in a lot of cases). Trying to remember, similarly, that Terror isn't a bubble psychology effect is also tricky at times.

- - - Updated - - -


Am I the only player that's managed to memorise their Codices? I can write an army list from memory without it and remember all the special rules during gameplay without having to grab the book all the time, most players I know are the same.

My core codex, yes. Some of the side stuff for it, even. (Hey, I play Orks, we've got a supplemental book chock full of stuff, plus two campaign books and a booklet, and a White Dwarf... so far.) I used to be good at doing it with every army in the game, but I haven't been able to afford all the new books, and don't have the time to devote to studying them that I used to have.

Probably doesn't help that I keep jumping between armies because I get bored easily.

[Charistoph]

Am I the only player that's managed to memorise their Codices? I can write an army list from memory without it and remember all the special rules during gameplay without having to grab the book all the time, most players I know are the same.

Memorizing your codex and the rulebook isn't always the issue. Memorizing all the other codices to help others or recognizing cheating, and being able to pull up ours to show your opponent that, "yes, that unit is a cheese monster in this specific case" is the other side of it.

[confoo22]

As for combining flavour and balance, all I'll say is thus:

If a company with less then half the experience (Eg. Hawk Games Studio, Spartan games, Corvus Belli, Wyrd miniatures etc) can manage to combine a fairly balanced ruleset, why can't GW? They've been in this business for 30-odd years after all.

I think this actually touches on a couple of things that I was thinking while pondering this. First off, you can say "why can't GW do what these other companies do?" but you have to realize that GW came of age in an environment when there really weren't nationwide wargame tournaments. Balance didn't mean anything, it was just a fun game of dice rolling and pushing your models around the table and people weren't concerned with building the all-mighty-tournament-win-everything list because there were no tournaments to win. So then you fast forward a few years and yes, tournies are a thing, but only after the game has become established so it was too late to go back and completely re-work the game from the ground up, especially when mixed with the possibility of having to re-work all the codexes at the time. And remember, GW still wasn't the multi-national million pound money maker that is today (and yes, I'm aware that profits are down, but they still make millions of pounds in profit), so the resources and time needed to do so may just not have been there.

So let's fast forward to today. You have a slue of games all over the place now that all were created either specifically with balance and tournaments in mind because they had the luxury of seeing what GW had done wrong in terms of balance and able to make the correction to their own systems. GW is trying to implement some balance (and has been thanked for it by being called "bland"), but it's a difficult and drawn out process when you have to balance the game across numerous factions, and is something that will probably never happen to the satisfaction of every gamer out there. I'd also add that there's really not a 100% balanced game with no underpowered unit whatsoever and completely devoid of powerlists, but that most of them are more balanced when compared to GW's games, which allows people to perpetuate the myth of perfect balance in other games (WMH anyone?)

So now you have the same complaints concerning balance as you've had in past editions except that there's actually other options in the gaming market with viable player bases. This allows for people who are truly disgruntled (and let's face it, some people who complain just like to complain and will never actually follow through on leaving) to leave for these other games, and when players actually see people leaving to go play these other games then the complaints resonate that much more. This feeds back into the cycle and makes 40k seem so much worse and it also makes it difficult for players who have bad experiences or get absolutely thrashed from being able to chock it up to bad dice or poor strategy, instead blaming balance issues and poor rules writing.

So no, these issues aren't new, but the options for dealing with them are and we've seen a steady restructuring of the market for wargames in the last five years. I personally feel that we're getting to the point where the bleeding will stop and people who like GW will play their games and people who like other games will play those. And hopefully there won't be a need for all the nasty 40k v Other wargames that pervades a lot of online forums / cesspits and we'll all be happier for it.

[Auticus]

Yeah the gamer base is a vastly different creature than it was in 2005, which was a vastly different creature than it was in 1995 etc.

2015 - gamers have become more and more like e-athletes... wanting e-sports forums for their games. I don't see that as a bad thing, but what I do see as a bad thing is in many cases a lack of critical thinking combined with just tossing labels onto something that they were fine with three years ago but claiming now that its worse (lack of balance today compared with 2012 for example) when the balance has been abysmal since rogue trader on up.

Very aptly - these newer companies have come up in the age of the e-sports era and are making their games accordingly.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I find part of the problem with balance is 40K's scale as well. Size it down to HoR Kill team scale, and you find that the absence of large blasts, high Toughness and hardy vehicles makes it a much more fair game. At a 1500-2000pts level though, there's just too many scary things that can be brought, and too much variety to be able to make a true TAC list anymore...

[Andrew Thomas]

From my point of view as a relatively new player, the main reasons people seem to think the current edition is the worst ever is price, and nostalgia.

Things are more expensive, which makes the cost of getting new units to keep up with an evolving metagame simply impossible, especially given the speed it's updating in lately. As far as nostalgia, many of the old timers who went over to Warmachine say that 4th Edition - the one they started playing in - was simply much more 'fun and 'balanced,' even though objectively it wasn't. However, that was also when their armies could wipe the opponent from the table, so of course they'd think that was the best era of the game.

Most of the competitively-minded players have moved to WarmaHordes here, thankfully. If they'd just stop harassing other players to get them to join it, I think we'd have a pretty peaceful setup.

I have had similar experiences, and I agree.

Personally, I feel that the extra variety does make the game more competitive by making monobuilds less reliable. While building a balanced list is more reliable, as expected, it is no longer a guaranteed win, which is where these gripes are coming from.

Clearly, not everyone has the same definition of competitive, but, to use M:tG parlance, anything that weeds the Spikes out of the game is going to be better for the game as a whole.

[confoo22]

I find part of the problem with balance is 40K's scale as well. Size it down to HoR Kill team scale, and you find that the absence of large blasts, high Toughness and hardy vehicles makes it a much more fair game. At a 1500-2000pts level though, there's just too many scary things that can be brought, and too much variety to be able to make a true TAC list anymore...

A friend of mine and I love playing 1250 games. We feel like at that level you have to really think about what you're putting in your list instead of "kitchen sink" style lists you can usually find for most armies at 1850.

[Defenestratus]

'You're just glorified children, make pew-pew noises instead of having thoughts about things' is not a compelling way to shut down this conversation.

I'm not trying to shut down the conversation.

I'm trying to say that talking about dice games with plastic toys and measuring whippy sticks in a context of being a competition is silly on its face. But whatever.


but I think what he meant was all the rules scattered insanely all over the place. And some of it's in the worst places, like when they did the Cities of Death rules in two White Dwarfs with the cards in those magazines...

Ahh yes. I actually think GW should go to a digital rule subscription service that is basically a website (ecosystem agnostic) that allows anyone with an annual subscription fee to "subscribe" to any new rules that GW rolls out. They could print the rules also in WD or in codexes as well for those who prefer to have hardcopies - but a library of centrally located rules that could be regularly updated would be awesome and something I would definitely pay for.

[Charon]

So let's fast forward to today. You have a slue of games all over the place now that all were created either specifically with balance and tournaments in mind because they had the luxury of seeing what GW had done wrong in terms of balance and able to make the correction to their own systems. GW is trying to implement some balance (and has been thanked for it by being called "bland"), but it's a difficult and drawn out process when you have to balance the game across numerous factions, and is something that will probably never happen to the satisfaction of every gamer out there. I'd also add that there's really not a 100% balanced game with no underpowered unit whatsoever and completely devoid of powerlists, but that most of them are more balanced when compared to GW's games, which allows people to perpetuate the myth of perfect balance in other games (WMH anyone?)

They do not even have to balance on a tournament level. But even internal balance fails in the "bland" codices.
Necron Wraith?
Dark Eldar Bloodbrides, Hellions, Voidraven?
Codices were not called bland for having no specific power spikes (they still have) but for ripping out fun and unique rules. This even gets weirder other armies got to keep their unique special rules instead of receiving the same treatment of "if it's not in the core rules, you won't get it".

[confoo22]

They do not even have to balance on a tournament level. But even internal balance fails in the "bland" codices.
Necron Wraith?
Dark Eldar Bloodbrides, Hellions, Voidraven?
Codices were not called bland for having no specific power spikes (they still have) but for ripping out fun and unique rules. This even gets weirder other armies got to keep their unique special rules instead of receiving the same treatment of "if it's not in the core rules, you won't get it".

Except that no game hits that perfect "internal balance" that so many people are seeking. The idea of internal balance is that you could take any unit, point it at any other unit with the same cost, and there would be 50/50 chance of that unit being. Looking at 40k which has hundreds, if not over a thousand, individual units spread out across 15 separate army books then what you're asking for is an extremely tall order and some units are simply going to fall short. Not to mention that there is no system out there, at least none that I've read about, that is perfectly balanced internally across the entire game. Every system has red headed step children, but it's less obvious because most other systems don't have the sheer amount of different units that GW does and therefore won't have the same amount of unbalanced units. As for the rules being removed or changed, the one codex rule this edition that most falls into the "fun and unique" category is the mob rule for Orks, which is universally despised. Mainly, I think, because it's a mechanic meant to prevent orks from flooding the table with 250+ models and winning because the other player simply can't kill that many, but people understandably don't like it when their own army forces them to remove models.

I'd also point out that it's slightly dissonant for players to complain that there are too many rules clogging up and bloating the game while simultaneously complaining that streamlining and scaling back the rules in the codexes is making the game too bland.

[Charon]

Again. No need for "perfect" balance. But a little bit of thought invested is not too much to ask.
Im totally fine with somewhat internally balanced but even that seems too much to ask. Having two units in the same slot with the same points and the same task while one having a big stat advantage over the other is not a good design. This should never happen.
There is no problem if these two units have just different stats or different niches so the current meta, opponent,.. will decide which one is more valuable. But if one of these is ALWAYS better no matter what circumstances, than there is a design flaw right here.
Also, if people hate a rule, it doesn't qualify for "fun"

[confoo22]

Again. No need for "perfect" balance. But a little bit of thought invested is not too much to ask.
Im totally fine with somewhat internally balanced but even that seems too much to ask. Having two units in the same slot with the same points and the same task while one having a big stat advantage over the other is not a good design. This should never happen.
There is no problem if these two units have just different stats or different niches so the current meta, opponent,.. will decide which one is more valuable. But if one of these is ALWAYS better no matter what circumstances, than there is a design flaw right here.
Also, if people hate a rule, it doesn't qualify for "fun"

Except that these units do tend to fit those niches, but people don't like those niches so they automatically discount them. Anything that has a close combat role is automatically discounted unless it can kill or tarpit a deathstar. Look at Wyches, they're absolute murder machines in close combat, especially once you get to turn 4 or later, but everyone acts like they're the worst unit that's ever seen the light of day. This is because the assault phase is fairly weak in general so a unit needs to not only be good in assault, but be extremely good in assault and survivable versus shooting and extremely quick so they can get into assault right away, which is not something you're going to get out of a unit that only costs 60 points. But if you look in the vacuum of internal balance then wyches, the CC unit, will shred warriors, the ranged unit, in assault and vice versa. But put them against Hellions and you'll have a much better match up, probably better because hellions have the increased movement to be able to ensure that they will be more likely to charge. Thanks to this advantage they cost a little more than the wyches.

Want a different example? Sisters of Battle Exorcist versus Penitent Engines. Penitent Engines in CC are ridiculously awesome and will straight up murder most units they charge, even deathstars, but the Exorcist is one of the best shooty tanks in the game. Thanks to movement rules for walkers and disadvantages inherent to open topped vehicles the Penitent Engine is considered a complete garbage unit while the Exorcist is the all star. But I would say that they are actually internally balanced because an Exorcist shooting at a Penitent Engine has about the same chance at destroying it as the PE has at destroying the Exorcist in CC. One might say that on paper the Engine is actually better because it's cheaper for a single one and you can take them in squadrons. But once you leave the vacuum of the codex, the PE is just not worth it.

Now, does this mean that new codexes are internally balanced? Absolutely not. As I noted, perfection is elusive when you have the number of units that GW does, but I think that a lot of units get discounted unfairly because of perceived weaknesses based on the overarching rule set.

Oh, and I agree with you on the fun part, really what I meant is that in this edition that is the rule most like previous edition's zany rules.

[Leviticus Stroud]

If comparing editions of the rules, the first thing you must do is compare the rules- not the codex books!

This is GWs own great mistake.
A complaint is made that Unit A is too good at the X part of the game in edition 3. The response should be to fix A, but instead it is to change X when edition 4 comes out.
Now units B, C and D are too good at X, so maybe X changes under 5, or perhaps the codex with B in is up next so instead B gets changed. Then so does C. Then X changes again in 6 and now A, B and C are all mis-balanced again. Roll on 7 and X is still wrong, but it is followed up by changes to B and C so only A currently appears to be bad.

Now rinse and repeat for parts Y and Z of the rules.


The reason 5th is regularly considered the 'pinnacle' edition in terms of game play and balance is because of the rule book itself, not the codices. Some of them were, quite frankly, awful.
Instead think about the process of almost any part of the game which players have issues with.
What is the logical thing the game should be doing in that area?
What would be happening if this was real, or even a Hollywood action movie on the screen?
What does the game actually do?

Once you start doing this you start to get a picture of a game's flaws, and a large number will argue that 5th had the fewest of these.


EG: Over watch.

The logical thing is that if a unit is able to see an enemy charging them then they should be able to get a burst of shots off at them. How prepared they are and how much time they get to respond should determine how likely they are to hit by comparison to their usual firing.

The action movie equivalent is something similar, with heroic individuals leaping off of vantage point to ensure the enemy gets no chance to respond, or coolly dispatching multiple enemies before having to discard an empty gun in favour of going hand to hand.

The game however has; Vindicaire Assassins hitting at the same skill as an Ork; flamers putting D3 hits on the enemy whether they are a tight crowd of dozens in a tight alleyway or just a single model, and able to do so even if the flamer is out of range and has to fire through his buddies; shots that can be made simply as bonus shooting even if the enemy can't actually move because they rolled too low; no shots are ever taken by the anti personnel assault weapons fitted to tanks; etc.


Repeat this exercise for:
Outflank -Assault specialists have just arrived on the table with the specific aim of ambushing you, but first we are going to stand here for a short while and get shot at.
Charge range- Units can tell you exactly how far away you are, but can no longer estimate whether they can run ten paces or sixty in the period of time we call a turn.
Disembarking- After getting out of a vehicle with doors units don't just have a disadvantage at charging over those coming out of a building with doors, they physically are unable to.
Hull Points- A shot which glances the armour on that tank with damage too negligible to even shake the crew will destroy it if done a specific number of times.


It is very easy to say "Edition X was better/worse because the balance of the codex books was...", but that's not the right comparison.

Personally I play 6/7 codex books under 5th rules, with a handful of current special rules and 2nd edition excerpts to get things like Hammer of Wrath and Over Watch to function. It makes for a far more fun game than 6th or 7th, and a lot more 'forging the narrative' is possible as a result.


I mean seriously, what exactly is the 'narrative' of a large blast going off in the middle of a unit but only the 2+ multi wound character at the front makes any saves? Are they all Kevin Bacon in X-Men First Class, or is this happening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYClSGINHyU

[Psyfer]

I think this actually touches on a couple of things that I was thinking while pondering this.

You do raise some very relevant points here, and I do admit that the younger companies do have the benefit of learning from GW's mistakes.

Having said that, it would be nice if GW would also learn from its's own mistakes, not to mention the mistakes of others. Game balance isn't easy, true, especially given GW's rolling release schedule. But like a lot of the issues with WH and WH40k, a big part of it is due to GW sticking to a rules mechanic that is woefully outdated and cumbersome compared to more recent games. Add to that GW's incessant need to wheel out new models each codex, and you start to see where they run into problems.

As far as I can see, what needs to happen is GW really needs to sit down and overhaul the very basic mechanics of 40k and WH in the light of the 30-odd years that have progressed since they started using them. Even if they stick to the humble D6, adding aspects like alternate unit activation would really shake things up, and mitigate some of the known issues with 40k (eg. first turn annihilation by tau/Imp Guard fire support lists).

As for balance GW needs to sit down and work out what power level they want the game to be at, and stick to it. Many of the issues I've seen have come down to writers having differing impressions of how high-powered the game should be, and to be honest the 'rule of cool' doesn't help much, because it's an abstract concept and everyone has a differing idea about what is cool. For the game to be balanced, there needs to be standards.

The sad part is, GW has always marketed itself minis first, games second, so it's unlikely that any severe overhaul of the game is likely to happen.

[Charon]

Except that these units do tend to fit those niches, but people don't like those niches so they automatically discount them.

Wrong. And I guess you know that because you are comparing different units witch different niches.
The question is not "do wyches fill a different niche than Warriors" the question is "why on earth should I ever upgrade them to bloodbrides"?
Also Wyches (troops) and Hellions (Fast attack) do not interfere.
Hellions and Reavers do. And thats an easy win for the Reavers in every single category. More movement, more T, more attacks, better save, more options, more special rules.

[confoo22]

As far as I can see, what needs to happen is GW really needs to sit down and overhaul the very basic mechanics of 40k and WH in the light of the 30-odd years that have progressed since they started using them. Even if they stick to the humble D6, adding aspects like alternate unit activation would really shake things up, and mitigate some of the known issues with 40k (eg. first turn annihilation by tau/Imp Guard fire support lists).

The problem with that idea is that it's easier said than done. A complete overhaul of all the rules and mechanics from the group up would most likely require a complete overhaul of all the codexes at the same time. Such a venture would alienate a large chunk of the player base while simultaneously costing a huge amount in both resources and manpower. Although, if rumors are to be believed, we'll find out exactly how well that's going to work out when WHFB launches 9th, which is expected to be a complete overhaul and major trimming of the factions.


Wrong. And I guess you know that because you are comparing different units witch different niches.
The question is not "do wyches fill a different niche than Warriors" the question is "why on earth should I ever upgrade them to bloodbrides"?
Also Wyches (troops) and Hellions (Fast attack) do not interfere.
Hellions and Reavers do. And thats an easy win for the Reavers in every single category. More movement, more T, more attacks, better save, more options, more special rules.

Well are you talking niche or are you talking Force org? CC is a niche role, Fast Attack is a general category. Jet bikes don't really compare to infantry, and on top of that you're paying more for them. I would expect a unit that I'm paying more for to be better than a unit that I'm paying less for, which is kind of what balance is.

[Charon]

As i said before I compare units that occupy the same force org AND the same niche.
And yes, jetbikes do not compare well to jump infantry cause the jetbike is BETTER. That 3 points more is hardly balanced when it bring so much advantages.
And thats why hellions sit on the shelf. Because they are a terrible unit with terrible internal "balance".

[CoffeeGrunt]

Using WMH as an example, apparently it differs from 40K in two very fundamental ways:

1) Anything can damage anything, given a Boost and some decent rolling. Granted, a bow from an Everblight Bowman might only graze the Mountain King, but it's not like Lasguns to a Heirophant which simply do nothing,
2) A powerful enough weapon is guaranteed to damage a weak enough model.

As far as one, it's a means to make sure you never get the, "oh hello Armoured Company list, I forget the AT weapons," dilemma that can end a game before it begins.However, WMH lacks this simply because it lacks any sort of vehicle system or integration at all, (a personal sticking point with it.) WMH's damage allocation system is more straightforward than 40K's, but suffers the alternate problem of being tedious when rolling for a large unit at once, nevermind the likes of Conscripts under FRF, SRF. One player suggested having units be able to half their shots to double their strength, but then I would personally take nothing but Guardsmen and enjoy Wounding Space Marines on 2s and Glancing light vehicles to death. Clearly, that one won't work.

The second one is just a factor of the Wounding system in 40K. They suggested making anything that is Strength double their Toughness reroll to Wound, but that on top of Instant Death would be insane IMO. Lascannons sometimes roll 1s, most of us can get over that IMO.

[confoo22]

As i said before I compare units that occupy the same force org AND the same niche.
And yes, jetbikes do not compare well to jump infantry cause the jetbike is BETTER. That 3 points more is hardly balanced when it bring so much advantages.
And thats why hellions sit on the shelf. Because they are a terrible unit with terrible internal "balance".

Well, if you want to look at this one comparison: Reavers don't have Power from Pain, which is hugely beneficial to a CC unit, nor are they usually run as CC units. Hellions improve as a CC unit for free throughout the game, but Reavers do not, they are what they are and that's it. There's also the point that you can only take a little more than half as many in a unit as you can in a Hellion squad, meaning less wounds until you have to roll for morale, which Hellions don't even have to worry about starting turn 5 because now they're fearless. And in order to get a better save you have to jink the Reavers which means that now you're snap shooting. Also, starting on turn 4 Hellions are hitting at Str 5, AP 5 in CC which means that they would absolutely shred a unit of Reavers, who would get no save. Of course this is all usually ignored because it's CC and CC is not that good this edition, but just because you don't find a particular set of qualities useful doesn't mean that they don't count towards balance.

Look, if you want to narrow the scope to that one comparison and say the CC takes place on turn one and the Reavers get the charge off, then yes Reavers might have a slight edge, but not enough that "OMG, they're so much better at EVERYTHING." Reavers definitely win at shooting since Hellions have none, but that's because Hellions are a dedicated CC unit. You also can't say that you don't expect perfection in every case and then trot a single, narrowly viewed case as proof that you're right. Your argument conflates FoC slots with internal balance, and that just doesn't make sense. If a codex is internally balanced then it should be balanced across the entire codex and not just among the Force Org slots because different units in the same slot aren't always meant to fill the same niche role. And I'm sorry, but if that's your standards for comparison then Reavers and Hellions shouldn't even be compared because Reavers are not really a dedicated CC unit. The only thing they have to help them are the Bladevanes, but even then you have to get the charge off or they're useless.

[Charon]

Reavers don't have Power from Pain

They have.


nor are they usually run as CC units.

They can do that in ADDITION to everything else. (S4 rending auto hit +3A on charge)


Hellions improve as a CC unit for free throughout the game, but Reavers do not

They do as they have PfP


And in order to get a better save you have to jink the Reavers which means that now you're snap shooting.

while hellions are just dying with T3. I take that snapshots ANYDAY over removing them.


And I'm sorry, but if that's your standards for comparison then Reavers and Hellions shouldn't even be compared because Reavers are not really a dedicated CC unit.

And even there Reavers are abetter CC unit than hellions. So... what does this tell you about internal balance when your dedicated CC unit does a worse job in CC than a unit that also fills other roles?

Sorry but your text is so full of rule errors (Hellions actaully can shoot) that its hard to argue about internal balance when you just assume things instead of looking them up.
You also go on about how useless reavers are when they are not charging. Same for Hellions which have ONE attack each when getting charged. Hellion on charge = 2 attacks. Reaver on charge 3 attacks + 1 HOW.

[Charistoph]

Using WMH as an example, apparently it differs from 40K in two very fundamental ways:

1) Anything can damage anything, given a Boost and some decent rolling. Granted, a bow from an Everblight Bowman might only graze the Mountain King, but it's not like Lasguns to a Heirophant which simply do nothing,

Not quite true. There are ways to make something almost indestructible to certain units. However, it takes just much crazy shenanigans to pull off that half a 25 point list is dedicated to doing just that alone.

Granted, this is far less common in WarmaHordes than in 40K.

But in this case, also, is a question of environment. Every single race has been making Armour to defeat small basic attacks like that for millenia (Tyranids an exception). On the converse side, WarmaHordes is in the early stages of their Industrial Revolution. The most advanced armies are still running Pike & Shot tactics and some are just starting to use WWI Trench Warfare strategies.

Though, the biggest advantage that PP has over GW is their development process. PP takes great pains to map every rule and benefit to minimize confusion as to how each model interacts with the others, they aren't perfect, but at least make an attempt. GW forgets on a regular basis that there are other rules that may be affected by changes.

[confoo22]

They do as they have PfP

So weird, the epub version I was using at work does not list PfP for some strange reason, so I'll admit that you're right in that one regard, but it still doesn't invalidate the three other points about how Hellions were better than Reavers in CC which you conveniently ignored along with all my other points from previous posts. Again though, they're two different units meant to address two different battlefield roles. It doesn't matter that they both reside in the same FoC slot, Hellions are dedicated CC and they are better than Reavers are in that regards. Rending on HoW is really not that fantastic, especially with str 3 behind it and no other form of AP. If these two units were locked in CC together the Hellions would have an edge, plain and simple.

Either way, I'm done with this rabbit hole, I seriously couldn't care less about Hellions versus Reavers and my post wasn't about comparing individual units but more about how CC units are usually discounted automatically by the virtue of being CC. If you wish to address, that, go for it, but if you want to argue about who's better in CC then you should start another thread about it.

[Andrew Thomas]

It doesn't matter that they both reside in the same FoC slot, Hellions are dedicated CC and they are better than Reavers are in that regards. Rending on HoW is really not that fantastic, especially with str 3 behind it and no other form of AP. If these two units were locked in CC together the Hellions would have an edge, plain and simple.
Str 4, 3 models/squad can do d6 Str 6 Rending or get your only source of Concussive in the list (which is stupid for a fast list)
as if either unit wouldn't Hit & Run out to set up another charge. (again, why the only unit in that army that gets a power weapon designed for H&R does not get H&R is just stupid lazy, but I digress.)
I wouldn't call upto 40 poisoned shots a turn dedicated CC.

[Charon]

Hellions are dedicated CC and they are better than Reavers are in that regards.

Except that they are not.


If these two units were locked in CC together the Hellions would have an edge, plain and simple.

Except that they do not have.
If you state something like this, please show the math. For 5 Reavers you get 6 Hellions. Even if neither of the 2 units would charge Revers would score an average of 1,666 wounds after saves while hellions are stuck with 1,5.
Hellions on the charge would inflict 2,5 wounds on reavers (that is if they lose nobody to overwatch which they can not jink), While Reavers would inflict 5,8 wounds to the Hellions if they charge (that is if they lose nobody to overwatch which they can jink on 3+). And while Hellions just die if they have to charge into terrain, Reavers may just ignore it.
So please elaborate how doing LESS damage in CC makes you a better CC unit.


I seriously couldn't care less about Hellions versus Reavers and my post wasn't about comparing individual units but more about how CC units are usually discounted automatically by the virtue of being CC.
Because you are wrong?
The argument was about internal balance, not about how underestimated CC is.
And even then CC is not automatically discarded as we still see Thunderwolves, Grotesques, Incubi, Assault Terminators, Reavers, Spawns, Orc Boys, Necron Wraiths,... on the table.
Only really BAD melee units which are lacking internal balance are discarded.

[Erik Setzer]

Using WMH as an example, apparently it differs from 40K in two very fundamental ways:

1) Anything can damage anything, given a Boost and some decent rolling. Granted, a bow from an Everblight Bowman might only graze the Mountain King, but it's not like Lasguns to a Heirophant which simply do nothing,
2) A powerful enough weapon is guaranteed to damage a weak enough model.

As far as one, it's a means to make sure you never get the, "oh hello Armoured Company list, I forget the AT weapons," dilemma that can end a game before it begins.However, WMH lacks this simply because it lacks any sort of vehicle system or integration at all, (a personal sticking point with it.) WMH's damage allocation system is more straightforward than 40K's, but suffers the alternate problem of being tedious when rolling for a large unit at once, nevermind the likes of Conscripts under FRF, SRF. One player suggested having units be able to half their shots to double their strength, but then I would personally take nothing but Guardsmen and enjoy Wounding Space Marines on 2s and Glancing light vehicles to death. Clearly, that one won't work.

The second one is just a factor of the Wounding system in 40K. They suggested making anything that is Strength double their Toughness reroll to Wound, but that on top of Instant Death would be insane IMO. Lascannons sometimes roll 1s, most of us can get over that IMO.

Actually, the first point could be gotten in 40K in a couple ways. With wounding, in WFB they actually changed the chart so you can always wound on a 6, so even S1 can hurt T10 on a 6. It makes it more viable for units of infantry to have a chance to hurt big, tough monsters. With vehicles, there was talk of a "Lucky Glancing Hits" rule, I can't remember if it was in WD or ever got anywhere, but it made it possible, however remote a chance, of even a lasgun doing something to a vehicle, with the idea being that they might get a shot into a vision slit that ricochets around, or touch off some exposed ammo or fuel, or something. It'd be possible to bring that back in, but it'd have to be a small chance or people would complain vehicles are "useless."

[Dave Mcturk]

Talking about a game of dice and plastic dolls in any sense that its a competitive endeavor is silly at the onset.

but poking someone with a tiny red plastic dot on the end of a flexible metal rod within 45 seconds is an olympic sport ?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Actually, the first point could be gotten in 40K in a couple ways. With wounding, in WFB they actually changed the chart so you can always wound on a 6, so even S1 can hurt T10 on a 6. It makes it more viable for units of infantry to have a chance to hurt big, tough monsters. With vehicles, there was talk of a "Lucky Glancing Hits" rule, I can't remember if it was in WD or ever got anywhere, but it made it possible, however remote a chance, of even a lasgun doing something to a vehicle, with the idea being that they might get a shot into a vision slit that ricochets around, or touch off some exposed ammo or fuel, or something. It'd be possible to bring that back in, but it'd have to be a small chance or people would complain vehicles are "useless."

I don't see how it would be a more fair system, when it would means simply spamming Lasgun fire would solve any problem...

[Popsical]

Its not chess. It is only balanced and fun when the players involved have a mutual interest in having fun.
One dousche bag player makes a crap game. Two fun gamers make a fun game. Always have, always will.

[daboarder]

games can be both complex and balanced, stop excusing poor game design

[Charon]

games can be both complex and balanced, stop excusing poor game design

I would not say this loud... on this board, everyone who thinks that complexity, fun and balance are not mutually exclusive is a damn heretic.

[daboarder]

I would not say this loud... on this board, everyone who thinks that complexity, fun and balance are not mutually exclusive is a damn heretic.

Charon, this is me mate.....

[CoffeeGrunt]

I haven't found an example of a game that covers all three, though.

X-Wing loses complexity because only has two, now three, factions. Malifaux probably covers much of the three pretty well, but I haven't played much of it. Attack Wing loses balance because the Borg single-handedly killed our local meta for it. WMH wins balance and complexity, but fun is too difficult to pin down, as I personally find it tedious.

40K covers complexity and fun if you pick the right opponent, and balance can be worked around, for the most part...

[daboarder]

Infinity hits the nai,l on the head, its complex, intuitive (once you learn the basics of F2F roles you know how to resolve almost every ability in the game) balanced and really really fun.

I'd argue X-wing can be complex too, not on a faction scale, but simply in terms of variation of card combo's and ships.

As to 40k, well sure, it can be fun, but the balance really hinders that, when you need to sit down and actively NOT use certain units for a game to be fun, then it is hard to class that game as either fun or balanced.

[Erik Setzer]

I played a game Saturday, our 40K escalation league with no named characters (or similar models, like Shard of the Nightbringer) or relics. At 1K, these were the armies (as best I remember):

My opponent's Space Wolves:
Wolf Lord in Terminator Armour
Rune Priest in Terminator Armour*
6 Wolf Guard Terminators
Venerable Dreadnought with axe and shield
Stormfang
Land Speeder with Multimelta
Vengeance Weapon Battery (1 battlecannon turret)
*Got Endurance, like it somehow always does in every game...

My army:
Knight Errant
Wolf Guard Battle Leader on Thunderwolf
5 Thunderwolf Cavalry with shields and assorted weapons
Iron Priest
7 Wolf Scouts with shotguns and one meltagun

We did a Tactical Objective match. First turn, he scored two, I scored none, because I had some tough ones. Second turn, I assaulted the Dreadnought with the Knight (which hasn't faired well for me in the past), and his Terminators with the TWC... Ate all of the Terminators except Runepriest who was in a challenge, and the Knight smashed up the Dreadnought, Scouts damaged the Land Speeder and made it unable to move the next turn. And that was it. He called the game. The crazy thing is, he still could have won, if he'd stuck it out. He was ahead on the TOs, and while I scored one and might have gotten another, he could have potentially scored more, and I had literally nothing to deal with the Stormfang (it's no coincidence I also bought an Aegis line that day, and assembled and primed it yesterday).

But he had no intention of pressing on further. Just like that, his will was broken. Being on the receiving end of a TWC charge (he takes them in pretty much every game, I was surprised he didn't for that game) was too much, and he's extremely scared of Knights (though he has one of his own). For as frustrated as he was, I was sure he'd keep playing, bring in the Stormfang, it'd wreck me while my only real ranged anti-tank couldn't even shoot at it, and it would prevent me from tabling him so he could win on TO points, thus leaving me having demolished an opposing army with minimal losses and still losing due to unlucky card draws.

So yeah... Two possible outcomes to a game, either leaves the loser feeling deeply unsatisfied.

And both armies were Battle-Forged. We both used Company of the Great Wolf Detachment, and a Knight detachment is 1-3.

[StingrayP226]

X-Wing is actually pretty complex once you get on the battlefield... even how you set up terran is part of the battle. Its not perfect on balance, but it is well balanced. Honestly there are lots of games out there that look less complex than 40k (well most games if not all are this way as many do not have the massive amounts of special rules/weapons), but in reality are much more complex because the level of tactical choices/decisions open to you as a player once your models are on the table. Honestly I feel like 40k for many armies lacks a level of tactical complexity on the board and is often just left to the list building but that is the impression I have from watching others and could be totally false...

When it comes to fun balance really does help as it makes it where most people are on even ground power wise. You can play the faction you like the look/lore of without having to regulate yourself to losing most games, or being called cheesy because you HAPPENED to pick a cheesy army. There are also few to no other games where players argue over what should be allowed on the table... to the point in 40k that entire armies (FW) are not allowed.

However the thing that makes the game the most fun is the players... even a game with a poor rule set, bad mechanics, and terrible balance can be the best time ever if you find a good group to play with. On the other hand you can have a wonderful game that is well balanced and brilliantly designed, but if all the players of the game are not fun to play with then its going to suck no matter how good the game is.

[Charon]

Honestly there are lots of games out there that look less complex than 40k (well most games if not all are this way as many do not have the massive amounts of special rules/weapons), but in reality are much more complex because the level of tactical choices/decisions open to you as a player once your models are on the table.

People tend to confuse "complexity" with "there are many factions".

[Auticus]

XWing is starting to wear on me the same was warmahordes has. Its not really the rules per say, its the players that all bring the net lists. For as balanced as everyone claims xwing is, I find it just as unbalanced and a wreck as any game out there, to include 40k, because there are lists that are obviously quite superior over the majority of the game.

It gets old facing the same lists day in day out no matter what system it is.

[Charon]

because there are lists that are obviously quite superior over the majority of the game.

You will find that in every game. Thats not something which can be fixed easily. But it is still better as having an entire faction that is quite superior over the majority of the game which can also do lists that make them even better.

[Auticus]

I see it as the same thing really.

Its roughly the same number of builds in either game. You see the same percentage of the game (not much). It sucks the life right out of it for me.

[Path Walker]

Boring netlisters refuse to admit that they're the problem with the game.

Easy fix for that, if you rock up to a game and someone pulls out the dull copy pasted list, tell them they've won and go play someone else, if everyone does that, that will stop them, the netlist robots will just play with themselves in a masturbatory circle of abject misery.

[Auticus]

While true in that the netlisters derive from tournament play - the issue is that tournament style gaming is a hugely popular thing with gamers of this age so these types of lists are common to show up. In some places, most of your community is doing this so you lose out on getting to play if you reject the game.

[Mr Mystery]

I have an extensive X-Wing collection. As of tomorrow afternoon, I'll have at least one of everything.

Just like 40k, it's not particularly well balanced. Some ships (TIE Advanced) are just bobbins, whilst other ships (TIE Defender) are cracking value.

And just like 40k, when someone puts their win over mutual enjoyment of the game, it sucks all the fun right out of it.

Trouble here is that any given games producer has a finite period of play testing, else nothing would get released ever. So they do the best they can. Then comes the release. And with the release? In the first week alone, untold thousands of hours of gaming, which shows up flaws stupidly quickly.

There are two games which spring to mind where it's all down to player skill. Those would be Chess and Chequers, which is great for serious competition play, as he who makes the fewest mistakes wins. But if you're starting out, it depends on having someone willing to lower their game to coach you closer to your level, or another newcomer.

The joy of hobby war games is that anyone can win any game. The dice will see to that, and we've all been on the wrong side of Rubber Lance Syndrome.

If you want a competitive play based war game, then don't play 40k. It's not what it was designed for. You might as well complain that despite all being limbs, your legs can't carry stuff, and your arms are no good for running.

GW, whatever you think of their choice, have designed games meant for narrative game, where the chance of cinematic style nonsense is welcomed.

[40kGamer]

I have an extensive X-Wing collection. As of tomorrow afternoon, I'll have at least one of everything.

Lucky Git! i'm waiting on the wave 1 ships to be restocked before I join you.


Just like 40k, it's not particularly well balanced. Some ships (TIE Advanced) are just bobbins, whilst other ships (TIE Defender) are cracking value.

True. All you have to do is go to youtube and search the X-Wing national tournament to find out that top competitive players calculate the meta each year and take specific ship combos that are very much of the moment.


And just like 40k, when someone puts their win over mutual enjoyment of the game, it sucks all the fun right out of it.

Also true.


Trouble here is that any given games producer has a finite period of play testing, else nothing would get released ever. So they do the best they can. Then comes the release. And with the release? In the first week alone, untold thousands of hours of gaming, which shows up flaws stupidly quickly.

There are two games which spring to mind where it's all down to player skill. Those would be Chess and Chequers, which is great for serious competition play, as he who makes the fewest mistakes wins. But if you're starting out, it depends on having someone willing to lower their game to coach you closer to your level, or another newcomer.

The joy of hobby war games is that anyone can win any game. The dice will see to that, and we've all been on the wrong side of Rubber Lance Syndrome.

If you want a competitive play based war game, then don't play 40k. It's not what it was designed for. You might as well complain that despite all being limbs, your legs can't carry stuff, and your arms are no good for running.

GW, whatever you think of their choice, have designed games meant for narrative game, where the chance of cinematic style nonsense is welcomed.

Same conclusion I've came to. Since I chucked caring about the rules and changed my gaming circle to total fluff bunnies I've really enjoyed playing more than I have in years. When everyone is taking cute and fuzzy armies you suddenly find that most (but not all) units are playable.

[Auticus]

I definitely agree with you. I've been pushing the narrative for years - thats where the game operates the best at.

Its just very difficult today in regards to people in general just want to optimize and its difficult to do anything but show up with netlists vs netlists belly slapping each other. Maybe it always has been and I've just hit the last few miles before I put it up.

[daboarder]

Boring netlisters refuse to admit that they're the problem with the game.

Easy fix for that, if you rock up to a game and someone pulls out the dull copy pasted list, tell them they've won and go play someone else, if everyone does that, that will stop them, the netlist robots will just play with themselves in a masturbatory circle of abject misery.

you get a lot of games that way? what about the dude whose had the army for a decade as it was dragged through the mud and then it hits the jackpot when GW do a new codex? furthermore, who are YOU to determine what others deem fun? they may be expecting you to bring your A game and give them a tight much and finally none of that changes that fact that its poor game design which puts both players in that position in the first place

[40kGamer]

I definitely agree with you. I've been pushing the narrative for years - thats where the game operates the best at.

Its just very difficult today in regards to people in general just want to optimize and its difficult to do anything but show up with netlists vs netlists belly slapping each other. Maybe it always has been and I've just hit the last few miles before I put it up.

I've seen otherwise fluffy folks fall into the power building just because they are tired of getting tabled every game. It's like some crazy arms race with toy soldiers. Ah well, I'm back to beer and basements and not caring about list optimization... now bring on the weirdness and I'll be very happy. Arbites vs Genestealer cult would be an absolute blast! :)

[daboarder]

I have an extensive X-Wing collection. As of tomorrow afternoon, I'll have at least one of everything.

Just like 40k, it's not particularly well balanced. Some ships (TIE Advanced) are just bobbins, whilst other ships (TIE Defender) are cracking value.

And just like 40k, when someone puts their win over mutual enjoyment of the game, it sucks all the fun right out of it.

Trouble here is that any given games producer has a finite period of play testing, else nothing would get released ever. So they do the best they can. Then comes the release. And with the release? In the first week alone, untold thousands of hours of gaming, which shows up flaws stupidly quickly.

There are two games which spring to mind where it's all down to player skill. Those would be Chess and Chequers, which is great for serious competition play, as he who makes the fewest mistakes wins. But if you're starting out, it depends on having someone willing to lower their game to coach you closer to your level, or another newcomer.

The joy of hobby war games is that anyone can win any game. The dice will see to that, and we've all been on the wrong side of Rubber Lance Syndrome.

If you want a competitive play based war game, then don't play 40k. It's not what it was designed for. You might as well complain that despite all being limbs, your legs can't carry stuff, and your arms are no good for running.

GW, whatever you think of their choice, have designed games meant for narrative game, where the chance of cinematic style nonsense is welcomed.

while this is all fair and solid points (except the narrative part, GWs 7th ed is not particularly narrative what with the random glut and candyland objectives) none of that means 40k is a well designed game and all of it serves to support the statement that 7th is much less competitive than 5th, which is what the OP asked.

- - - Updated - - -


It's like some crazy arms race with toy soldiers. Ah well, I'm back to beer and basements and not caring about list optimization...

the skeptic in me says: thats kinda the point right, I mean its the weapons manufacturers who make money in an arms race

[40kGamer]

the skeptic in me says: thats kinda the point right, I mean its the weapons manufacturers who make money in an arms race

Quite true. That's why I've always thought new releases were intentionally unbalanced to pimp sales.

[daboarder]

Quite true. That's why I've always thought new releases were intentionally unbalanced to pimp sales.

they aren't awlays, there are doxens od new kits with very lack luster rules.

Its more telling that staples from decades ago which have been bought buy the bucket load tend to eventually become steadily worse in terms of the game as time goes on without ever getting a boost.

This is most evident in Khorne bezerkers, Holwing banshees and Genestealers, three units that ever faction member owned bucket loads of and are unlikely to be top of the pile again because then GW cant shift new kits. (at least thats their thinking on it according to harry)

[Mr Mystery]

Yet it's a moot point.

Is the latest Ford Focus model less capable of racing in F1 than the 2001 model? Who cares, it's a family car, and anyone expecting it to be up to F1 is barking up the wrong tree.

Same with 40k. People are complaining it doesn't do something it wasn't really designed for.

Overall, given the sheer variety it's amazing there is any kind of balance at all. There's a lot of variety within a single codex. And the higher the points you play, the more that variety opens up, adding to the possible permutations. Then add in the number of armies in the game. It's a hell of a lot of permutations, and no amount of play testing, provided you'd want to get it on the shelf at some point, is going to be able to run every possible combination.

[daboarder]

Yet it's a moot point.

Is the latest Ford Focus model less capable of racing in F1 than the 2001 model? Who cares, it's a family car, and anyone expecting it to be up to F1 is barking up the wrong tree.

Same with 40k. People are complaining it doesn't do something it wasn't really designed for.

Overall, given the sheer variety it's amazing there is any kind of balance at all. There's a lot of variety within a single codex. And the higher the points you play, the more that variety opens up, adding to the possible permutations. Then add in the number of armies in the game. It's a hell of a lot of permutations, and no amount of play testing, provided you'd want to get it on the shelf at some point, is going to be able to run every possible combination.

I disagree, solid consistent and balanced game design helps both competitive and narrative gamers alike. it fosters a larger community meaning that not only do you have more people to play against but there are more thoughts, variations and projects bouncing around the community to immerse yourself in. It means that you can shift from a narrative game to the occasional competitive match easily without being at a significant disadvantage because of your collection and it means that it is easy to encourage new players. Finally from a business perspective it means that you can sell your entire product line effectively and increase your market dramatically

[40kGamer]

I disagree, solid consistent and balanced game design helps both competitive and narrative gamers alike. it fosters a larger community meaning that not only do you have more people to play against but there are more thoughts, variations and projects bouncing around the community to immerse yourself in. It means that you can shift from a narrative game to the occasional competitive match easily without being at a significant disadvantage because of your collection and it means that it is easy to encourage new players. Finally from a business perspective it means that you can sell your entire product line effectively and increase your market dramatically

I completely agree with this line of thinking but I don't believe GW has any desire to use this as their business model. Especially with their whole models over games stance.

[Charon]

I definitely agree with you. I've been pushing the narrative for years - thats where the game operates the best at.

A perfect example of this is the Eldar Codex.
What do we see in the fluff? Lots of small Aspect Squads in Serpents. Serpent Spam IS a fluff list regarding Black Library Books.

Even at this level there is no balace at all. The faction with the "better fluff" just creates more powerful lists as a byproduct of narrative gaming.

[Eldar_Atog]

It's always been odd to me that some fluff gamers rail against game balance so much. Good rules and balanced point costs benefit everyone but the rules lawyers. How can this be a bad thing?

[40kGamer]

It's always been odd to me that some fluff gamers rail against game balance so much. Good rules and balanced point costs benefit everyone but the rules lawyers. How can this be a bad thing?

For some reason it's viewed as not worth the effort by our pals at corporate. I'm thinking they threw their hands up and proclaimed it impractical so they wouldn't have to invest $ in it. Well structured rules must have a very low ROI in their data analysis.

[Mr Mystery]

I think it's more that those gaming for spectacle are less invested in the overall outcome.

I can only speak for myself, but whilst I enjoy a win as much as the next nerd, as long as I feel I gave a good account of myself, I'll still enjoy the game I just played.

All games have their idiots who take the competitive angle far, far too seriously. X-Wing has Fortressing, where you perform no manoeuvres, let alone manoeuvres of spectacular cunning. You just park up from the outset, with a near 360 fire arc from your ships. How bloody boring must that be to fight? You've taken a pretty simplistic rules set (there's really very little to the rules), and you've managed to break it, because winning means that much to you.

I'm not terribly familiar with other games, but I suspect the same kind of idiocy can be done.

GW rules are arguably more open to abuse, but the cause and effect is the same. One player puts their precious win record over and above all else, making the game piss poor lame for their opponent. As a company, they've made the design choice to have as open a system as they can manage. Unbound, Allies, Random Charts - these are not decisions made when you're designing a game intended for strict play.

Another common factor used to bash GW rule sets? How long a game takes to play. What a bogus argument. It's a hobby game. When my mates and I get together for a Heresy game, it's played out over an evening, at a relaxed pace. That is how the designers designed it. Tournaments apparently require three or four games a day. So by introducing a time limit, you straight away shift what is going to work. Massive hordes of infantry? Probably not. Smallish squads in transports, perhaps half a dozen composite units to your army? Yeah, less to move, more effective dice rolling.

[daboarder]

For some reason it's viewed as not worth the effort by our pals at corporate. I'm thinking they threw their hands up and proclaimed it impractical so they wouldn't have to invest $ in it. Well structured rules must have a very low ROI in their data analysis.

well Gw doesn't do market analysis, so that would likely be a byproduct of that

[eosgreen]

my most enjoyable games have been, for me, my crappy list of "units i thought were cool" vs my friends army of "whatever he thought was cool". i also tend to find hyper competitive tabletop gamers to be obnoxious more than anything else

in terms of competitive gaming heres my take from someone whos done this for a while with massive success and then kinda grew to hate it with a bit of reserve left in me.

- competitive people sometimes have a hard time enjoying humble things or doing things "poorly". When i play certain video games i cant help but get slightly annoyed when i just rofl stomp everyone around me. It isn't fun (for me some ppl like this... losers imo) to destroy someone. when you show up for a game with the "fun list" and the "good list" ****s on you, im sure it wasnt fun for anyone since you never got to "do the fun lists gimic/thing/use the damn thing" and he was just rolling dice and making obvious decisions to slaughter you

That being said since this game has dice and no way of balancing it in a million years, i personally don't think its even fit for competition. calculated risk is fine but sometimes one dice roll can cost you a game and for me any dice rolling is ****ty (again just for me) let alone you must work within the confines of your list/army (tho with allies isnt that kinda "fixed")

arent tabletop competitive gamers just the same brand of person who competes in sports or anything else? you have an ego and a drive for competition. no one gets mad at baseball or basketball players who "do the same moves" as the pros?

[40kGamer]

well Gw doesn't do market analysis, so that would likely be a byproduct of that

I wonder if their ROI data is more based on top management's feelings rather than an analytical process.

- - - Updated - - -


That being said since this game has dice and no way of balancing it in a million years, i personally don't think its even fit for competition. calculated risk is fine but sometimes one dice roll can cost you a game and for me any dice rolling is ****ty (again just for me) let alone you must work within the confines of your list/army (tho with allies isnt that kinda "fixed")

While dice insert an element of 'luck' into the game you can absolutely balance things through probabilities and expected outcomes. At the end of the day the dice may hand you a beating or a victory but the probability of the outcomes can be evened out in the statistical world if not the real one.

[daboarder]

I wonder if their ROI data is more based on top management's feelings rather than an analytical process.

I dont know specifics, but based on Kirby's statements then yes I think its entirely based on upper management. In fact from the sounds of it GW suffers drastically from over fiddly upper management who could really learn how to delegate and not sweat the small stuff (like eddy)

[40kGamer]

Math and statistics lives at the core of any rules balance debate which may explain why it is impractical for creative people to achieve. Good or bad it's typically not in their wheelhouse.

http://blog.aimsedu.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Grumpy-Cat.jpg

[Charon]

my most enjoyable games have been, for me, my crappy list of "units i thought were cool" vs my friends army of "whatever he thought was cool".

Tell that a friend of mine.
He loves Dreads and he loves his Terminators. Another friend of mine loves his Executioners and Knights.
Battles tend to be so one-sided that it is neiter enjoyable to play or to watch just because some "cool" units are way better than other "cool" units.

[40kGamer]

Tell that a friend of mine.
He loves Dreads and he loves his Terminators. Another friend of mine loves his Executioners and Knights.
Battles tend to be so one-sided that it is neiter enjoyable to play or to watch just because some "cool" units are way better than other "cool" units.

Hence the inherent math and statistical probabilities behind those builds. Some match ups are so one sided in probable outcomes that the game was really decided in the list building phase.

[eosgreen]

except we are not rolling equal dice. some races have more dice/dif types of dice effects and this further makes it impossible imo for it to ever be taken seriously. i think people would enjoy the game more (again i think this) trying to win with a NEW list. i always derive the most enjoyment being theunderdog and outthinking rather than doing the same thing better. the problem is with some codex, there just are not any good options
I wonder if their ROI data is more based on top management's feelings rather than an analytical process.

- - - Updated - - -



While dice insert an element of 'luck' into the game you can absolutely balance things through probabilities and expected outcomes. At the end of the day the dice may hand you a beating or a victory but the probability of the outcomes can be evened out in the statistical world if not the real one.

[Defenestratus]

Clearly the end times are upon us.

My mother posted to Google+ today, and I'm agreeing with all of what Mr Mystery is saying in this thread.

I'll be back in a bit, need to stock up on canned goods and insulin.

[daboarder]

except we are not rolling equal dice. some races have more dice/dif types of dice effects and this further makes it impossible imo for it to ever be taken seriously. i think people would enjoy the game more (again i think this) trying to win with a NEW list. i always derive the most enjoyment being theunderdog and outthinking rather than doing the same thing better. the problem is with some codex, there just are not any good options

Its still fairly trivial to plot the statistical variance of a system that inherently relies of the numbers 1-10 and the roll of 6 sided dice.

Especially in this day and age with our computing power

[40kGamer]

Its still fairly trivial to plot the statistical variance of a system that inherently relies of the numbers 1-10 and the roll of 6 sided dice.

Especially in this day and age with our computing power

Absolutely. If the mathematical and statistical models were properly built into the game they would be transparent. (Meaning that none of us would notice that they were even there because they were so well done.) The problem with the current situation is the mathematical modeling behind the game is so poorly conceived (unbalanced) that even the lay gamer can work out mathematically optimal builds. Leading to the fact that most games are won in the list building phase and the actual tabletop spectacle is a sideshow instead of the main event. Would it be easy to map all the math and statistics behind all of the probable matchups and situations... Nope. Is it possible? Sure.

- - - Updated - - -


I dont know specifics, but based on Kirby's statements then yes I think its entirely based on upper management. In fact from the sounds of it GW suffers drastically from over fiddly upper management who could really learn how to delegate and not sweat the small stuff (like eddy)

Ah well... Feelings override analytics in most small to medium sized companies and a lot of owner-managers in these sized firms micromanage staff and processes. It's one reason so many businesses ultimately fail or stagnate.

[eosgreen]

Its still fairly trivial to plot the statistical variance of a system that inherently relies of the numbers 1-10 and the roll of 6 sided dice.

Especially in this day and age with our computing power

this doesnt change the fact that you can do everything right and still lose to a dice roll. doesnt matter if 10 other games go in your favor. rng/calculated risk, a game where both armys are not at all equal in any way shape or form should not be taken seriously.

does a tennis player score a point but then someone rolls a 6 so it doesnt count? does a football team say well this play should work but then they roll a 1 and instead of a touchdown its an interception? no, its a point if he earns it with hard work and talent ALONE and its a touchdown if someone displays more skill than the other team. on a warhammer board you can get bad terrain since both sides have no symmetry for your style army, bad dice rolls to determine when units arrive and all of these things can be calculated until the one time they fail. "what are the chances of them hitting that.... oh ****" and then you are REALLY behind or lose.

too much luck. tabletop games should be for fun only and its frankly sickening to see people take this and games like magic cards seriously

[Charon]

this doesnt change the fact that you can do everything right and still lose to a dice roll.

If this happens, you made a whole lot of mistakes on the way. You will never ever lose because of "one dice roll". This is in fact the only thing they did right. Players can always blame the dice so they do not have to admit that they made lots of mistakes.


does a tennis player score a point but then someone rolls a 6 so it doesnt count? does a football team say well this play should work but then they roll a 1 and instead of a touchdown its an interception? no, its a point if he earns it with hard work and talent ALONE and its a touchdown if someone displays more skill than the other team.

According to your logic no sport should ever be taken serious as there is a chance of rain, slipping, injury,... just like... a dice roll...


too much luck. tabletop games should be for fun only and its frankly sickening to see people take this and games like magic cards seriously

thats why people try to minimize "bad luck" by moving smart, targeting smart and setting up the game in a smart way. If you can't do that you can call it luck all day but it is the same people who end up in top spots. Lucky every time?
I think its more sickening seeing people wanting to dictatace other people how they should have fun.

[daboarder]

this doesnt change the fact that you can do everything right and still lose to a dice roll. doesnt matter if 10 other games go in your favor. rng/calculated risk, a game where both armys are not at all equal in any way shape or form should not be taken seriously.

does a tennis player score a point but then someone rolls a 6 so it doesnt count? does a football team say well this play should work but then they roll a 1 and instead of a touchdown its an interception? no, its a point if he earns it with hard work and talent ALONE and its a touchdown if someone displays more skill than the other team. on a warhammer board you can get bad terrain since both sides have no symmetry for your style army, bad dice rolls to determine when units arrive and all of these things can be calculated until the one time they fail. "what are the chances of them hitting that.... oh ****" and then you are REALLY behind or lose.

too much luck. tabletop games should be for fun only and its frankly sickening to see people take this and games like magic cards seriously

Im not sure you under the point of statistics.

Sure you can roll 12 ones with 12 dice. But you'll only do that every million or more rolls....thats the point. The skill and competitive edge as a player is to minimize the variance in outcomes through your tactical choices. The thing that makes GW poorly designed is that the units you take often dominates this variance over the actions you take. Or the statistical variance is boorked.

[40kGamer]

Im not sure you under the point of statistics.

Sure you can roll 12 ones with 12 dice. But you'll only do that every million or more rolls....thats the point. The skill and competitive edge as a player is to minimize the variance in outcomes through your tactical choices. The thing that makes GW poorly designed is that the units you take often dominates this variance over the actions you take. Or the statistical variance is boorked.

Indeed. The comparative values of units is a complete crap shot rather than a calculated value. That's why you can't have functional pick up games or events and why I have relegated 40k to a beer in the basement devil may care game.

[eosgreen]

both players are playing with the same rain. both players dont have symmetrical or even reverse symmetrical terrain features. add in the fact that the objectives are randomized, some armys are better than others at securing them just by design.

also the same players are winning with the same lists but i know for a fact far far inferior players have knocked out top players from tournys. this just doesnt happen in sports nearly as often and why is that? rng. i can beat 2 of my friends in basketball because i played it my entire life. i worked out with a trainer and had better coordination. i can win 100/100 games 2v1. that cant be done in warhammer even 1v1 because you are going to get bad luck in many of the games and lets not even talk about teams who enter tournys with guys who run armys to DENY you points rofl.

im not saying people cant have fun being competitive but taking a game like warhammer seriously is funny because you are pigeonholed into choosing a predetermined style. show me someone running eldar without wave serpents winning tournys (not local crappy ones)

thats just 40k have any of you rolled 5 turns of HORRIBLE winds of magic in fantasy when you are heavily reliant on magic and then MISSCAST the only decent turn you got? sorry but that kinda bad luck completely happens and illegitimizes any competitive drive a pureist could have

skill shouldnt be about playing well, moving well, making good decisions and then hoping the dice rolls support your decisionmaking.

300 thousand people watch hearthstone a card game online which awards 100thousand dollars to the winner and numerous smaller tournys during the year. ITS VERY SIMPLE and the decisionmaking process is very very easy but its considered an "esport". i equate warhammer and all tabletop games to this cardgame in that its competitive because people are competitive not because its worthy of competition.

TLDR

- both sides need identical deployment zones
- the game could only be competitive if it was balanced around ONE mission so certain armys dont have an adv and book balance can have a goal to shoot for

without at LEAST these two features there is no way warhammer should be ever taken seriously. (again we are talking taking it seriously not just enjoying competition. im talking the guys who REALLY care about the win and the win only)

[40kGamer]

both players are playing with the same rain. both players dont have symmetrical or even reverse symmetrical terrain features. add in the fact that the objectives are randomized, some armys are better than others at securing them just by design. )
Balanced game design does not depend on symmetry. You can have asymmetrical game play while maintaining reasonably fair probability distributions for the outcomes.


im not saying people cant have fun being competitive but taking a game like warhammer seriously is funny because you are pigeonholed into choosing a predetermined style. show me someone running eldar without wave serpents winning tournys (not local crappy ones)

*This* is exactly the problem I am referring to with the game design. It is a direct result of a spitball approach to point values. An Eldar player feeling compelled to take Serpent spam to be ‘competitive’ is a glaring flaw in the game design as a foot army should have an equal probability of success.


Skill shouldnt be about playing well, moving well, making good decisions and then hoping the dice rolls support your decisionmaking.

The dice insert the random event factor. The skill is in min/maxing your probability of success through your decisions. However those decisions should be on the table decisions NOT list building decisions. The fact that the game is easily decided in the list building phase is a direct result of nonrepresentative point values.


- both sides need identical deployment zones
- the game could only be competitive if it was balanced around ONE mission so certain armys dont have an adv and book balance can have a goal to shoot for

without at LEAST these two features there is no way warhammer should be ever taken seriously. (again we are talking taking it seriously not just enjoying competition. im talking the guys who REALLY care about the win and the win only)

Nope and nope. To be mathematically balanced both sides would need an equal distribution of similar (not exact) terrain features as that assumption would factor into the comparative points values algorithm. Variable missions could also be factored into the algorithm as well.

Also no one should confuse the complexity of a comparative point value algorithm with its impossibility. The math very much exists, it is just not being utilized.

[eosgreen]

Balanced game design does not depend on symmetry. You can have asymmetrical game play while maintaining reasonably fair probability distributions for the outcomes.



*This* is exactly the problem I am referring to with the game design. It is a direct result of a spitball approach to point values. An Eldar player feeling compelled to take Serpent spam to be ‘competitive’ is a glaring flaw in the game design as a foot army should have an equal probability of success.



The dice insert the random event factor. The skill is in min/maxing your probability of success through your decisions. However those decisions should be on the table decisions NOT list building decisions. The fact that the game is easily decided in the list building phase is a direct result of nonrepresentative point values.



Nope and nope. To be mathematically balanced both sides would need an equal distribution of similar (not exact) terrain features as that assumption would factor into the comparative points values algorithm. Variable missions could also be factored into the algorithm as well.

Also no one should confuse the complexity of a comparative point value algorithm with its impossibility. The math very much exists, it is just not being utilized.

so you are saying a game with 10+ armies can have an even battle when one side is a shooty army and the other side is a combat army but the terrain heavily favors one side? oh ok

im aware it doesnt have to all be the same for there to be balance. im very competitive with sc2 and each race (at one point...) was strong early late and mid game and it is "balanced" the dif is warhammer has nothing to make up for the flaws. in sc2 a terran player of a low level is garbage compared to a protoss because of the requirement in speed. assuming you made good decisions nothing can makeup for the fact that you got screwed over with terran or missions lol

[40kGamer]

so you are saying a game with 10+ armies can have an even battle when one side is a shooty army and the other side is a combat army but the terrain heavily favors one side? oh ok

Absolutely, if the PV of the models were created from a systematic, comparable probability model. Also if you follow the terrain setup from the rules there is no reason the terrain should favor either army. Terrain should be one of the more neutral aspects of the game.

[CoffeeGrunt]

also the same players are winning with the same lists but i know for a fact far far inferior players have knocked out top players from tournys. this just doesnt happen in sports nearly as often and why is that?

Despite inferior teams occasionally beating better teams in games, to much ecstatic laughter.

[Auticus]

Take the players winning often and give them a balanced army instead of an OTT list and see how well they fare :) I know from my own experience that the answer is often that that player suddenly doesn't win as much anymore. There are a few genuinely gifted individuals who can win with anything, but most of us (myself included) when our crutches are taken away aren't really as good as we think we are.

[40kGamer]

Take the players winning often and give them a balanced army instead of an OTT list and see how well they fare :) I know from my own experience that the answer is often that that player suddenly doesn't win as much anymore. There are a few genuinely gifted individuals who can win with anything, but most of us (myself included) when our crutches are taken away aren't really as good as we think we are.

Another tactic that works well when someone is riding the wave of an evil build is to run a hard counter to their list of choice or if none exists run a 'mirror list'.

[Charon]

Take the players winning often and give them a balanced army instead of an OTT list and see how well they fare I know from my own experience that the answer is often that that player suddenly doesn't win as much anymore.

In a tourney where everyone runs OTT lists or in "normal" games?

In the first case this would not proof anything as you would just handicap the player and in the second case the better player would still win.

[Auticus]

The assertion is that a good player should always win against a less skilled player despite lists.

I've seen with my own eyes many many times that that is not true.

In a tourney where everyone runs the same 2-3 powerbuilds, the "good player" that was winning with one of the 2-3 powerbuilds will typically get shredded if he shows up with a non power build.

In a normal game it will depend on the players involved and the lists involved... but I've seen a great many tournaemnt champion players that can't do well at the game if they aren't fielding one of the 2-3 power builds of the era.

Obviously this cannot apply to every player, but i've seen it enough to know that its fairly common enough scenario to apply to many players.

In 40k, the list is more times than not the true driver to who wins, which is one of 40k's biggest faults as a game.

[40kGamer]

In 40k, the list is more times than not the true driver to who wins, which is one of 40k's biggest faults as a game.

http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2012/258/9/c/twilight_sparkle_yes__yes__yes__2_by_darkheromatiz-d5esgrn.png

[CoffeeGrunt]

Clip's more accurate. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpgy21r_dRE)

[40kGamer]

Clip's more accurate. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpgy21r_dRE)

Brilliant!

[Auticus]

This, incidently, is why 40k is in my strong opinion never been a proper "competitive" game, because player skill is very much ancillary. Some skill has been needed sure, but in every edition I have ever played from 3rd to now the lists have been the primary factor in most every game I have seen or played in.

[StingrayP226]

Brilliant!

Sorry but you really need to go with the original:

Yes, YES! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3ALwKeSEYs)

[Charon]

The assertion is that a good player should always win against a less skilled player despite lists.

Wrong assumption in m opinion. If the skill gap is not extremely huge, this will work nearly nowhere. Look at F1 for example. The best combination of Car + Driver usually wins.
You can't just go and say "if he was a really good driver he would win F1 even with a VW Beetle." Doesn't work like this.

But I do agree that the list is too important thus my rants against GWs incompetent internal and external balance.

[StingrayP226]

Wrong assumption in m opinion. If the skill gap is not extremely huge, this will work nearly nowhere. Look at F1 for example. The best combination of Car + Driver usually wins.
You can't just go and say "if he was a really good driver he would win F1 even with a VW Beetle." Doesn't work like this.

But I do agree that the list is too important thus my rants against GWs incompetent internal and external balance.

Problem is GW honestly doesn't care that much... that is why they beat the "It's a for fun game." In translation they are saying "We do not care about making the game well balanced." Same reason Catalyst says "Battletech is a Board Game" they don't want to make sure the quality of their rules (GW) or miniatures (CGL/IWM) are at their best.

The worse part is that GW makes you pay stupid prices for a rule book/faction in a game that has less than stellar game rules. So basically pay premium prices for subpar work. Ok that is not completely true as the art in the books is usually great! Mean while other systems that are much more balanced and spend extra time (and thus money) trying to balance their games have books that cost the same as a single GW faction book, or heck hand out rules for free!

Often I wonder how GW stays on top with such glaring issues that they admit they never care to fix. Granted balancing 40k would be a massive chore and effort. You would need to rework ALL the factions in rapid session using one as a base line (Marines likely). Though its possible... play tester wise just let volunteers in but still need to hire/get a ring leader so it doesn't become complete chaos.