Stop Your Whinging!

[Lord Manton]

Alright, engage rant.

I am so f***ing sick of hearing people trot out the same c**p. You can't go a day without someone b****ing about how X army is broken or Y army hasn't been updated in years or the whole game is completely useless and not playable (though the fact that the vast majority of gamers play this game would suggest it is). It's not balanced, it doesn't match the fluff, it's not designed for tournaments, there aren't enough FAQs, it's not playtested or it's not realistic.

Shut up! Enough already. We live in the age of the internet. You can open your computer, tap a keyboard, leave a semi-coherent thought on a forum and engage with someone all the way on the other side of the world. The beauty of this is that we are able to engage with people who share our passions and interests that we may never have known even existed otherwise.

What's my point? Am I just going to b***h about b****ing? No. What I am going to do is offer a solution. The other day on Faeit212, there was a response from GW about round bases in WHFB. The gist of the response was "we have your money, do whatever you want with the models". Now, obviously they mean in the sense of basing them however we want. BUT, the next day, Mantic came out and said "hey, you've got a sweet Fantasy army, why not play it using our rules?"

This begs the question: why don't we just come up with our own rules? I'll admit guilt here. I, like most of you, am too busy and too lazy to write my own rules system. But I'm also big enough to admit that I'm in no way qualified or gifted enough to write an all encompassing and coherent rule set for a game. But I remember before Forgeworld released Legion rules and the Horus Heresy supplement, BoLS did it first. Sadly, I never got the chance to play it, but by all accounts it was a heap of fun. Surely one of us, or a select group of us are interested and skilled enough to do this. Call it Fight-Weapon 40million and put it out there. Make a dedicated forum and when people pi$$ and moan on it, ask them why they don't like it and try to find a way to fix it.

At the end of the day, GW want to be just a model company, they're not interested in creating a rule set that accurately reflects the game while also being a truly balanced and competition ready game. That's fine. Let's take that in our stride and get cracking on a sweet new game that lets us use some of the best miniatures available in a game that satisfies our urge to beat face.

Fluff bunnies can stick to 40k official, and even the hardcores will still play it for funsies from time to time.

It's just a thought. Any ideas?

End rant.

[ShadowcatX]

"Give up the game you love to use house rules" is not an acceptable solution to "I wish this game was balanced".

[Charon]

At the end of the day, GW want to be just a model company, they're not interested in creating a rule set that accurately reflects the game while also being a truly balanced and competition ready game.

then maybe they should stop selling "rules" for nearly 50 € ?
Let them be a pure model company and see how many people still buy their models when there are no rules at all.
Or *shock* give away their "rules" for free? On the other side... they can't even be arsed to put up FAQs on a regular base.

The problem with home brew rules is (while some are really good), they are not accepted/known everywhere.
If I want to pick up a game of 40k right now, I can go to a club, FLGS,... and play with a ruleset everybody that owns 40k knows.
If I want to play against you, bring my army and tell you "I have created my army by Jims awesome Warhamster 39 + 1 Millenimum ruleset v1.4" you will probably have no idea what I am talking about.
Also, only a few players bother to use forums.

[Mr Mystery]

Or you should not pay for a game you don't enjoy, and instead invest those funds in something you do enjoy.

I'm with the OP. Many people have grumbles and issues with the game - that's human nature. But when you drop into a thread only to find the Droop Group once again trotting out the same old whinges, it gets old fast.

[Psychosplodge]

Isn't saying "Why don't we just create our own rules because X is broken" still *****ing about the rules?

[Kirsten]

the game is balanced. any faction can beat any other. if you can't, then you suck, not the rules.

[Mr Mystery]

Isn't saying "Why don't we just create our own rules because X is broken" still *****ing about the rules?

Not really. Serial whining is circular, and just goes on and on and on - hence it gets tiresome.

Those who chip in with 'Rule A really doesn't work for me, so my friends and I adapted it to Rule A1, a house rule'. That's constructive, and gives path to further discussion and chit chat.

Consider how many 'OMG NEW TOY' threads have been derailed not by the Horsemen, but by those lamenting the state of their own army. Sucks all the joy out of it, because they just won't leave it.

It's not a case of not empathising or sympathising - it's just we've heard it all before, so why keep going on about it? We're not GW. We have no control over what comes and when. The game does have some issues, but the way some of the complaints come over, you'd think it's part of a carefully targeted campaign by GW to annoy certain people for reasons best known to themselves.

[CoffeeGrunt]

The annoying part is when said whining bleeds into the local store, and a group that was otherwise enjoying 40K despite its flaws gets filled up by the negativity of a relative few and slowly drop out of it. We ended up having to ban b**ching about other games. (I was guilty of it as well towards WarmaHordes, a game that simply doesn't scratch my itch, and was mainly pushed on me repeatedly over the course of a few months by ex 40K players.)

Personally I don't like tournament play or metagaming or anything like that. Most of my games are organised in advance with a friend, we give each other a heads-up on what we're taking, and the games end up going pretty well as a result. So if I'm bringing a horde of Russes or a buffed-up Bullgryn blob, then I'll give my opponents a heads-up. In turn, I'll know whether my friend is bringing his Eldar or Orks that day, and whether the Stompa will make an appearance or not.

I dunno, 40K has been impossible to replace for me, there's no game I've tried that really captures the scale, customisation and lore. I'm getting into Bolt Action with a Soviet army, but that's going to be a very different game I'll play when I feel like it. I don't think I'll ever get sick of playing my Guard atm, as the Codex has a decent enough variety of builds that it keeps me occupied for the one or two games I play each week.

Not to mention I would much rather build and paint any GW model than assemble another Legion of Everblgiht starter box...

[Erik Setzer]

The rule set isn't balanced, but more than that, there's parts of it that are an utter mess, and it seems the only reason they keep changing are to make sure people stop using the models they have and buy new ones. Orks had all their serious close combat ability stripped - the loss of choppas (their best way to get through armor) and invulnerable saves in combat being key issues - and now it's better to go shooty with even Orks (ditto for Tyranids). Long-time players who massed up figures they never assembled (like me) aren't too bad off, because we can just pull out the unassembled models to build a new army. Other players just have to go and replace their models.

You can't deny that problem exists when people complain about how useless their Howling Banshees are. Meanwhile, Thunderwolf Cavalry are obnoxiously good. And that's supposed to be the fault of the players, and the players suck, rather than a legitimate complaint? I could go on and on.

Yeah, sure, some people get carried away. But those of you who want to silence others and bury your head in the sand and claim nothing is wrong, especially when they keep jacking up the price for the rules (and you defend the price of the rules, too), are actually worse. The "answer" eventually becomes "Leave the hobby! I don't care how much you've already spent! Go away and shut up!" And you know what? A lot of people are obliging you. Which is why GW's revenues dropped last year despite releasing a bunch of expensive stuff, including a new rules set for their flagship game, which in and of itself should have been a sales boost. Worse for us gamers, we have fewer people to play against, as they depart for other games.

And let's nip this claim that "GW wants to be a model company" as an excuse. First off, the fact they're shoving out so many rulebooks suddenly, and the pricing being so high on all these codices, rulebooks, campaigns, etc., is proof that the rules are an important part of their money-making strategy (see the early release of 7th edition for some much needed cash). But more importantly, they know they need a good set of rules to sell models, something they say very specifically on their investor relations site. Without rules, who's going to stick around buying overpriced models, especially in the numbers people buy them? Not nearly enough for GW to run a profit. This is evidenced as well by WFB being blown up and replaced with a new edition aimed at drawing people back into the game. It's no coincidence that fewer WFB players has equaled fewer WFB model sales. Similarly, the lack of people playing LOTR is why GW wants to get rid of it. The models have included some of the best GW's done, and yet they aren't selling. But if people buy models in a vacuum, they'd sell, right? Oh, except you need a reason for people to buy the models other than "they look nice." And if you're going to try to make them unique to "protect the IP" (with 40K and WFB), then they aren't so usable with D&D and all (ironic, considering how GW started), so, again, you need to have your own rules to even be able to sell the models. And those rules have to be good enough to grab people's interest and keep it. And if you're having issues with people finding insane combos and certain armies dominating in the competitive scene and all, it starts making it harder to move the other armies and units, which in turn presents a problem for Games Workshop's bottom line as well... hence the need to redo the codices at times (though, rather than balancing things out, they tend to swing the pendulum the other way, which they assume will get people to pick up models they don't already have to replace, not use alongside, the models they already have... sometimes they're worse at swinging that pendulum than Blizzard is, and Blizzard can be really bad at it when they try).

[Mr Mystery]

Dude.

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting the game is flaw free - there are issues.

But, I for one don't particularly care, because that's just the nature of the beast. Those who go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it strike me as the sort who will buy a second hand car, and then complain it hasn't got all the latest bells and whistles, going on to claim they were ripped off.

The rules can be a bit a shonky. But the game works. The game remains fun. I enjoy the hobby experience. Reading, building the kits, even the occasional paint job which proves I'm not that bad a painter, just a very lazy painter.

Yet this attitude appears offensive to some. It's as if they just can't comprehend that others just aren't fussed, and accept the flaws as part and parcel of the game.

Rulebooks are a method to sell models. The wider the variety of possible combinations, the better the chance someone with an existing army will branch out - either to tweak their force to a new theme (say, Necron players buying two or three kits to make some sweet Decurion formation) or to add allies. Model buying is addictive. GW are putting out great kits which are very pleasing to put together. Allies can very easily burgeon into a small force, and then a larger force.

Is GW trying to get rid of LotR? Is Warhammer slow selling? GW don't publish those figures, so we don't really have anything to go on in that respect, other that personal observations and wishful thinking on the behalf of some posters.

And you know, if you're not enjoying the hobby any more - then do walk away. There's many things in life I once quite enjoyed, but now find 'meh', so I don't do them for a while. I'll come back to them a few months or years after, and might find them 'yay' once again.

[Kirsten]

the ruleset is balanced. it isn't perfect, it could always be better, but it is balanced. claims to the contrary are just internet complaining that goes round and round ad nauseam. you might start a game and discover that what you have chosen doesn't have much of a chance against what your opponent has chosen, but that is the price of flexibility and having such a huge range. there has never been a situation in which army book a cannot beat army book b.

[Lord Manton]

The beautiful thing though, Erik, is that we already own the models. So if a game exists that we all like to play, we'll continue buying the models and GW wins. If they release something new and amazeballz-ingly awesome like the Imperial Knight that we all want to buy and use, the homebrew rules can accomodate this, albeit at a bit of a delay. And then, people will still be buying the models.
The other thing to remember, is that this doesn't necessarily have to be a rule system that is intimately tied to the fluff in the way that 40k official is. Or, we could even aim to be more faithful to the fluff (so Space Marines would only ally with Imperial armies, bc if I'm a psychoconditioned, genocidal, xenphobe who distrusts anyone who wasn't at least born human and still loves da Emprah, I'm gonna murder you on sight if you don't fit those criteria). Hell, we could be revolutionary and even make possessed not suck complete and utter donkey phallus.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

And consider that amount of diversity.

Counting all Marines as a single army to head off nitpicking, we have....13 Core Armies, with divergent books on a theme adding that up further.

Each one has over a dozen units to choose from (again, discounting the Harlequin style 'mostly allies' armies for this argument), and a lot of potential combinations from there.

Go on. Balance that perfectly. I think you'll find it's largely a fools errand, because whilst one could play test ad nauseum to perfect it, the price would be never actually releasing anything ever because of how long you would have to spend.

The level of balance we do have is nigh on miraculous. Tau fight very, very differently to Orks - yet Orks can still give Tau a good kicking.

Meta gaming is likewise a bit of a fools errand, as it will constantly shifty to clobber whatever the Meta is, as by definition the list that beats everyone becomes the list to beat. And round and round and round we go on the Meta Merry Go Round.

Yet, when you take a step back, and play the game the way the designers had in mind when they designed it - social gaming with friends - the game rocks. You build up rivalries. The experience deepens.

No point complaining it doesn't suit tournament hardcore play - wasn't the designer's aim. Might as well complain your 1984 Ford Capri didn't even qualify for that F1 race you entered.

[Denzark]

the game is balanced. any faction can beat any other. if you can't, then you suck, not the rules.

This is true.


The annoying part is when said whining bleeds into the local store, and a group that was otherwise enjoying 40K despite its flaws gets filled up by the negativity of a relative few and slowly drop out of it....

I think this is true on a planetary scale, with the North American Continent providing the negativity.

[CoffeeGrunt]

One thing I'll note that everyone sold WMH to me on the basis that it was perfectly balanced. They failed to mention that it lacks a few things that sell 40K to me:

- No DIY-Lords/Chapter Masters/Shas'O Commanders. Nope! You get these prescribed characters and nothing else.
- No in-box parts customisation. You get precisely the parts you need to build that kit...most of the time. I dunno if it's the UK supply, but every WMH player here has had a box or two with missing parts arrive. That aside, the models sorely lack any spare parts or customisation ability out of the box,
- The ability to make whatever I want. I mean, whatever I want. I have a Gue'vesa army that's almost entirely counts-as, I have a Chem Dogs Kill Team, and I model stuff so it looks like an alt version of something, but still has the same rules. You can't do that in WMH, because the differences between a Khador, Cygnar and Menoth Jack are so subtle, even changing the arms on a Carnivean makes it difficult to tell whether it's now a Scythean or just a counts-as,

If those are the concessions that need to be made to have a "balanced game," then I'm not for it. Besides, I haven't seen a properly balanced game played. Attack Wing got borked locally by the Borg, X-Wing is balanced by virtue of having a pretty small faction selection, and WMH has an, "if everyone's a superhero, no-one is," approach to game balance.

I dunno, I'm hobby-first, and it makes a lot of the game systems lauded in these sorts of arguments very difficult to enjoy.

[Mr Mystery]

This is true.



I think this is true on a planetary scale, with the North American Continent providing the negativity.

Yup. GW are a spectacularly British company.

40k's setting is rooted in post-Imperial and post-Industrial British decay. You only need to look at photos of former industrial sites to see the inspiration - especially those taken in the late 70's early 80's.

I mean, I type this in my office, which is in Canary Wharf. Canary Wharf - financial heart of not just Britain, but Europe - one of the prime financial centres of the globe. It's gleaming glass, spotless steels. It reeks of money and excess. Yet it's slap bang in the middle of some of the UK's most deprived areas, such as Tower Hamlets. That is very, very 40k.

[Lord Manton]

No point complaining it doesn't suit tournament hardcore play - wasn't the designer's aim. Might as well complain your 1984 Ford Capri didn't even qualify for that F1 race you entered.

This is exactly my original point, well said, Mr Mystery. Stop complaining and do something about it.

Obviously GW makes great miniatures. Obviously we want to play a game with said miniatures. Some people want to play in a way that isn't contemplated by the rules designer, nor is it facilitated by the system.

So stop the whinge and do something about it. If it is a well crafted and fun and exciting system that people can engage with, they will play it. If it's free, all the better as it encourages uptake with no buy-in, and it prevents certain evil corporations from deploying certain legal teams.

As a side note, I like that when the community is challenged to give a real solution, the response is one of "Hate the playa, don't hate the game!" Admittedly from the stalwart defenders of 40k.

I also would like to point out that I don't have a problem with 40k in its current iteration. I think it covers the fluff nicely, I think the plethora of factions and sub-factions is adding depth to the game to match the fluff and the miniatures are stunning. In terms of playing a game set in the Warhammer 40,000 universe, 7th is the best at it so far (though I've only been playing since 3rd).

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

One thing I'll note that everyone sold WMH to me on the basis that it was perfectly balanced. They failed to mention that it lacks a few things that sell 40K to me:

- No DIY-Lords/Chapter Masters/Shas'O Commanders. Nope! You get these prescribed characters and nothing else.
- No in-box parts customisation. You get precisely the parts you need to build that kit...most of the time. I dunno if it's the UK supply, but every WMH player here has had a box or two with missing parts arrive. That aside, the models sorely lack any spare parts or customisation ability out of the box,
- The ability to make whatever I want. I mean, whatever I want. I have a Gue'vesa army that's almost entirely counts-as, I have a Chem Dogs Kill Team, and I model stuff so it looks like an alt version of something, but still has the same rules. You can't do that in WMH, because the differences between a Khador, Cygnar and Menoth Jack are so subtle, even changing the arms on a Carnivean makes it difficult to tell whether it's now a Scythean or just a counts-as,

If those are the concessions that need to be made to have a "balanced game," then I'm not for it. Besides, I haven't seen a properly balanced game played. Attack Wing got borked locally by the Borg, X-Wing is balanced by virtue of having a pretty small faction selection, and WMH has an, "if everyone's a superhero, no-one is," approach to game balance.

I dunno, I'm hobby-first, and it makes a lot of the game systems lauded in these sorts of arguments very difficult to enjoy.

I have nothing against WMH but this outlines why Ican't get into it well - I need to be able to add some personalisation to my army, paint it how I want at the least, convert models I don't like the look of so I do actually like them and give them their own backround. It's not jsut WMH though, a lot of wargames seem to forget the customisation element and infact it is something I am building into the very backround of my own wargame because I think most people want to be able to personalise things.

[Haighus]

I've never really entertained the idea of WMH, because the models really don't do it for me, but finding out that there is that little customisation too has really put a nail in the coffin there I think.

[Deadlift]

I've tried WMH, well to be honest I went out and bought 25pts worth of CoC and the rule book plus tokens and rulers.
Got home cracked open the battle box and was immediately disappointed. Sure I do think it's cheaper to get into the game. Anyone who says otherwise is talking out their bum. It is a cheaper gamer. But holy cow the models I've had are so badly cast. I'm not talking just flash, but miscasting where the two halves don't even line up. If your into the gaming side of the hobby, I guess you can live with that. I'm not I like to paint foremost and playing a game is just the icing. I'm putting the whole lot on eBay once it's painted and going to start again with 40k. For those that moaned about fine cast, wow try WMH. I paint for a side line and I now refuse to touch any privateer press models.

[CoffeeGrunt]

It's a good system, snappy and quick, promotes a lot of thinking ahead and exploiting your opponent's mistakes. I'll give it that, not my kinda game, but for a tournament-oriented player? Great.

However, one of the girls has started painting her Khador army white and gold, and people are complaining that they keep mistaking them for Menoth and apparently painting armies as other armies is illegal in tournaments, (ostensibly.) This put the nail in the coffin for my ice-blue Khador army I was contemplating painting up, sadly. A lot of people said it would be too similar to Cygnar at a distance to work in a game.

I agree with Xeno though, an awful lot of wargames lack customisation. Hell, very few even both with vehicles, and there's a lot you can do to personalise a tank. I'm excited to get my Bolt Action rolling so I can have stowage on the tanks with wisps of camo netting and sandbags up front. My Guard get similar treatment, with Veteran squads unanimously being custom kitbash, my Valkyries have Sunshark engines, all sorts.

It means the army is mine. If someone walks past a table, they can see, "oh, that's their army!" Everyone has a pretty distinct style here, from the army collected, to painting, to the models chosen, and it makes a game so much more enjoyable to watch than a particularly well painted Khador army vs a tabletop standard Menoth army.

Again, the draw for WMH et al seems to be the rules above everything, but in so doing they lose much of what pulled me into wargaming as a kid, and what brought me back as an adult years later...

[Erik Setzer]

If someone takes a very weak Tau army, yeah, Orks can give it a good fight. The only way for Orks to have a shot at a tricked-up Tau list is to go for some crazy stuff that no longer feels like you're running an Ork army. So, yeah, I guess if you can trick up ALMOST any army to take on tricked up versions of others, while completely throwing away the fluff and making something that no longer has the feel or spirit of the faction it's meant to represent, is "balanced," then sure, the game is balanced. As is every single game out there. A 100 pound man with muscular issues armed with a toothpick fighting a 250 pound man built like a linebacker and armed with a mace is also "balanced" in that sense, given that in theory the 100 pound man *could* beat the other man (and if he can't, he just "sucks").

Yes, that argument really is stupid, and I find it offensive that people keep trying it. Don't hand me a pile of garbage and tell me it's shiny gems and then expect me not to get offended.

The game is leaning too heavily on deathstars and super combos and utter garbage that is no fun to play against. I see more and more armies showing up that don't even remotely resemble the fluff. What happened to caring about that?

What happened to carry about the hobby at all? Seems people want to skip out on painting, don't really care about the fluff, and couldn't even be bothered to have WYSIWYG models. Just find the hardest combination and try to beat your opponent's face off, and as long as it's fun for you, who cares about the other guy?

Maybe I'm just too old for the hobby. I remember when they actually at least tried to balance things and would get rid of unbalancing junk or release updates for an army in FAQ/errata form to try to give it a competitive boost (without charging $50 for a new book). I remember when the players would at least try to paint, even if it didn't look amazing. I remember when players actually cared about what the others thought. But nope. Now it's just beat the other person's army into the ground, table them with some mash of unpainted figures that doesn't worry about the fluff, and if they don't like it, insult them repeatedly.

Good job. You're representing the GW hobby well as "The hobby for tossers who need their ego stroked and will eagerly insult anyone who doesn't go along with their ego-stroking." No wonder GW's losing customers. It's not just their own issues, it's the community as it's represented, pushing people to be the nastiest, most dick-like players they can, with no concern for the other people.

Stop insulting Warmachines and Hordes players. Their rulebook might say "play like you've got a pair" but it also encourages being a decent person, and I don't see many games of WM/H become a one-sided affair where the other person knows at setup that they have no choice. GW players have tried to look down their nose for so long at PP players, acting like they were better because they weren't WAAC players, but here we have people defending the WAAC attitude and wanting GW to break the game further because it's not broken if someone can buy their way to a win with enough money and lack of caring for the fluff.

Disgusting, and a shame to the hobby. Not just GW games, but the entire hobby of miniatures gaming. If this is what GW gaming has become, I welcome its demise, and hope GW hastens its own death so someone who respects the hobby can become the new top dog and maybe drives out the WAAC players by having genuine balance, which will send the special snowflakes running for the hills crying that they can't win all their games any more.

- - - Updated - - -


However, one of the girls has started painting her Khador army white and gold, and people are complaining that they keep mistaking them for Menoth and apparently painting armies as other armies is illegal in tournaments, (ostensibly.) This put the nail in the coffin for my ice-blue Khador army I was contemplating painting up, sadly. A lot of people said it would be too similar to Cygnar at a distance to work in a game.

I painted my Menoth in dark red and bronze trim because I liked it more. No one complained.

In another thread on this forum, people went on for pages complaining about red Ultramarines.

If you can show me an actual rule about how an army is painted with Warmachine tournaments, that'd be great. I've never heard of that.

Look around the Internet, you can find plenty of people who paint Warmachine models in different colors from the "standard" colors.

You ran into a bad batch of people. The same kind of people exist in the GW hobby, as shown on this forum. And I actually lost painting points in a tournament once because my Ork army was painted with different units being different clans, which some of you might note is exactly how Ork armies looked in 2nd edition, but because it was 3rd edition people thought Ork armies had to look uniform and bland, and as my Ork army - ORKS! - were painted up with different clans (not in the same unit, mind you; it was a unit of Bad Moons here, a unit of Snakebites there, a unit of Evil Sunz, etc.), I was knocked on my score. So hey, yeah, I've seen a GW tournament penalize a person for actually painting their army the way it's SUPPOSED to be painted.

[Denzark]

ES - Your ork's paint job was penalised in a tournament - in Third Edition - so what, a decade ago?

[CoffeeGrunt]

He doesn't like to hold grudges...

That said Erik, great demo of the sort of whinging the OP was on about.

[Lord Manton]

That said Erik, great demo of the sort of whinging the OP was on about.

Maybe that's it. Maybe I've been missing it all this time. Erik isn't complaining about the game; he's complaining about the culture surrounding the game and the lack of a strong and healthy community.

I'll admit, if that's your complaint then keep complaining. There is a filthy and fetid side of this hobby that has nothing to do with Nurgle and everything to do with people wanting to smash other people's lists. I'm lucky. I get to catch up with a bunch of solid blokes (sadly gender diversity isn't easy to come by in this hobby) and play really fun, silly, exciting and sometimes (I'm terrible at finishing painting my armies-what I have painted is good though...) visually captivating games. But, try as White Dwarf and the designers might, there is a real struggle to break through the WAAC culture that we have in our beloved game. I dunno, maybe I just need to pay less attention to the 'net, but it really saddens me.

[ShadowcatX]

And here we have yet another attempt by the fluffy side to paint competitive players as somehow the enemy and bad for the hobby. But it isn't the competitive side who is calling names, or throwing around insults. It isn't the competitive side who docks people points for having unpainted minis or even refusing to play against people who have unpainted minis. Instead, we show up to play the game, and we do so to the best of our ability. We'd prefer the opponent show up with an equally competitive list and provide us a strong challenge, but if you don't we don't complain, we don't whine, we don't try and cast aspirations on your character, we just go about our day.

So maybe, just maybe, if there is a "filthy and fetid side of this hobby that has nothing to do with Nurgle" you should look to yourselves rather than trying to smear everyone else.

[Charistoph]

And here we have yet another attempt by the fluffy side to paint competitive players as somehow the enemy and bad for the hobby. But it isn't the competitive side who is calling names, or throwing around insults. It isn't the competitive side who docks people points for having unpainted minis or even refusing to play against people who have unpainted minis. Instead, we show up to play the game, and we do so to the best of our ability. We'd prefer the opponent show up with an equally competitive list and provide us a strong challenge, but if you don't we don't complain, we don't whine, we don't try and cast aspirations on your character, we just go about our day.

So maybe, just maybe, if there is a "filthy and fetid side of this hobby that has nothing to do with Nurgle" you should look to yourselves rather than trying to smear everyone else.

They exist on both sides, it's true. It's just usually easier to find the filthier players than the filthier (and I would say in some cases, snobbier) hobbiers.

[Erik Setzer]

ES - Your ork's paint job was penalised in a tournament - in Third Edition - so what, a decade ago?

The complaints about red Ultramarines were this morning.

And my army would have kept getting penalized until recently if I hadn't pointed out with several sources that I did exactly what you're supposed to do.

The same kind of stuff still happens. It's why I'm worried about painting a Skaven army with the units matching their clans, or a mixed Chaos force. Or, worse, my Rogue Trader army that will be, by its nature, a mix of units from around the Imperium (some of which are going to be heavily converted). I still get people to this day complaining that my Orks aren't all wearing dull, boring colors (including the newly painted Blood Axe force, which isn't brightly painted, but certainly isn't just monochromatic leathers... they're wearing different types of camo).

- - - Updated - - -


He doesn't like to hold grudges...

That said Erik, great demo of the sort of whinging the OP was on about.

No grudge here, I quite like the guy who was scoring the tournament and had a nice game against him at the last tournament I played (where he was able to enjoy it as a player, not the organizer). But there's nothing wrong with remembering things, especially if they're relevant to a discussion.

Also, Coffee, great demo of the sort of disgusting, abhorrent attitude I've been on about. If someone disagrees with people, it's "whinging," and the insults come out rather than addressing the argument like adults.

[Tomgar]

You might be sick of moaners but I'm sick of people who treat any criticism of 40k or GW like a personal insult. I'm not a tournament gamer (I've never even entered a tournament) but even my little gaming group wishes there was a bit more rules balance. That's all. We just want a better-written game. We're not trying to suck all the fun out of your hobby, we're not uber competitive meta-gamers and we're not trying to kill GW or something, we just want better, tighter rules.

Yes, 40k is fun in its current state, but we think it'd be MORE fun with a more balanced ruleset. Maybe stop trying to paint people like us as meta-obsessed, hyper-competitive douches, just because we're offering an opinion on what would make the game better for us. That's our right as consumers and if you don't like it, don't read it.

[Erik Setzer]

Maybe that's it. Maybe I've been missing it all this time. Erik isn't complaining about the game; he's complaining about the culture surrounding the game and the lack of a strong and healthy community.

Little of Column A, little of Column B.

When I first started playing at the local Games Workshop store, it was a nice, friendly group, mostly newer gamers, who were into playing fun matches, and would play scenarios, and generally actually have fun with the games. People were into the fluff of their armies. It was good. The idea of building a list just to beat your opponent's face in was frowned on, and people who did that kind of thing weren't considered fun opponents (it was really just one guy, who was pretty open in his approach to the game; one other guy came into the mix, but was quickly shuffled out).

As time went on and they played more and read more on the Internet, it seems the accepted idea was to make the nastiest list you could, forget the fluff, and just do what you could to crush your opponent. People were no longer talking about how to make a list that matched a part of the fluff, they were looking at units solely by rules and trying to figure out how to build combos of units and items. Not just 40K, but WFB as well.

Maelstrom missions were thrown out the window quickly. It's hard to get a match in with them. Or even any kind of scenario game. People want to play straight "kill points" because it's easier than playing a narrative match. They can just take their killer combos and smack their opponent until the game is over.

So then I line up my army, designed to be able to compete with a variety of armies while matching the fluff, and then I see some weird amalgamation of stuff lined up across from me, unpainted, units arranged in manners to take advantage of rules so they end up looking ridiculous, no scenario, no story to the fight.

This is seen as the accepted way to play, too. I mentioned I wasn't a fan of getting my face caved in with an army designed to just crush people, and a guy offered not to tone his list down but rather to build such an army list for me... which I declined, because I know how to build such a list, but at that point it's no longer a fun game between friendly players but rather a stressful contest to see who can crush the other. I saw a "learning game" of WFB where one guy took a list of Chaos Warriors that was build to bash apart other hardcore lists, with the newbie using Bretonnians, and his "must-win" attitude got so bad the manager had to slam his hand down on the table to get the guy's attention and tell him to stop, because it was bad enough to bring a face-caving list to a learning game, it was just that much worse bickering over rules and all to try to get an advantage.

That's the now accepted mentality. It's spreading. And the Internet's answer is for anyone who doesn't like it to "stop whinging" and go play something else.

40K has never been 100% balanced. I get that. But at least some of the nastier issues were balanced by the fact people would admit that, and realize we're all here to have fun playing a game, and if someone needed to pad their ego with beating someone else's face in, that's what tournaments are for. And in a tournament, yeah, you bring the nastiest junk you can (though it's telling that the same armies tend to cluster at the top). But on a regular Saturday, when some of us have had a long week at work and we just want to unwind? No, I don't want to line up my Tactical Company of Marines with bolter drill across from a Space Wolf army tooled up to shred people with multiple special characters and all the specialist units running a specific detachment just to get its bonus. Or put my combined arms Ork army down across from an Iyanden army with all the Wraithguard and Wraithblades deployed in Wave Serpents until I'm close enough for them to get out and wipe out whatever the Serpents and Wraithknights haven't already shredded. I know sometimes I make a mistake with a list, but I generally don't make weak lists, and I know I'm not bad at the game. I just want to play a fun, narrative game, that's closely contested, rather than someone being tabled.

But yeah, that's what GW games are meant to be now: Crush your opponent, screw the fluff, ignore the narrative. If your opponent doesn't like it, mock and insult him until he quits the hobby. Rinse and repeat.

[Popsical]

Wrong. Thats not what GW games are meant to be. The problem is the players who want it to be.
Thats who were all fed up with.
Every wargame can be abused and power gamed. GW games are just higher profile because more people play them.
Power gamers can have tournies that they enjoy far more easily than fluff gamers, which is why the venom tends to fly thicker from the fluff bunnies.
If 5 fluff bunnies turn up to a power gig its less of an issue than if 5 power gamers turn up to a fluff gig.
5 fluff bunnies finishing last isnt as irritating as the 5 power gamers who stomp the fun out of the fluff guys and top the table.
However i suppose the 5 fluff bunnies can influence the winner of the power gamers by giving easy wins.
So i suppose its more a case that there are a minority of WAACS that just dont care if anyone else has fun.
Thats life tho in many aspects. There isnt a cure, other than black listing them from future events i suppose.

[Deadlift]

You might be sick of moaners but I'm sick of people who treat any criticism of 40k or GW like a personal insult.

Nail on the head, absolutely.

[ShadowcatX]

Little of Column A, little of Column B.

When I first started playing at the local Games Workshop store, it was a nice, friendly group, mostly newer gamers, who were into playing fun matches, and would play scenarios, and generally actually have fun with the games. People were into the fluff of their armies. It was good. The idea of building a list just to beat your opponent's face in was frowned on, and people who did that kind of thing weren't considered fun opponents (it was really just one guy, who was pretty open in his approach to the game; one other guy came into the mix, but was quickly shuffled out).

As time went on and they played more and read more on the Internet, it seems the accepted idea was to make the nastiest list you could, forget the fluff, and just do what you could to crush your opponent. People were no longer talking about how to make a list that matched a part of the fluff, they were looking at units solely by rules and trying to figure out how to build combos of units and items. Not just 40K, but WFB as well.

Maelstrom missions were thrown out the window quickly. It's hard to get a match in with them. Or even any kind of scenario game. People want to play straight "kill points" because it's easier than playing a narrative match. They can just take their killer combos and smack their opponent until the game is over.

So then I line up my army, designed to be able to compete with a variety of armies while matching the fluff, and then I see some weird amalgamation of stuff lined up across from me, unpainted, units arranged in manners to take advantage of rules so they end up looking ridiculous, no scenario, no story to the fight.

This is seen as the accepted way to play, too. I mentioned I wasn't a fan of getting my face caved in with an army designed to just crush people, and a guy offered not to tone his list down but rather to build such an army list for me... which I declined, because I know how to build such a list, but at that point it's no longer a fun game between friendly players but rather a stressful contest to see who can crush the other. I saw a "learning game" of WFB where one guy took a list of Chaos Warriors that was build to bash apart other hardcore lists, with the newbie using Bretonnians, and his "must-win" attitude got so bad the manager had to slam his hand down on the table to get the guy's attention and tell him to stop, because it was bad enough to bring a face-caving list to a learning game, it was just that much worse bickering over rules and all to try to get an advantage.

That's the now accepted mentality. It's spreading. And the Internet's answer is for anyone who doesn't like it to "stop whinging" and go play something else.

40K has never been 100% balanced. I get that. But at least some of the nastier issues were balanced by the fact people would admit that, and realize we're all here to have fun playing a game, and if someone needed to pad their ego with beating someone else's face in, that's what tournaments are for. And in a tournament, yeah, you bring the nastiest junk you can (though it's telling that the same armies tend to cluster at the top). But on a regular Saturday, when some of us have had a long week at work and we just want to unwind? No, I don't want to line up my Tactical Company of Marines with bolter drill across from a Space Wolf army tooled up to shred people with multiple special characters and all the specialist units running a specific detachment just to get its bonus. Or put my combined arms Ork army down across from an Iyanden army with all the Wraithguard and Wraithblades deployed in Wave Serpents until I'm close enough for them to get out and wipe out whatever the Serpents and Wraithknights haven't already shredded. I know sometimes I make a mistake with a list, but I generally don't make weak lists, and I know I'm not bad at the game. I just want to play a fun, narrative game, that's closely contested, rather than someone being tabled.

But yeah, that's what GW games are meant to be now: Crush your opponent, screw the fluff, ignore the narrative. If your opponent doesn't like it, mock and insult him until he quits the hobby. Rinse and repeat.

Why should your opponent have to change his army list rather than you changing yours? Is everyone who plays differently than you is having BAD WRONG FUN and should play the game your way? By the way, would you like to count the insults thrown by the competitive side in this thread and let me count the insults thrown by your side?

[Houghten]

With illustrated diagrams on which part of each insult is the insulting part, please.

[Popsical]

I think we can all agree its the players who dont care if their opponent has fun, who is at fault.
Playing to win, fine.
Playing to a story, fine.
Ignoring the whole point of the hobby, fun, not fine at all.
Its pick up games where this is the biggest problem.
Tournament organisers need only state their intent to curb too many problems.
Turn up to an everyday tournament with fluff list, then suffer the consequences.
Turn up to a fluffy tournament with a WAAC list, and expect the venom.

[daboarder]

the game is balanced. any faction can beat any other. if you can't, then you suck, not the rules.

we need a head shaking emoji, just so much head shaking

- - - Updated - - -


I think we can all agree its the players who dont care if their opponent has fun, who is at fault.
Playing to win, fine.
Playing to a story, fine.
Ignoring the whole point of the hobby, fun, not fine at all.
Its pick up games where this is the biggest problem.
Tournament organisers need only state their intent to curb too many problems.
Turn up to an everyday tournament with fluff list, then suffer the consequences.
Turn up to a fluffy tournament with a WAAC list, and expect the venom.

sure, all this is well and good, but better balance and game design helps everyone immeasurably.

- - - Updated - - -


You might be sick of moaners but I'm sick of people who treat any criticism of 40k or GW like a personal insult. I'm not a tournament gamer (I've never even entered a tournament) but even my little gaming group wishes there was a bit more rules balance. That's all. We just want a better-written game. We're not trying to suck all the fun out of your hobby, we're not uber competitive meta-gamers and we're not trying to kill GW or something, we just want better, tighter rules.

Yes, 40k is fun in its current state, but we think it'd be MORE fun with a more balanced ruleset. Maybe stop trying to paint people like us as meta-obsessed, hyper-competitive douches, just because we're offering an opinion on what would make the game better for us. That's our right as consumers and if you don't like it, don't read it.

HAHAHA This^

[Deadlift]

Case in point, I would love to play a Imperial Knight army, but I won't because I don't want to be labeled......that guy.
In fact I'd be embarrassed to roll up with 3 knights and that's a bit of a shame.

[Kirsten]

just play your three knights against my five riptides :p

[YorkNecromancer]

I would love to play a Imperial Knight army, but I won't because I don't want to be labeled......that guy.

I'd play against that. It'd be a laugh.

[Deadlift]

I'd play against that. It'd be a laugh.

Only because if you play with me you'd be drunk by the end of the game, I usually am.

[ShadowcatX]

Only because if you play with me you'd be drunk by the end of the game, I usually am.

And that is how 40K is really meant to be played.

[Arkhan Land]

ide say 40k is about as good if not better than lets say the US postal service, USPS is even like GW in that it is a fading shadow of its former self...

[Erik Setzer]

Only because if you play with me you'd be drunk by the end of the game, I usually am.

One of the few bad things about playing at a game store is that you have to do it with no drinks involved. Only time you might be able to break them out is if you have a store owner who stays open later and allows it after time for the kids to be gone.

I think if I owned a store, I'd go past midnight on Saturday nights and let 10pm (or maybe 9pm) and up be open for adult beverages, with the provision that people don't go driving if they've had too many.

[Mr Mystery]

I think we can all agree its the players who dont care if their opponent has fun, who is at fault.
Playing to win, fine.
Playing to a story, fine.
Ignoring the whole point of the hobby, fun, not fine at all.
Its pick up games where this is the biggest problem.
Tournament organisers need only state their intent to curb too many problems.
Turn up to an everyday tournament with fluff list, then suffer the consequences.
Turn up to a fluffy tournament with a WAAC list, and expect the venom.

Yep. This.

I think the trouble with the tournament scene is that it really, really highlights bad losers, and indeed, bad winners.

In store gaming, and other more locally social events, not so much. But when you meet a bad loser/winner/sportsperson at a tournament, the internet hears about it, because they've eroded your enjoyment of a weekend's gaming you probably paid to attend.

I actually think I'd rather play a bad loser, than a bad winner. Any day of the week.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Also, Coffee, great demo of the sort of disgusting, abhorrent attitude I've been on about. If someone disagrees with people, it's "whinging," and the insults come out rather than addressing the argument like adults.

My main problem is that it's the same complaints going round and round like someone filled the Hadron Collider with Whinotron particles.

Seriously, again and again, people here seem to find playing 40K to be the must utterly soul-destroying experience, yet none of them search for other games which suit their needs better. Or house-rule things to tweak the balance. Or have gentlemen's agreements against certain units. Et cetera. Et cetera.

It's the fact that you get so many people together whining in concert loud to give astropathic choirs a headache, without anything actually coming from it that annoys me the most, personally.

[Popsical]

In 20 years time the same people will be moaning the same moan about:
1 game balance
2 their army being the worst for choices
3 their army being neglected
They know who they are, and must know they will still be moaning then too.
Society has its Victor Meldrew's (google him for a giggle) and we must suffer them in all walks of life.
Maybe one day there will be a forum devoted to wargaming with a ban on moaning about those three issues.
We live in hope.

[Psychosplodge]

Society has its Victor Meldrew's (google him for a giggle)

Youtube for maximum effect.

[Kirsten]

one of the reasons I stopped going to the local club was because of those sorts of complaints. I took a few years off, went back there for a few games, still the exact same arguments being had, practically word for word. wasn't helped by the fact that the guy who complained the most was a terrible player. always going on about how bad the orks were, yet his slow and purposeful meganobs were on foot, his ordinary boys in the battlewagon, the AP2 weapons fired at tactical marines, the AP3 weapons at terminators, but it wouldn't stop him complaining.

[Erik Setzer]

My main problem is that it's the same complaints going round and round like someone filled the Hadron Collider with Whinotron particles.

Seriously, again and again, people here seem to find playing 40K to be the must utterly soul-destroying experience, yet none of them search for other games which suit their needs better. Or house-rule things to tweak the balance. Or have gentlemen's agreements against certain units. Et cetera. Et cetera.

It's the fact that you get so many people together whining in concert loud to give astropathic choirs a headache, without anything actually coming from it that annoys me the most, personally.

Well, for some reason house rules stopped being socially acceptable (probably around the same time GW did their best to stamp out all the websites promoting them). And it seems if I try to make a "gentleman's agreement" for people not to bring beatstick armies, their response is that I should make a beaststick list of my own and play stress-filled matches of destruction. That one's ironic given that the latest 40K book says your opponent has to agree to play with certain units or whatever, but people like to interpret that as only being permission needed to play Unbound (which the beatstick guys don't want to play against, what a shock). Granted, people are still confused on what "Battle-Forged" means, too, so I'm not sure how many people out there playing 40K have bothered actually reading their rulebook.

I actually am looking into other games (got an X-Wing fleet, looking to pick up Infinity and Malifaux and possible Warzone because of nostalgia*), but I don't want to completely leave behind a hobby I've enjoyed for over two decades just because the Internet now says it's acceptable to act like a tool just because the game is designed to make it as easy as possible. (And the GW store is actually the closest, given that it's right in my neighborhood. Though on the flip side, I know the owners of two other stores, one of whom I've known as a store manager as long as I've been in the hobby of miniatures gaming.)




*Oh, and you know, I have to say, looking into other games has completely shattered any argument that GW is the best out there and should be able to mark up prices to show how they're the most premium manufacturer. Infinity figures are pretty sweet, but the Malifaux figures especially have me excited to get some and paint them up, the first time in quite a while I've wanted to get models to paint regardless of their effect in a game. Warzone models aren't quite as dynamic, but still look rather good, with infantry units being comparable to GW's average infantry units.

[daboarder]

Oh look at that, the usual suspects took a thread and turned it into an attack on anything that may or may not be the slightest bit critical of GW.


Well remember if that raging GW hard on lasts more than 30 minutes, you should see a qualified healthcare proffesional.


EDIT: Actually thats probably slightly incorrect, this thread started with blatant attacks and hypocritical "whining" to begin with.

[Erik Setzer]

one of the reasons I stopped going to the local club was because of those sorts of complaints. I took a few years off, went back there for a few games, still the exact same arguments being had, practically word for word. wasn't helped by the fact that the guy who complained the most was a terrible player. always going on about how bad the orks were, yet his slow and purposeful meganobs were on foot, his ordinary boys in the battlewagon, the AP2 weapons fired at tactical marines, the AP3 weapons at terminators, but it wouldn't stop him complaining.

I have a Battlewagon set up specifically for MegaNobz, without an 'Ard Top (actually, the one with an 'Ard Top is for Shoota Boyz). Run a Mek around with a KFF on a bike to protect it. But then in one game I was heading toward my opponent's core unit of Grey Hunters, and he joined a couple characters to them, including a Ministorum Priest, used an IG Telepath to cast Invisibility on them, and then there I am with MegaNobz facing off against a unit I have to roll 6's to hit, who get rerolls to hit me, and have numerous AP2 weapons... and being Orks, I have no invulnerable save in combat (because, you know, that makes sense). All I could do was watch my unit get hacked up while they barely did any damage, then they ran, and got overrun.

Also, Ork AP2 weapons? Kind of limited in number. I built a Morkanaut just to have more AP2 at range, and set up three Killer Kanz with KMBs to get some AP2. Likely will convert some Mek Gunz with the mega-KMBs to have a bit more. But that's about it. Granted, with it in such small numbers, you shouldn't waste it on anything but Terminators. AP3 isn't much better, it's pretty much just rokkits, and the short-range (seriously short-range) battlecannons on tanks, and I think the kannon Mek Guns. Orks were meant to get in close and kill stuff, but first they took our choppa rule, then they took our burnas out of nearly every unit and increased the points of Burna Boyz (yeah, 16 points a pop for something with a 6+ save that people know is dangerous, you try that out and see how it works).

Even the good Ork players know the army's been beaten repeatedly with a nerf bat. Hence my oft-repeated "Tom Kirby hates green people."

[Mr Mystery]

I don't see the internet endorsing power gaming - quite the opposite. This thread has various contributors, most actively discouraging power gaming being the default setting.

As for other games - none of them have the eclectic nature of 40k.

Infinity is a skirmish game. Small in scale, apparently detailed in rules. I've seen it being played at my local club, but doesn't interest me. Much the same reason as Warmahordes doesn't interest me - the general aesthetic.

Malifaux - meh from me, again. No idea what the game play is like, but the models just aren't my bag.

40k is not designed to encourage poor sportsmanship. Unbound etc are ways to free up hobbyists from the constraints of the FoC, enabling casual collectors and mad men like myself to just buy what we like and still field it as an army.

40k is a flexible system. You can go strict FoC with your own added limitations, or you can go in completely the opposite direction.

Deadlift was saying about not being 'That Guy' with a five Knight army. I say go for it. The models are fantastic projects for any hobbyist, and I know that whilst I might not be especially keen for such a list to be the staple of my gaming experience, I would like to take it on as a challenge.

[Psychosplodge]

Oh look at that, the usual suspects took a thread and turned it into an attack on anything that may or may not be the slightest bit critical of GW.


Well remember if that raging GW hard on lasts more than 30 minutes, you should see a qualified healthcare proffesional.

.

If you start to worry that early about an erection I pity your partners :p

[daboarder]

I don't see the internet endorsing power gaming - quite the opposite. This thread has various contributors, most actively discouraging power gaming being the default setting.

As for other games - none of them have the eclectic nature of 40k.

Infinity is a skirmish game. Small in scale, apparently detailed in rules. I've seen it being played at my local club, but doesn't interest me. Much the same reason as Warmahordes doesn't interest me - the general aesthetic.

Malifaux - meh from me, again. No idea what the game play is like, but the models just aren't my bag.

40k is not designed to encourage poor sportsmanship. Unbound etc are ways to free up hobbyists from the constraints of the FoC, enabling casual collectors and mad men like myself to just buy what we like and still field it as an army.

40k is a flexible system. You can go strict FoC with your own added limitations, or you can go in completely the opposite direction.

Deadlift was saying about not being 'That Guy' with a five Knight army. I say go for it. The models are fantastic projects for any hobbyist, and I know that whilst I might not be especially keen for such a list to be the staple of my gaming experience, I would like to take it on as a challenge.

Wonderful idea mystery (And I mean that honestly)

Unfortunately one persons idea of "fair for a pick up game" and anothers can differ considerably.
and the solution is simple, very very simple.

Its a solution that means we could within reason rock up to a table with any list we wanted and be able to play any other list, arriving on the same footing with a reasonable expectation that we can handle anything on the other side.

Its called game ballance and its this thing all the new games are doing.

- - - Updated - - -


If you start to worry that early about an erection I pity your partners :p

Honestly, I'll start worrying when Im too tired for more after only half an hour ;)

[Kirsten]

daboarder perfectly highlights the problem. nobody here is rabidly pro GW. everybody has expressed criticisms, and pointed out flaws. what some of us do however is shoot down the ludicrous hyperbole that always flies about. the pro GW crowd are pretty rational, the anti GW crowd is stupidly over the top and makes groundless claims. we see no end of 'OMG GW are so stupid they have deliberately done X Y Z' when in fact we don't know what the motivation is.

[Mr Mystery]

This is a social hobby.

On your first trip to a gaming venue, just take something fairly vanilla - FoC compliant type stuff. Get a feel for the place. Not all environments are hospitable to all gamers after all.

Once you've got a rapport with the other gamers, you'll soon find yourself able to arrange more flavoured games - be that unbound nonsense on a Sunday, because there's nothing else to do on a Sunday, or trying your hand at extra-competitive list building for some tournament.

The whole issue is that people get firmly entrenched. Nerds are quite passionate about their Nerdery, and this is to be expected. Me, I remain flexible. As Kirsten says, even though I regularly fling money at GW, I am aware of the derps and the flaws - but I'm happy to work around them, because 40k has always required this. Epic and Warhammer too. I don't buy into the hyperbole, such as Orks not being able to win EVAR - because I take a more balanced view. Orks for instance have got a weird new Mob Rule table. But then, Mob Rule kicked in when Fearless units took extra wounds for losing combat. When that part went away, Orks became a pain in the bahookie, as with a relatively cheap mob of 30 Boyz, you could bog down pretty much anything all game, whether you could hurt it or not. Mob Rule table has addressed this.

Another example? Gobbos going up a point or so in one of their incarnations. OH NOES shrieked the shriekers. GOBBOS IS TEH NERFD!.....not taking into account that the same edition that upped their points, did away with the threat of ripple panic - something classically used to mess up Gobbo armies (you know, when one unit would break, causing a panic test on friendlies within 6". Get the dice gods on your side, and you could send the entire Gobbo line packing with a single Screaming Skull shot).

Some stuff is inexplicable - like Bumshees and Genestealers not having grenades. But I see no point harping on about it, because it is what it is. Don't write to the internet about it - write to GW about it.

[daboarder]

daboarder perfectly highlights the problem. nobody here is rabidly pro GW. everybody has expressed criticisms, and pointed out flaws. what some of us do however is shoot down the ludicrous hyperbole that always flies about. the pro GW crowd are pretty rational, the anti GW crowd is stupidly over the top and makes groundless claims. we see no end of 'OMG GW are so stupid they have deliberately done X Y Z' when in fact we don't know what the motivation is.

I'm sorry, but I have seen people time and time again, ad nauseum justify actions by GW that continuously have a negative impact on the community and peoples armies.

GW removes rules wholesale, ignores balance and could seriously squat entire armies (wait for 9th, thats going to be funny/tragic) and the same posters will tie themselves in logic knots coming up with justifications about why this is ultimately a "good thing" for people, and that if those poor unfortunates dont like it they can "play the old way anyway"

No one, and I mean no one, really could logically think those kind of responses are either practical for the average gamer or fair given the investment in time and money that miniature wargaming takes. But they same posters will say the same things.

[Kirsten]

we keep on seeing for example people complaining that new models are given awesome rules, and stuff that was good last edition is going to be nerfed this edition. yet that is not actually born out by any evidence. we see plenty of new units coming out with balanced rules, or often considered to be poor rules. so which is it exactly? we see plenty of units that were good last edition that are still good now. there is nothing about pushing sales. new plastic wraithguard, were they given crazy awesome new rules? no, they are much the same as before. if the anti GW crowd were correct, then they would be amazing must haves in every army for the sole purpose of selling more plastic. then they would be terrible in the next elder book so that something else can be pushed. but of course that wont happen, they will remain much the same way they always have.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I haven't found a balanced game yet, not one that has a decent hobby aspect, at least. Trying Bolt Action this weekend though, so maybe.

But that said, I looked up the BA forums and got told, "yeah, don't take X and Y Soviet army you were planning, spam Flamethrower teams, they're OP." When I was looking at Attack Wing, I got told there's no point unless you play Romulans or Borg, especially Borg, which killed that game.

MtG has straight-up useless cards, especially in Modern format where a new set can introduce cards eclipsed by old faithfuls. Cardfight Vanguard was a laughably unskilled game because it entirely hinged around what card was at the top of your deck. Let's not even mention Spoils, which is basically Magic where everything's an Instant card.

X-Wing is reportedly balanced, but I'm hearing complaints about big ships being tough to bring down from certain people. Malifaux is apparently decent, I'm considering getting some Death Marshals as I like the style of them.

So what game out there has achieved balance? Anywhere I go, Facebook groups, forums, the creator's forum itself, there are people crying out that certain units are worthless, others are OP. I've been told to utterly avoid certain WarmaHordes Casters/Warlocks because they're useless against all but the most niche armies.

So that's why I'm one of the, "usual suspects." Because it seems to me this has a lot more to do with players managing their expectations than the game itself. Would a Magic deck from 2004 still kick backside? Would it even be legal to play in certain formats? How is it that people expect GW to keep their strong army strong for over a decade when other companies with significantly less customisation, variety and scale have difficulty doing so?

I'm not pro-GW, I'm just tired of people railing against GW just because it's the biggest company in the industry.

[Kirsten]

Bolt Action is good fun, much simplified from 40k. models aren't as good quality, but it is a good game. Infinity I am really liking, but the metal models are a pain.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I got a copy of Angel's guide to painting Infinity, need to sit down and try some stuff in that, as his paintwork is excellent.

[daboarder]

I haven't found a balanced game yet, not one that has a decent hobby aspect, at least. Trying Bolt Action this weekend though, so maybe.

But that said, I looked up the BA forums and got told, "yeah, don't take X and Y Soviet army you were planning, spam Flamethrower teams, they're OP." When I was looking at Attack Wing, I got told there's no point unless you play Romulans or Borg, especially Borg, which killed that game.

MtG has straight-up useless cards, especially in Modern format where a new set can introduce cards eclipsed by old faithfuls. Cardfight Vanguard was a laughably unskilled game because it entirely hinged around what card was at the top of your deck. Let's not even mention Spoils, which is basically Magic where everything's an Instant card.

X-Wing is reportedly balanced, but I'm hearing complaints about big ships being tough to bring down from certain people. Malifaux is apparently decent, I'm considering getting some Death Marshals as I like the style of them.

So what game out there has achieved balance? Anywhere I go, Facebook groups, forums, the creator's forum itself, there are people crying out that certain units are worthless, others are OP. I've been told to utterly avoid certain WarmaHordes Casters/Warlocks because they're useless against all but the most niche armies.

So that's why I'm one of the, "usual suspects." Because it seems to me this has a lot more to do with players managing their expectations than the game itself. Would a Magic deck from 2004 still kick backside? Would it even be legal to play in certain formats? How is it that people expect GW to keep their strong army strong for over a decade when other companies with significantly less customisation, variety and scale have difficulty doing so?

I'm not pro-GW, I'm just tired of people railing against GW just because it's the biggest company in the industry.


I think the big thing you're missing, is this little thing called relativity.

do games have "perfect balance" Probably not.

But most other wargames are doing a DAMNED site better than GW.

Infinity, the unit profiles are all mathematically costed, skills will cost the same across the board and every single stat point will have an associated cost. Its pretty balanced.

X-wing: a simple system that achieves pretty good balance and yet allows for significant depth of play and tactics.

These are the games I am more familiar with and while they are not perfect the difference, and pay attention here you might actually learn something (WHo am I kidding, you wont, but anyone reading this might), is that they TRY and they are a damned site closer to it than GW has ever been.

[eldargal]

There are a few people who are 'GW right or wrong!' but they are really a tiny minority. But there are far more for whom nothing GW do will ever be enough. What's funny is how most of them start attacking me when I complain about GW not being female friendly and failing to expand its demographic....

[Mr Mystery]

X-Wing isn't as balanced as some might claim....

A-Wings for instance rely upon ownership of the Rebel Aces set to get the Charadan Refit, which knocks their points down.

TIE Advanced are pretty terrible ships, and are going to require the not-inexpensive Imperial Raider to see much play.

TIE Bombers and other missile/bomb dependant ships rack up the points fast, but have to do so, because on their own they're fairly bobbins.

Point for point, I don't think there's many better combos than Echo, Advanced Cloaking Field and Mara Jade. Difficult to pin down, dishes out free stress, can go pretty much where it likes. Fat Han apparently continues to dominate organised play - those aren't signs of a balanced game at all.

40k requires effort to break it. Few armies are undefeatable. Sure, some games will be lopsided - but then, if you field a Termagant Horde and come up against say, a Tank Company, you would expect it to be so. And that's why the social part of the game is paramount. When arranging a game, I'll happily say 'fancy a game next week against my Necrons, I fancy trying out X'. My opponent can then pick whatever they like to take me on. The only place I draw the line is waiting to see my list before writing up your own - that's pretty much cheating.

[Psychosplodge]

Honestly, I'll start worrying when Im too tired for more after only half an hour ;)

lols, age catches us all

[CoffeeGrunt]

X-Wing has three factions with what, a dozen ships each, and even then it has its power lists and its lame donkeys. Daboarder, you call me out for, "not learning anything," but what is the use of trying to accept an untruth just to keep you quiet? I don't respect your opinion enough to pretend something's good just to get in your good books...

X-Wing, Infinity and Malifaux are the only examples I've heard of that are truly balanced, and even then Mystery's brought X-Wing into refute...

[Popsical]

I think what the OP is driving at is, why do the same people come onto every thread and moan about balance, OP, neglected armies etc, etc.
We all know that there is no complete balance.
We all know sisters of battle havent had a new codex.
We all know chaos maureens arent as good as youd like.
For love of god, we cant do anymore about it than you can FFS!
So why oh why, must we have almost every thread harp on about it?
It got boring years ago.
To this i will hear: but if GW just tried to balance 40k yatter yatter yatter....
Aaaaaaaaaaargh! SHUT UP!!!!
Tell GW. Tell them every bloody day if you must. But frankly most of the rest of us are utterly bored of it.

Ahhhh. I feel a bit better now.

[Erik Setzer]

Too much to reply to individually... Geez, people are busy this morning!

I'm not really "pro-GW" or "anti-GW." More "pro-GW" I suppose, but not in the way people apply the label. I actively try to recruit new people into playing the games, do my best not to be critical in the GW store, try to get people excited about new releases... come to think of it, I do pretty much everything a GW manager is supposed to do except actually sell the models. Hmm. (Oh, and I have a website that is mostly GW. Haven't updated in a while because I've been terrible about doing much of anything in my free time except getting way too many Undead painted and a bunch of new models assembled. Which I could actually write articles about, though the photos wouldn't be that good right now. But I'm digressing.) On the other hand, I'm not even remotely afraid to call out the issues that pop up with the company and their games. This is the same approach I take to everything in life, I don't see just the good or just the bad.

I don't believe Orks can't win. I know they can, I've done it plenty. But they do have trouble dealing with the kitschy lists. The "grand answer" to that is to bring a Stompa and stick a Green Tide around it, which is fair enough, except I get to hear unending whining when I bring a Stompa, even from the people putting out their best "make you cry for mercy" lists. Not that I'm a fan of that style of army, either. I like an army that's something like, say, a Warboss and Big Mek, some units of Shoota Boyz, Deff Koptas to Outflank and hit armor from the side or rear, some MegaNobz in a Battlewagon, Killa Kanz (for firepower and a bit more up-close killing), maybe a Deff Dread or two, couple units of Lootas... Yeah, I have to run two CADs usually. (Hey, I'm Blood Axes, and also, they put like eight or nine choices in Heavy Support.)

I don't have much issue with Unbound. It's actually very easy to break a game with a Battle-Forged force. Sometimes to combat those forces, it's better to go Unbound, but then the people who can do nasty lists with Battle-Forged refuse to let you use Unbound.

One of the most troubling things I heard recently was someone saying, "I need to get some of these Skitarii to keep up." Not because he liked the look, or the fluff, or anything. Just to get access to their abilities. And for him, it's easy to mix them seamlessly with his army to get the best of both worlds, because his core army is Imperial. So much like he uses IG to buff his Space Wolves, he can work Skitarii in there as well, gaining bonuses from them. As an example of how you can make that horrible, picture a unit of the radiation guys (sorry, haven't had coffee yet, brain isn't working entirely) with a tooled up Wolf Lord leading them and Murderface McMurderpants charging a unit at the same time as them. Suddenly, the enemy is at -1T, the Wolf Lord isn't (he's part of the rad unit, so he isn't "every other unit in the combat"), and Murderallthewaydown doesn't have Toughness so doesn't care; next thing you know, the Lord and Murderlicious are shredding the enemy unit easily. Does that sound like a fluffy combo? Nope. Who cares? It's allowed, and easy to do with Battle Brothers. Also, there's the people suggesting using Tzeentch Daemons as allies for a Khorne Daemonkin force to summon more Daemons. Seriously?!? How are these narrative battles? They aren't.

With other games... I don't see simplified rules to allow for more expensive armies to be the only way to have a fun game. I like skirmish-level, not just for cost, but because it does allow for more narrative (hence why I loved Necromunda and Mordheim). If I want a flavorful massive game with super-heavy vehicles, there was always Epic... though it's also long gone. So yeah, skirmish isn't a negative in my book. And at that level, you can get more detailed, and that's awesome, because it helps tell more of a story. The models for other games are easily comparable to GW's. Infinity is maybe a bit streamlined and high-techish for me, but there's a band of misfits in there, I think, that doesn't have the clean armor and all, so that's good for me. Malifaux seems to combine steampunk, fantasy, and Victorian horror, and I love that. But perhaps my tastes are just quite wide-ranging.

I know that other games have balance issues at times, but typically the companies will do what they can to fix them (damn you, Battlefront, for fixing Crusaders to not be silly potent!). Games Workshop used to do that. Now, they rush ahead to release more stuff, and seem to actively do their best to create breaking combos. I feel like End Times' rules were designed to break Warhammer, and they got so silly that people just started refusing to use them (even the Elf player who was technically forced to use the ET magic rules, he wouldn't play with them). Sure, it could be fun to send the game out "with a bang," but people got sick of the games being even more of an OP fest than normal games could be, without feeling like it added to the narrative. FAQs still haven't fixed some serious issues or answered important questions. You have people advocating to use a version of a rule that wasn't the way it was intended just because it's more powerful, and we have no idea when/if a FAQ will come out to tell people how to play it the right way. So yeah, it does feel like GW is encouraging people to make the nastiest armies they can, and it feels like sometimes a codex update happens in order to introduce something new that is a "must-have" (while nerfing the old "must-have" to the point people feel they *need* to buy the new stuff).

In the middle of all of this, it doesn't help to have someone starting a combative topic titled "Stop Your Whinging!" where they insult anyone who dares question whether 40K is the most awesome, best, most balanced, flawless game out there. Come out swinging with insults using an offensive argument, you should expect to get slapped in return.

- - - Updated - - -


There are a few people who are 'GW right or wrong!' but they are really a tiny minority. But there are far more for whom nothing GW do will ever be enough. What's funny is how most of them start attacking me when I complain about GW not being female friendly and failing to expand its demographic....

One of the things attracting me to jumping into Malifaux is that they have a lot of really nice female models in the game, and I can do a diverse band of fighters without having to get third party conversion parts. I'd like to have more females in my Rogue Trader army, but it's hard to find many in GW's catalogue, especially Imperials. And the outfits of the Malifaux females are a darn sight better than the female Commissar I have.

I think Infinity is also decent with that, but I haven't looked at as many of their models.

- - - Updated - - -


X-Wing has three factions with what, a dozen ships each, and even then it has its power lists and its lame donkeys. Daboarder, you call me out for, "not learning anything," but what is the use of trying to accept an untruth just to keep you quiet? I don't respect your opinion enough to pretend something's good just to get in your good books...

X-Wing, Infinity and Malifaux are the only examples I've heard of that are truly balanced, and even then Mystery's brought X-Wing into refute...

Actually, it seems those "dominating" combos in X-Wing aren't dominating as much as they had. And IG-2000's gotten a lot of love... and then turned out to be not as game-breaking as people thought.

You're right, the game doesn't have much in the way of stuff out for it yet, so seeing the same stuff at the top isn't as much of a surprise as it is when you see it in someone with as many factions and options as 40K.

The biggest thing, the one thing that's most damning to GW and in favor of X-Wing? They've already released a FAQ/errata to tone down cloaking. They heard people say something was too potent and they fixed it. (It's also amazing that they have a lot more FAQ than 40K has, even though 40K has a LOT more questions.) I'm sure GW knows that Invisibility can be absolutely disgusting (even seen a Titan with Invisibility on it, or even just a Knight?), but they aren't going to fix it until 40K 8th edition comes along with a new $85 rulebook.

[Mr Mystery]

A lot of the complaints seem to stem from not having a 'top tier build' for a given army.

Well.....so what? Nobody enjoys playing against a power gamer. Power gamers will abuse any list, regardless of restrictions. And whilst one can't always spot a power gamer coming, it's usually obvious after the first game. So just decline future games against them.

[eldargal]

Complaints about unbound lists and stuff annoy me. I mean we have unprecedented levels of freedom and more armies thanks to supplements than ever before which opens up amazing lore friendly combinations and fun and you're going to complain because you let people get away with playing broken lists when you could just not play them? I mean I get it if everyone in your group is a competitive **** you might have a problem but then find a new group or find some people who would be open to playing more friendly games as well.

[Erik Setzer]

That's the problem... It went from almost everyone not being a "beat your face off" kind of player to where almost all of the regulars are "beat your face off" kind of players and they think that's standard for the game.

I haven't been able to play games with the people I used to play games with years ago in a while, as they're on the other side of town (we're talking not a small town here), but I've heard people say they've also been pulled into the same ideas for the most part. People who used to come up with grading scales to punish people for building nasty lists in tournaments (where you're supposed to be competitive and try to win) are now embracing the idea of "bring the most broken list you can?" And it's only in the GW games that it's happening locally. Try that with the WM/H crew and they'll act like you're a lunatic for wanting to turn a fun game into an exercise in domination.

I get bringing the nastiest stuff you can in tournaments... though there was a time GW discouraged doing that, too. I guess it wasn't as good for profits as nudging people to buy the new more expensive toys.

Having your playing pool significantly reduced because people are convinced the culture of the games is to smash your opponent into the ground - screw the fluff! - is not a fun situation.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Try that with the WM/H crew and they'll act like you're a lunatic for wanting to turn a fun game into an exercise in domination.

What? Warmachine literally has a page dedicated to telling their players that they're going to get utterly smashed sometimes, because the game is no-holds barred demanding you, "play like you've got a pair." It also tells you not to be a sore loser or winner, but it's basically laying it down that you can and will come up against beat-face lists, so don't complain because that's what the game's about.

Which shows the fundamental difference in design between that, and GW's, "grab a friend, discuss lists and points values, and roll up a scenario together. Feel free to throw in a few house rules to spice things up as well!" GW's design is based on the idea that you'll have a chat with your opponent first, and discuss lists in order to help consider counter-strategies. Without that essential stage, it can be pretty horrific, but I've found that organising games in advance yields a much more fun time. Is there no-one at your store that you can plan a day for a game with, discuss your lists, and come on the day ready for action?

I mean, it's not like Warmachine players are soft touches, we had a pretty nice scene of mostly ex-40K players going until a local group of hardcore WMH players came in, and started using nasty tournament tricks to win games and picked hairs over the wording of questions their opponent asked them. Like a new player asking one, "do you have any blast or template weapons?" The player said no, then proceeded to throw down a Spray while emphasising the wording and opened up a charge lane for a Caster kill.

It's become worryingly commonplace to the point where WMH has started declining locally here as a result.

[40kGamer]

Which shows the fundamental difference in design between that, and GW's, "grab a friend, discuss lists and points values, and roll up a scenario together. Feel free to throw in a few house rules to spice things up as well!" GW's design is based on the idea that you'll have a chat with your opponent first, and discuss lists in order to help consider counter-strategies. Without that essential stage, it can be pretty horrific, but I've found that organising games in advance yields a much more fun time. Is there no-one at your store that you can plan a day for a game with, discuss your lists, and come on the day ready for action?

You shined a light on the best way to play GW games. I quit doing pick up games and ONLY play games where I have discussed the lay of the land with my opponent ahead of time. I built a 5k+ points for my favorite armies and have list permutations that range from "awful bunny killing monstrosities" to "happy happy joy joy" lists. (and everything in between). I choose my list to match what my opponent has to play during the pregame setup and then grab my Dr Pepper, snacks and enjoy the show.

IF you are playing random pick up games with 40k you are just asking for disappointment. The game works fine if you do the pregame planning. I'm not thrilled that the game balance is a bad joke, but given that GW proper is not going to do anything about it (ever) the only sensible option is to deal with it at the player/game level.

[Erik Setzer]

What? Warmachine literally has a page dedicated to telling their players that they're going to get utterly smashed sometimes, because the game is no-holds barred demanding you, "play like you've got a pair." It also tells you not to be a sore loser or winner, but it's basically laying it down that you can and will come up against beat-face lists, so don't complain because that's what the game's about.

Yeah, Warmachine has a page that says "play hard." It's also kind of a joke. And it's because, if you look at anything in that game in a vacuum, it seems too powerful... but when you realize pretty much everything in the game is like that, it's not that bad. (And yeah, we're all going to lose, so if you can't take losing, you shouldn't play any miniatures games. Or really any game with a winner and loser.)

It's why I'm amazed the WM/H crowd in this area is so much more about friendly games and making sure someone doesn't feel like they got beaten up too bad, while the GW crowd is becoming more and more about making the nastiest list possible and telling people to quit if they don't like it (like this whole thread is based on).

[Mr Mystery]

Damnedest thing is, GW have always had The Most Important Rule - which is about not being a penis.

Every game is a collaborative effort by its nature.

Those who choose to bend the rules, break game, rig the terrain in their favour aren't people to play. Ever.

[Erik Setzer]

Don't trust the players not to take your overly broken game and go crazy with it. If it's broken, assume they're going to go nuts with that. Best way to keep people from building leafblower lists is to not make such lists possible.

And then there was 'Ard Boyz, where GW threw out comp and painting and sportsmanship and said, "Bring the nastiest list you have to crush your opponents!" So yeah, they did a lot to encourage it.

But it's always easier to blame the people who take what they're handed and do with it what the game makers clearly want them to do.

[40kGamer]

Damnedest thing is, GW have always had The Most Important Rule - which is about not being a penis.

Every game is a collaborative effort by its nature.

Those who choose to bend the rules, break game, rig the terrain in their favour aren't people to play. Ever.

Very true but the ability to be a penis (while always present) has become far more pronounced with 6th and 7th 40k. I blame the addition of flyers & superheavies and the host of new rules that came online to allow for them.

Random pick up games are just too much of a longshot to be worth the effort anymore. Now preplanning is a must.

[Mr Mystery]

And being that sort of shebang, don't attend of its not your bag. And if it's not your bag and you do attend, don't bloody complain!

They do not clearly want anything, other than to provide a narrative driven game. You're being really paranoid about this!

[40kGamer]

I doubt this is a popular opinion but I am of the mindset now that TO's need to be very clear upfront about what type of event they are running and have some mechanic to enforce it. I get really annoyed going to an event that is billed as soft and fuzzy only to find everyone sporting some God awful combo of the day list. What happens then is anyone who did come soft and fuzzy either do not return or come back with beat down lists too. This is why soft events need some hardcore comp.

[Mr Mystery]

I quite agree.

Different strokes for different folks like.

[40kGamer]

Yessir. And I like playing in both environments for different reasons I just hate getting caught bringing a knife to a gunfight. Especially when it was billed as knives only! :p

[Erik Setzer]

They do not clearly want anything, other than to provide a narrative driven game.

Yeah, well, even if the majority of players weren't starting to ignore that (and they are), GW threw that out the window definitely with the Khorne Daemonkin codex. There is no narrative reason for Bloodcrushers and Terminators to mix. Flesh Hounds and Bikes are an odd enough mix, but you can sort of make that work, as they are both speedy units. But cavalry mixed with slow, heavily armored guys who often teleport into battle? Yeah, no, that formation only exists to sell certain combos of models.

The lack of a leader for Harlequins, much less Skitarii, is also one that shows that narrative is being left behind.

And there's no narrative reason for enormous massive engines of war to be involved in small skirmishes. Or jet fighters to be strafing a battlefield close to their own side.

And it's perfectly narrative for IG and Blood Axes to work together, but if I get IG too close to my Orks now, it causes problems, a side-effect of their over-simplifying the allies chart to lump all Imperials together (which also allows you to have a Space Wolf character leading a Dark Angels squad and vice versa).

Oh, plus my Khorne Daemonkin Tactical Objectives deck - you know, the things meant to help with "narrative" battles (Maelstrom is fun, but it's so random I can't call it "narrative") - has a freaking objective in it to successfully cast a psychic power. Except Khorne abhors psykers! The only way to achieve that objective is to find allies who do the one thing Khorne really, really hates. HOW THE BLOODY HECK IS THAT NARRATIVE?!?!? (Sorry for the shouting, but that one still bothers me, because that seriously lazy lack of effort means I *have* to houserule with my opponents to chuck out cards that can't be achieved, or I waste a turn with a card I can't use before I can discard it, a card that has no bloody business being in the deck.)

[Kirsten]

bikes and hounds makes perfect sense, both fast moving things that run down the enemy. terminators and crushers make sense, both heavy, hard hitting units. tactical objective cards are random, if you get one that you can't use that turn, tough, that is what happens during the vagaries of battle.

[Erik Setzer]

bikes and hounds makes perfect sense, both fast moving things that run down the enemy. terminators and crushers make sense, both heavy, hard hitting units. tactical objective cards are random, if you get one that you can't use that turn, tough, that is what happens during the vagaries of battle.

I did say Bikes and Hounds could sort of work, though Hounds and Bloodcrushers make more sense. Bloodcrushers have unarmored riders, and are supposed to be fast; Terminators are ploddingly slow.

And "it's random" doesn't explain why they couldn't be bothered to replace a card that gives points for using a psychic power in an army with no psykers (because the god it's based around loathes psychic powers). Saying "tough" to that issue is also the kind of horrible attitude that's the real problem in the game. It's something that shouldn't exist, because it makes no sense, isn't remotely narrative, and just serves to be a pointless PITA for the player.

I don't mind drawing a card like that with, say, Orks, when I don't have a Weirdboy. I *could* take a Weirdboy in my army, so the card existing makes sense. But when it's in a custom deck for an army like Necrons or Khorne (Khorne being the worst, because Necrons might ally with psykers just to combat other psykers, they don't completely loathe all psykers), that's the company being lazy and cheap and leaving something with no narrative value in the game just because it might take some (minor) effort and money to replace it.

Are you so into the "GW can do no wrong" attitude that you think it's the players' problem that such a thing is in the game? Or is this just you being unnecessarily combative because you've bored or something and you need to make sure a post is insulting people in some way to fill some kind of quota?

[Kirsten]

juggernauts have never been fast. crushers and terminators are the elite heavy hitters of each army, makes sense to pair them up. why would they replace one of the main cards? you already got the army specific ones, the core cards aren't going to change. it isn't being lazy or cheap.

I have never been in the GW can do no wrong attitude, you just aren't actually raising any valid arguments. again you claim insults when there are none, can you not tolerate being questioned?

[Mr Mystery]

Yessir. And I like playing in both environments for different reasons I just hate getting caught bringing a knife to a gunfight. Especially when it was billed as knives only! :p

Simple numerical system?

1. All in, balls out, up to 5. Standard FoC only, no allies, Super Heavies or formations etc.

[YorkNecromancer]

There is no narrative reason for Bloodcrushers and Terminators to mix.

Translation:

I can't imagine a reason for Bloodcrushers and Terminators to mix.

You know what kills vampires?

WHATEVER YOU WANT BECAUSE THEY AREN'T REAL.

Case in point: vampires die to sunlight in films because when they made 'Nosferatu' (a numbers-filed-off rip-off of Dracula), the director decided he liked the idea of a creature of the night being banished by sunlight. So Count Orlock sees the sun and poof!

Meanwhile, Dracula was immune to sunlight in the novel.

You see, 'narrative' means 'story'. 'Forge the narrative' is a more emotive way of saying 'tell a story as you play the game, based on the game you're playing'. Which means inventing a character with motivations and a reason for the alliance. So: a Chaos Lord - we'll call him Bob, because why not - made a pact with a Greater Daemon of Khorne - we'll call him K'k'kh'ca'khac'ka'hkhkcchc'kack because "k" sounds are aggressive and apostrophes are magical.


Bob: "Loan me your hunting beasts to defeat my enemies on this planet, and I will deliver 8, 888 skulls to Khorne as an offering in your name.
K'k'kh'ca'khac'ka'hkhkcchc'kack: "No. I have no reason to want more skulls when I can get them myself."
Bob: (You'll have to imagine this with a more High Fantasy dialogue feel to it, because I CBA writing High Fantasy dialogue at the moment. Just throw in some random 'thee' and 'thou's and you'll be fine.) "Dude, it'll save you skull-hunting time. You can be hunting skulls elsewhere and then have 8,888 skulls on top of that. It'll be skullapalooza."
K'k'kh'ca'khac'ka'hkhkcchc'kack: Hmmm... Skullapalooza you say? Well, I do like skulls. Okay, deal. Have three of my improbably named Bloodcrushers. How they crush blood is a mystery Khorne teaches once one has leaned all four bending styles. So, you know, good luck. And I want my skulls within a week."
Bob: "Hmmm. Forgot to add a time limit. I should have thought this through."
K'k'kh'ca'khac'ka'hkhkcchc'kack: "Yup."



THERE IS ALWAYS A REASON WHY ANYONE CAN ALLY WITH ANYONE. ALWAYS. BECAUSE IT'S NOT REAL AND MADE UP AND YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU LIKE.

The trick is to come up with plausible reasons. Which normally means: what does Faction A have that Faction B wants? What do they ask in return?


AdMech: "Hey, want to ally? We'll teach you the secrets of a rare kind of void shield."
Tau: "But you jealously guard knowledge. You won't even tell the Marines how to make Tranuranic Arquebuses. Why would you give us Void Shields?"
AdMech: "Because we want to secretly study how you fight up close, so we can input the data into our spreadsheets and get +3 BS next time we have to fight you. I mean, because you guys are just so awesome. Greater Good, etc, etc...?"



THERE IS ALWAYS A REASON WHY ANYONE CAN ALLY WITH ANYONE. ALWAYS. BECAUSE IT'S NOT REAL AND MADE UP AND YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU LIKE.

Any time anyone says "X can't ally with Y because the fluff says..." you might as well say I HAD MY IMAGINATION REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A LOVE OF PUTTING OTHERS IN THEIR PLACE OVER THINGS THAT DON'T MATTER.

But the thing is, we all have an imagination. So bloody well use it.

My own army is Necrons + Tau + Astra Militarum + Dark Eldar vs Deathwatch + Blood Angels + Inquisition + Grey Knights vs Haemonculus Covens + Iron Warriors + Preheresy World Eaters. I think it's rather more fun than most. Plus it's got a relatively well thought out society. (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/entry.php?8503-Warhammer-40-000-Campaign-The-Kepler-Covenant-Part-2-Necrons)

[Kirsten]

don't be silly Yorkie, it is because GW are lazy and evil and don't care about anybody, and not, for example:

"Howling devotion to Khorne, the Brazen Onslaught smash into enemy lines like a great mailed fist. Shrugging off even the most concentrated assaults of enemy fire, this host is a pure killing machine, searching for guts and glory."

[Popsical]

In reality we have 3 groups of players (roughly speaking).

Group 1 want to play 40k as a game to compete with others to see whos got the bigger pair.

Group 2 want to play 40k as a game for S**** and giggles coz its fun.

Group 3 want to play 40k as a game which tells a story of the universe as they see it in their own minds.

None of these are right or wrong and some players bridge all these groups in varying amounts.
The problem is that if your more a member of groups 1 or 3 you are not likely to get a good game against the diametrically opppsed group.
Yes, thats because of balance, no GW dont give a flying fig.
So there it is.
Bummer innit?

[YorkNecromancer]

Bummer innit?

Or a license to print money.

Release a supplement titled 'playstyles'. Or, you know 'Blood Skulling', whatever works best.

In this book, there are three chapters, each representing a totally different way to play. All are equally official.

1 is titled 'Hardcore' or 'WAAC' or, you know, whatever. It is the 'Ard Boyz style. It has lots of rules for tightening things up, as well as balancing the various codexes against each other, etc...
2 is titled 'Beer and Pretzels' or some title with the word 'Doom' in it. It represents 'fun' play, and has lots of rules for streamlining the game.
3 is titled 'Forge The Narrative' or something that evokes Epic drama. It is the 'Forge The Narrative' playstyle GW favours, and has all the wonky random 'fun' rules - as well as the golden rule to just ignore them if they get too much.

Next edition, these playstyles are incorporated into the core game.

Players then roll a D3 to see which style they MUST play.

Or, you know, they decide based on their own personal preferences.

The only problem is that this is a very 'meta' way to do things, and GW hates 'meta', because they're all 'Forge The Narrative' and are convinced it's the best way to play. But it would work.

[Lord Manton]

And "it's random" doesn't explain why they couldn't be bothered to replace a card that gives points for using a psychic power in an army with no psykers (because the god it's based around loathes psychic powers). Saying "tough" to that issue is also the kind of horrible attitude that's the real problem in the game. It's something that shouldn't exist, because it makes no sense, isn't remotely narrative, and just serves to be a pointless PITA for the player.

But it does go a way to explaining that Maelstrom is specifically designed to be random which means sometimes you get a card that says "you get D3 points for holding objective 2" and you're sitting on #2 already, and sometimes, shock horror, you get a card that isn't favourable to you. This is because for a random mechanic to be worthwhile, it needs to have a good and a bad outcome. We can't just have every option be good, because it skews the balance. Also, even though Khorne hates Psykers, they hate Slaanesh more. So an alliance with Tzeentch or Nurgle who have psykers isn't out of the question and you still get to use your funky new cards.


In the middle of all of this, it doesn't help to have someone starting a combative topic titled "Stop Your Whinging!" where they insult anyone who dares question whether 40K is the most awesome, best, most balanced, flawless game out there. Come out swinging with insults using an offensive argument, you should expect to get slapped in return.

If you bother to read the entirety of the original post, you'll notice that I never said 40k was the best, flawless etc. I said GW make the best miniatures, and IMO, they do. Their multi-part plastic kits are amazing. They manage to fit detail and character into each piece, that can then, more or less, flawlessly mix and match with any other piece from that kit or a similar kit from the faction, while providing most (if not all) weapon options available to the unit as well as a number of options for heads and legs and backpacks and everything else. Infinity make beautiful models, but sadly, they're metal, single-pose models, which limits them. Wyrd have the same issue, although i recently had a drool over the new Through The Breach character-builder kit with enough bits to make 11 individual characters with all sorts of hats and jackets and and and and... and I now get Barbie (only took 25 years).

The point is, the original point of the post was to gently suggest that people stop complaining and actually do something about it. If the game is so terrible, maybe we can all come together and think of a way to fix the rules (or straight-up make a new game) and learn to play nicely. Whether this means a consistent set of tournament legal rules for competitive play or something else, I don't know. Personally, I don't care (odd since I started this battle); I get to play with my friends, a group of like-minded individuals with whom I am comfortable to raise issues of balance and talk about what sort of armies we expect to bring.

Erik's problem is clearly that everyone in his area is a douche-nozzle who has been sucked in by the meta-power-ego trip of the internet mentality in 40k. The source of this is actually completely benign. It probably has something to do with the fact that the people who don't care about game balance and stupid rules that ruin games and all the rest of it don't talk about it. They have no reason to. So the overwhelming majority of blogs and forum posts online about 40k come from a competitive mindset, at least when it comes to rules discussions. This, coupled with trolls, leads to a spiral of vitriol and negativity that then, sadly, bleeds into the real world and the FLGS because some people like to go with what they perceive to be the flow. They think that the majority of people want to hear about how Invisible Thunderwolves ruin everything ever, and fair enough too; if you go online, apparently that's the only thing worth talking about. This also goes some way to explaining the prevalence of the beat stick lists. Those same people were probably new and got stomped in a game, so they went online and googled "good space marine list" and lo-and-behold a netlist pops up. This dude brings that list to the shop and suddenly becomes the guy to beat, so the disease spreads as no one wants to lose, so the lists get stronger and more generic and less and less attention is paid to the theme or narrative. And then the long-beard whose Tyranid list is based on the 'Nids that were involved in the Anphelion Project (IA4-great book!) steps back one day and sees something completely different to what they remember and probably has a "How did we sink so low?" moment.

[Erik Setzer]

juggernauts have never been fast. crushers and terminators are the elite heavy hitters of each army, makes sense to pair them up. why would they replace one of the main cards? you already got the army specific ones, the core cards aren't going to change. it isn't being lazy or cheap.

I have never been in the GW can do no wrong attitude, you just aren't actually raising any valid arguments. again you claim insults when there are none, can you not tolerate being questioned?

Juggernauts are cavalry. 12" move. Terminators are Relentless, which slows them even more than just being 6" move (no Sweeping Advance).

Why replace a "main" card? Because you're already replacing six of them. And because that card makes no sense with the army and is impossible to complete with the army.

No insults?

"the game is balanced. any faction can beat any other. if you can't, then you suck, not the rules."
"claims to the contrary are just internet complaining"
"the pro GW crowd are pretty rational, the anti GW crowd is stupidly over the top and makes groundless claims"

So in your own little world, calling people stupid, saying they suck, claiming that those who disagree with you are "just complaining" and "groundless," none of that is insulting?

I see the problem here. You aren't in this debate for any honest debate. You're purposely making comments that you know aren't accurate and insulting others (then claiming you aren't) in order to upset people and get your jollies off from it. Typical trolling. Good job. Now toss off, or start debating honestly and drop the insults.

- - - Updated - - -


But it does go a way to explaining that Maelstrom is specifically designed to be random which means sometimes you get a card that says "you get D3 points for holding objective 2" and you're sitting on #2 already, and sometimes, shock horror, you get a card that isn't favourable to you. This is because for a random mechanic to be worthwhile, it needs to have a good and a bad outcome. We can't just have every option be good, because it skews the balance. Also, even though Khorne hates Psykers, they hate Slaanesh more. So an alliance with Tzeentch or Nurgle who have psykers isn't out of the question and you still get to use your funky new cards.

Objective cards designed supposedly for a specific army should be applicable to that army, not allies of the army. In a generic deck, sure, the card makes sense, and if I play a Khorne army and draw such a card, oh well, 'tis random, that's life. But if the deck says it's for a Khorne-only army, it shouldn't have a card that requires you to ally in some other army to complete the objective. I don't care about the fortification ones, I can take a fort, any enemy can take one, so that's possible if I play a pure Khorne Daemonkin army. But no card should exist in any army-specific deck that requires you to ally with another army to complete it.

They could have easily replaced the card. Trying to find some excuse as to why "It can work if you're not playing a Khorne Daemonkin army" doesn't work.

[Houghten]

They could, but it wouldn't fit the pattern. Codexes replace objectives 11-16. No more, no less.

[daboarder]

Summon a bloodthrister.


Go on, try it in an actual game, then tell me rules design isn't important

OOOO or try use the trygon tunnel (without the ES hack)

[CoffeeGrunt]

My current army is Imperial Guard + Tau + a little Ad Mech on the side when I feel like it. I'm soon going to be adding Drop Podding Veteran teams, my fluff justification being that the Tau observed the ferocity of the drop pod assaults on Dal'yth, and a few members of the Fire Caste wanted some o' that, so they're field-testing the first versions on dedicated human Gue'vesa before they give it to the Tau themselves.

40K's fluff is excellent because you can make pretty much any alliance work if you spend some time thinking the backstory through for it. I'm even looking at building an XV-101 Firetide, which will be a prototype Riptide in looks, similar aesthetic but bulkier and clunkier, and in terms of rules it'll be a Knight. I may even make the weapon magnetised for easy swappage to do different variants. My fluff? The Tau developed the Firetide as an aggressive branch of the XV10 family before settling on the Riptide design for mass production. Having no use for it, they gifted it to the Gue'vesa who modified it and use it with their forces.

- - - Updated - - -


Summon a bloodthrister.

Go on, try it in an actual game, then tell me rules design isn't important

I'm not following how summoning Bloodthirsters doesn't work?

[daboarder]

I'm not following how summoning Bloodthirsters doesn't work?

because its a non-sensical rule that serves no purpose because said thirster wont get to do anything.

[40kGamer]

Simple numerical system?

1. All in, balls out, up to 5. Standard FoC only, no allies, Super Heavies or formations etc.

That could work if a person could find a way to enforce things. I've discussed it with local TO's who 'try' to run a fluffy, friendly, beer and pretzels event where they put the emphasis on paint, sports and having fun. Even though they advertise them as "hobby events" they still get the hard core bunny killers... which causes the fluffy bunnies to hide in their holes and not come back. Frustrating.

[Popsical]

My current army is Imperial Guard + Tau + a little Ad Mech on the side when I feel like it. I'm soon going to be adding Drop Podding Veteran teams, my fluff justification being that the Tau observed the ferocity of the drop pod assaults on Dal'yth, and a few members of the Fire Caste wanted some o' that, so they're field-testing the first versions on dedicated human Gue'vesa before they give it to the Tau themselves.

40K's fluff is excellent because you can make pretty much any alliance work if you spend some time thinking the backstory through for it. I'm even looking at building an XV-101 Firetide, which will be a prototype Riptide in looks, similar aesthetic but bulkier and clunkier, and in terms of rules it'll be a Knight. I may even make the weapon magnetised for easy swappage to do different variants. My fluff? The Tau developed the Firetide as an aggressive branch of the XV10 family before settling on the Riptide design for mass production. Having no use for it, they gifted it to the Gue'vesa who modified it and use it with their forces.

I take it your army of guard, tau, ad mech, space marines and knights is "unbound"?
We can all use what we want, when we want. Your army is definately a discuss prior to game army. Turning up to a pick up game with that would cause quite a few people to believe you were trying to plug the holes in your army by pick n mix selection.
This is where all the new freedom of choice can cause friction. Personally im all happy for unbound, but the allies list needs tightening up a megaton in my opinion.

[YorkNecromancer]

The problem with Unbound is basically a problem with the human condition: that we only see in others what we can recognise in ourselves. That classic justification for so many unpleasant acts: 'Well, if I don't do it, someone else will' or 'I just got in there and got them before they got me'.

So fluffbunnies see their opponent's Unbound list and trust when they shouldn't (because why would their opponent make a horrible, broken list? Where's the fun in winning that way?) while the WAAC players see their opponent's Unbound list and distrust when they shouldn't (because obviously their opponent is planning to ruin them. That's what they'd do.)

I'd play anyone with any army, because I don't play tournaments, and I don't replay jerks. I have a friend who got quite upset when I told him he could come out with us socially but that he'd never be invited to games nights because after one game, it was really clear that he was just too 'brutal'. Lovely guy in real life, but an absolute horror at the gaming table. Didn't matter what you played, he just played to destroy everyone and then gloated, so we kicked him to the kerb, so to speak.

It all worked out - he plays with people as savage as him now, but still joins us for tea and cake. So in that regard, I suppose wargaming is a little like certain other intimate practises: you have to agree and set boundaries with yourself ahead of time, then stick to them. It's the reason I don't go to tournaments and never will. I'd have no fun at all. I get why people enjoy them, but they just leave me cold.
Kind of why a 'playstyles' book would go some way towards solving this.

[DarkLink]

My current army is Imperial Guard + Tau + a little Ad Mech on the side when I feel like it. I'm soon going to be adding Drop Podding Veteran teams, my fluff justification being that the Tau observed the ferocity of the drop pod assaults on Dal'yth, and a few members of the Fire Caste wanted some o' that, so they're field-testing the first versions on dedicated human Gue'vesa before they give it to the Tau themselves.

40K's fluff is excellent because you can make pretty much any alliance work if you spend some time thinking the backstory through for it. I'm even looking at building an XV-101 Firetide, which will be a prototype Riptide in looks, similar aesthetic but bulkier and clunkier, and in terms of rules it'll be a Knight. I may even make the weapon magnetised for easy swappage to do different variants. My fluff? The Tau developed the Firetide as an aggressive branch of the XV10 family before settling on the Riptide design for mass production. Having no use for it, they gifted it to the Gue'vesa who modified it and use it with their forces.

- - - Updated - - -



I'm not following how summoning Bloodthirsters doesn't work?

It takes three or so turns to earn the points. The thirster gets summoned in flying mode, say T4. T5 he drops to the ground, but can't charge because he started the turn flying. You're stuck hoping the game ends T6 or 7 just so you can get into assault.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I take it your army of guard, tau, ad mech, space marines and knights is "unbound"?
We can all use what we want, when we want. Your army is definately a discuss prior to game army. Turning up to a pick up game with that would cause quite a few people to believe you were trying to plug the holes in your army by pick n mix selection.
This is where all the new freedom of choice can cause friction. Personally im all happy for unbound, but the allies list needs tightening up a megaton in my opinion.

I didn't mention Space Marines, and if you tightened the Allies list any more Allies armies would be impossible. Just because you can't trust players doesn't mean there needs to be sweeping restrictions applied to every army. Jeez, 7th Edition responding the the "waah nerf Allies" brigade stopped my Gue'vesa army from even functioning, ending a long project of a year of converting and building.

I don't see how I need permission to play a themed list against an opponent, anymore than than someone spamming Drop Pods does? How is it cherry-picking? It's worth mentioning that 99% of the time I run pure Guard, but the 1% is for when I want to emulate a scenario. (Gue'vesa holding the line before Crisis Suits drop in to help out against a Tyranid invasion for their mutual benefit.)

The Allies nerf of 7th really hit anyone using teh Guard Codex hard, as Guard should not be as difficult to ally with as Space Marines. The Guard Codex represents the generic human baseline. Gue'vesa, heretics, cultists, obscure sub-empires, undiscovered human worlds, and of course the Guard themselves. Heck, even Genestealer Cults. By rights Guard should be at least AoC with everything, because they're that generic and versatile.

[ShadowcatX]

So it is unfluffy for someone to run things from the same codex side by side, but perfectly acceptable for you to run allies of desperation in an unbound list?

[Erik Setzer]

40K's fluff is excellent because you can make pretty much any alliance work if you spend some time thinking the backstory through for it.

Hmm. And yet people claimed they couldn't figure out why different armies in the Warhammer world would be fighting each other.

But there are some things that you have to seriously push hard with. And some things that should NEVER happen. Ministorum Priests shouldn't buff Space Marines (certainly not Space Wolves) because they preach about the God-Emperor, and the Adeptus Astartes know darn well he's not a god, and aren't really keen on those teachings. They definitely wouldn't feel more pumped up because some guy nearby is preaching an inaccurate theology.

I was talking to a guy yesterday who's similarly into the fluff like me, and said he wouldn't use his Skitarii with most of his Imperial forces because AdMech don't really trust much of anyone, even other Imperials. Meanwhile, it makes some sense to use them in a "Rogue Trader" force because they'd be out on the frontier looking for new tech. (Also, "rule of cool" comes into effect, because they look like they belong on the frontier, which is where a Rogue Trader could find himself a lot.)

You have to really work at it to explain some matchups, i.e. Orks and Tau. Or Necrons and Daemons, since Daemons are the things that gave Necrons the biggest issue. Similar, Eldar and Daemons (or Eldar using Malefic powers) is just slapping the fluff in the face repeatedly. You'd have to do some serious conversion work to make Crone World Eldar to pull that off. And if someone did that, and could explain it, I would be okay with letting them do that, because at that point they're not just looking for a nasty combo to win, they're actually putting in effort to make conversions and make the army feel right, and such work should be lauded.

- - - Updated - - -


I don't see how I need permission to play a themed list against an opponent, anymore than than someone spamming Drop Pods does?

Well, the rulebook actually says you have to discuss it with your opponent... but the same goes for the Drop Pod army. You can say you don't want to fight a DP spam list. I hardly ever use my Knight (despite wanting to because it cost a lot, spent a good bit of time to model and paint, and just looks cool) because people say "I don't want to fight that." Hey, they say it won't be a fun game for them if I bring it, so I'll leave it out. (Other people, though, say, "Oh, you want to try that list with a Knight, a Stompa, and a Morkanaut again? Sounds fun, let's do it!")

Something that seems to be forgotten a lot is that these games are meant to be cooperative and fun for both players.

[Popsical]

I didn't mention Space Marines, and if you tightened the Allies list any more Allies armies would be impossible. Just because you can't trust players doesn't mean there needs to be sweeping restrictions applied to every army. Jeez, 7th Edition responding the the "waah nerf Allies" brigade stopped my Gue'vesa army from even functioning, ending a long project of a year of converting and building.

I don't see how I need permission to play a themed list against an opponent, anymore than than someone spamming Drop Pods does? How is it cherry-picking? It's worth mentioning that 99% of the time I run pure Guard, but the 1% is for when I want to emulate a scenario. (Gue'vesa holding the line before Crisis Suits drop in to help out against a Tyranid invasion for their mutual benefit.)

The Allies nerf of 7th really hit anyone using teh Guard Codex hard, as Guard should not be as difficult to ally with as Space Marines. The Guard Codex represents the generic human baseline. Gue'vesa, heretics, cultists, obscure sub-empires, undiscovered human worlds, and of course the Guard themselves. Heck, even Genestealer Cults. By rights Guard should be at least AoC with everything, because they're that generic and versatile.

You mentioned adding drop podding veterans, i presume they are sm veterans in drop pods.
7th ed hasnt even remotely nerfed allies to my liking.
My group just flatly bans allies in any form, i would like a more refined allies list or not at all. Unbound has its penalties, allies dont.
Tau have no cannon fodder and little CC ability so most people use allies to plug these holes.
You can win with pure tau but allies make it easier, same with alot of armies.
The best generals win despite their armies weaknesses.
Im sure HMS prince of wales could have sunk the bismarck if she had IJN Hiryu with her rather than HMS hood. Alot of us anti allies folk feel that allies are used this way 99% of the time.

[ShadowcatX]

Similar, Eldar and Daemons (or Eldar using Malefic powers) is just slapping the fluff in the face repeatedly.

Craftworld Altansar says hi.

[CoffeeGrunt]

You mentioned adding drop podding veterans, i presume they are sm veterans in drop pods.
7th ed hasnt even remotely nerfed allies to my liking.
My group just flatly bans allies in any form, i would like a more refined allies list or not at all. Unbound has its penalties, allies dont.
Tau have no cannon fodder and little CC ability so most people use allies to plug these holes.
You can win with pure tau but allies make it easier, same with alot of armies.
The best generals win despite their armies weaknesses.
Im sure HMS prince of wales could have sunk the bismarck if she had IJN Hiryu with her rather than HMS hood. Alot of us anti allies folk feel that allies are used this way 99% of the time.

That's fantastic Popsical. Your group can ban Allies, but you can't start using your hatred of a rule to ruin something others are having fun with. Just because you can't have fun doing something, doesn't mean no-one should be allowed to do it. Stop being so entitled towards other peoples' fun.

I play Gue'vesa because I like the idea of a unified army working across two Codexes. It's one army in colour scheme, aesthetic and construction. It's fully Bound, not Unbound. Every model is converted to represent their role, and it;s so blisteringly cheesy I ranked 5/8th the last time we ran a tournament, losing to Crons, Black Templars while gaining a leg over Grey Knights.

I don't care about the "best general." This is a game of toy soldiers, not a tactics training game for the military. Take your pretensions of tactics and have fun with it in your own way. Those of us who play for aesthetic and lore want to have fun our way, and those of you who start mewling to have everything banned because one dude beat you with it once and you therefore think it naught but cheese can and have ruined aspects of the game people like me enjoy.

Keep to your house rules, and we'll keep to our's. Everyone has fun that way, because you'll never face my Gue'vesa anyway.


But there are some things that you have to seriously push hard with. And some things that should NEVER happen. Ministorum Priests shouldn't buff Space Marines (certainly not Space Wolves) because they preach about the God-Emperor, and the Adeptus Astartes know darn well he's not a god, and aren't really keen on those teachings.

Red Scorpions. Though their Chaplains would be better. I don't do Battle Brother Allies for this reason - a lot of stuff doesn't make sense joining other squads, but would Imperial Guard and Space Marines fight in the same battle? Undoubtedly.


You have to really work at it to explain some matchups

Hence the statement, "pretty much any alliance." There are ones that simply don't make sense outside of obscure, rare moments, of course.

[Erik Setzer]

IG and SM working together, fine.

IG and SM working together just to use Ministorum Priests to buff squads and try to get access to more psykers for Endurance and Invisibility, with a token Command Squad and Veteran Squad and a Manticore with camo cloak behind an Aegis Line? That's throwing fluff out the window just to get in-game boosts. Especially when the player doing it remarked often about how Space Wolves didn't trust psykers. So why are they hooking up with IG just to get some of those untrustworthy psykers to cast magic on them and listen to some guys preach false sermons about the God-Emperor?

[Erik Setzer]

Yesterday was a day that reinforced my bad feelings about the games. Multiple people that I talked to were just done with the hobby in general. One guy is selling all of his Warhammer stuff, not even waiting for 9th edition. Another will only bring up his 30K rules and play 30K games with those of us in a small (four players) 30K campaign (mercifully letting me use my 40K Iron Warriors as 30K Iron Warriors). Other players are leaving their armies at home and only going to the shop to talk to people, because they like players, but are tired of the games.

There's one player who is single-handedly reminding us all that those who claim there's no problems with the games have got their heads buried in the sand (or are trolling people). He was eagerly trying to tell me on Friday about how you can pair Khorne Daemonkin with another Chaos army, and attached a Khorne Daemonkin character to a unit of Thousand Sons and then get Blood Tithe points for each unit the Thousand Sons destroy. (Can't wait for him to suggest doing that with a unit of Havocs, too.) Another wonderful trick was to use the Fighter Aces rules in basic games with a Tyranid Hive Tyrant tooled up with guns, and if you get a 5-6 result on the chart, just keep him within 12" of the table edge, so on your opponent's turn you can remove him from the table, then come back on the next turn and shoot, disappear on their turn, repeat all game, to have a Hive Tyrant that literally can't be hurt (unless the opponent has Interceptor, or some really good psychic powers and enough dice to get a bunch of successes so the HT doesn't stop them). I wasn't there earlier in the day (that discussion was Friday evening), but I was told his coming up with shenanigans caused some people to drop out of a multiplayer game which was intended just for S&G's.

You can "blame the player" all day long, but a company that keeps releasing rules with so many holes and chances for abuse and shows no interest in fixing them is the real problem. And I've watched them definitely lose one player from one of their games this weekend. Can't blame him... Even though he was the leading player in our side pulling off a minor victory in our End Times mega-battle, the rules lawyering and just the general play style that seemed to be pushed by having End Times rules in effect made what should have been a fun, narrative game turn into a stress-filled mess, despite the truly cinematic and sometimes hilarious moments.

If we lament for the way the games are going and how they're costing us good players and any kind of enjoyment in the hobby, we should be allowed to say that without being attacked and insulted.

[Popsical]

That's fantastic Popsical. Your group can ban Allies, but you can't start using your hatred of a rule to ruin something others are having fun with. Just because you can't have fun doing something, doesn't mean no-one should be allowed to do it. Stop being so entitled towards other peoples' fun.

I play Gue'vesa because I like the idea of a unified army working across two Codexes. It's one army in colour scheme, aesthetic and construction. It's fully Bound, not Unbound. Every model is converted to represent their role, and it;s so blisteringly cheesy I ranked 5/8th the last time we ran a tournament, losing to Crons, Black Templars while gaining a leg over Grey Knights.

I don't care about the "best general." This is a game of toy soldiers, not a tactics training game for the military. Take your pretensions of tactics and have fun with it in your own way. Those of us who play for aesthetic and lore want to have fun our way, and those of you who start mewling to have everything banned because one dude beat you with it once and you therefore think it naught but cheese can and have ruined aspects of the game people like me enjoy.

Keep to your house rules, and we'll keep to our's. Everyone has fun that way, because you'll never face my Gue'vesa anyway.



Red Scorpions. Though their Chaplains would be better. I don't do Battle Brother Allies for this reason - a lot of stuff doesn't make sense joining other squads, but would Imperial Guard and Space Marines fight in the same battle? Undoubtedly.



Hence the statement, "pretty much any alliance." There are ones that simply don't make sense outside of obscure, rare moments, of course.

Whoa there bud, no need to get your knickers in a knot.
Im not attacking you or your style of play, just discussing opinions thats all.
Your entitled to your own army and style of play, just as i am.
As eric says, the whole mess of army selection and options causes a lot of problems.
We all encounter different situations in gaming, and my experience of allies has been kerb stomping power gamers.
I look at tournament results and see the top bods using allies too which re enforces the feeling of power from allies.
Sure you can ally and choose all the poor units, but who does?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Whoa there bud, no need to get your knickers in a knot.
Im not attacking you or your style of play, just discussing opinions thats all.
Your entitled to your own army and style of play, just as i am.
As eric says, the whole mess of army selection and options causes a lot of problems.
We all encounter different situations in gaming, and my experience of allies has been kerb stomping power gamers.
I look at tournament results and see the top bods using allies too which re enforces the feeling of power from allies.
Sure you can ally and choose all the poor units, but who does?

I'm entitled to it, yes. But the outcry to nerf allies already really limited army options. Banning it outright in the ruleset would ruin a lot of armies, and I'd probably just sell up mine and move on.

You keep pointing out tournament results, people who only ally in strong stuff, and power gamers. I think it's an issue of your meta, not of the ruleset. Very few people at my store don't use Allies, but the armies are themed into one coherent collection, and adhere to the fluff.

Jesus, you guys are like people who walk into a McDonalds and tell them to stop selling fast food because some people just can't help themselves and how dare they sell Big Macs when they know it causes obesity?

Players should take responsibility for the armies they play. You honestly think banning Allies will fix anything? For every OP army it kills, it hits another weaker army, like Sisters.

[Erik Setzer]

I'm not sure what I'd like would be "nerfing" allies, though I guess it sort of would be... I'm not a fan of Battle Brothers being able to join each other's units and cast powers on each other, which leads to stuff like the aforementioned idea of just attached a Khorne Daemonkin character to a Tzeentch unit and getting BT points for the Tzeentch unit destroying stuff, or an IG Priest buffing a Space Wolf unit.

I think the Imperials should be broken down more. I wouldn't ever see Space Marines and Orks as Allies of Convenience, but there's plenty of background for IG and Orks to be, as they were before (especially Blood Axes if you're talking conventional armies; Freebooterz for a themed Ork and Human Pirate army).

My biggest issue is when glaring problems are easy to spot in the army books from the start. They don't even need to replace the whole book with a new $50 book. Just take the money we're paying for these overpriced books and pay someone to keep up a FAQ/errata that fixes some of the holes left in the books. It would be so simple. People find these things all the time and point them out, so GW doesn't have to even spend money on playtesting (at this point, I seriously doubt they do). Just fix things when people spot the problems. Their refusal to fix things or answer basic questions is something we darned well can blame on them.

Trying to make a comparison to McDonald's is nonsense. It's better to compare to another type of game... i.e. online games. When a player finds an exploit and uses it to gain an advantage, doing something they know they shouldn't, they're called out for it, sure. But usually the company will also fix it quickly... because it's something that shouldn't be done in the first place. GW doesn't fix their exploits, and we're expected to just be okay with people taking advantage of them.

No. You don't expect me to drop $85 for a basic rulebook, then $50 on a codex (not counting supplements and campaigns and WD and other stuff here), and then hundreds of dollars on an army, and just not say anything when the rules are full of holes and issues that make the game unenjoyable. It's a large investment of money and time (even just assembling the models, but more so for those of us who paint them), so it's ridiculous to tell someone, "Sure, the game is broken, but it's not the company's fault, and you should just quit and play something else, with no way to recoup your investment."

[CoffeeGrunt]

I think the Imperials should be broken down more. I wouldn't ever see Space Marines and Orks as Allies of Convenience, but there's plenty of background for IG and Orks to be, as they were before (especially Blood Axes if you're talking conventional armies; Freebooterz for a themed Ork and Human Pirate army).

I fully agree, as it was in 6th Edition. The Guard wouldn't be as strict as Sisters or Space Marines, and Inquisitors could theoretically ally with almost anyone, depending on how radical they had become...


GW doesn't fix their exploits, and we're expected to just be okay with people taking advantage of them.

Or, they have a page dedicated to saying, "hey, you should probably discuss what you're running with your opponent before you play, so that you both enjoy the playtime."

They're expecting you, as a pair of presumably mature adults, to be able to manage your own free time.

Do Bungie get told to ban Sniper Rifles, because your mate Johnny keeps taking you out from half a mile away then laughs in your face for the duration of the thirty second respawn? Do Riot have to ban people from running substandard characters in the wrong lanes because that rando that joined kept doing it and ruining your win streak?

No. You're adults, talk it out amongst yourselves like grown-ups. We had to do it here locally, and while it's not perfect, a lot of us are enjoying the game again because we all know what's coming up when we go in for the game. I've got a couple more Meltaguns and a Lascannon team, my friend has a Knight, let's see who wins.

Is it completely impossible for you to ask someone at the store - or ask in general in case someone is free - if they're free on a certain day for a game at a certain points value you'll agree on, against their, say, 'Nids and your Orks?

[Erik Setzer]

As it turns out, it does seem impossible to get people to agree to not play certain things or do shenanigans, because those things are allowed by the game, and their view is just like that displayed by some people on this topic: If it's in the game, it's perfectly balanced, totally okay to do.

Doesn't help that when you do most of your gaming at a GW store, using house rules is as frowned upon as using anything that isn't an official GW model or bit.

So now more people are just leaving their models at home and/or just not bothering to play games, outside of maybe a tiny group. And that's not healthy for the community.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Oh well. If they're running out of people to play, make it clear it's Evolve or Die.

[Erik Setzer]

A lot of this really could be solved with some care from GW. Or more of the community at large taking an attitude that just because something is legal doesn't mean you should do it. (Well, outside of tournaments. In tournaments, I guess it's fair game, though that kind of stuff was still discouraged not so long ago.)

Instead, we get people saying the game is fine, there's nothing wrong with it, and anyone who says there's anything about the games that isn't flawless is just "whinging" and should shut up.

[ShadowcatX]

So just because taking fluffy lists is legal, that doesn't mean you should do it outside of tournaments?

[CoffeeGrunt]

A lot of this really could be solved with some care from GW. Or more of the community at large taking an attitude that just because something is legal doesn't mean you should do it. (Well, outside of tournaments. In tournaments, I guess it's fair game, though that kind of stuff was still discouraged not so long ago.)

Instead, we get people saying the game is fine, there's nothing wrong with it, and anyone who says there's anything about the games that isn't flawless is just "whinging" and should shut up.

Of course Erik, I've been sitting here this whole time saying it's perfect, haven't I?

You say, "the community," like it's a gestalt hive mind, but it's not. Even the online community is an unknown fraction of the larger player base. I know a lot of people at my local only lightly skim the BoLS front page at most.


So just because taking fluffy lists is legal, that doesn't mean you should do it outside of tournaments?

I'm not following what you mean, your wording's a little awkward. Are you implying that fluffy lists shouldn't be allowed outside of tournaments?

[Path Walker]

Saying that GW should do this or that is ridiculous.

GW have made a game that suits most players, especially those in the target demographic of 12-18 year olds with parents who can afford it, thats all they have to do, thats all they owe you.

If you want the game to be something else, thats on you, not GW, fix it, leave or put up with it.

[Erik Setzer]

So just because taking fluffy lists is legal, that doesn't mean you should do it outside of tournaments?

Not sure if you're trying to inject some kind of zany humor here or being serious... so I'll go with serious.

I was referring to things like the guy who wanted to use Khorne Daemonkin characters in non-Daemonkin Chaos units in order to get bonus BT points from them killing stuff. Or similar combos, and other shenanigans. Stuff that isn't fluffy and, while technically legal, is just being done to try to find some kind of advantage in the game.

- - - Updated - - -


Of course Erik, I've been sitting here this whole time saying it's perfect, haven't I?

You're not the only person in the discussion. There have been comments by others that the game is balanced and it's the players who suck.

[Popsical]

I'm entitled to it, yes. But the outcry to nerf allies already really limited army options. Banning it outright in the ruleset would ruin a lot of armies, and I'd probably just sell up mine and move on.

You keep pointing out tournament results, people who only ally in strong stuff, and power gamers. I think it's an issue of your meta, not of the ruleset. Very few people at my store don't use Allies, but the armies are themed into one coherent collection, and adhere to the fluff.

Jesus, you guys are like people who walk into a McDonalds and tell them to stop selling fast food because some people just can't help themselves and how dare they sell Big Macs when they know it causes obesity?

Players should take responsibility for the armies they play. You honestly think banning Allies will fix anything? For every OP army it kills, it hits another weaker army, like Sisters.

You still need to chill out dude.
Im not attacking your way of life, and its not my meta that im bothered about either.
Personally id like a very tight set of allies rules, but hey gw are not going to fix anything that sells more models.
It is a real shame that the current set of rules and allies has practically killed the pick up game.
Thats my bugbear with 7th ed.

[Lord Mayhem]

On the WAAC vs Beer & Pretzels vs Fluff camps: I have a foot in each camp (don't ask)
Yes, I disagree with some of GWs decisions, and I find the game less enjoyable than I used to, but I also agree that the problems I see are not all GWs fault.

I feel a game should be challenging but fair.
I feel a player should create some fluff for his army, and paint his models as time and skill allow
I feel the game should be fun for both players

I almost gave up on 40k a few months back, during a bad game (and I've been playing since 88/89 and have over 40,000pts of armies) which just stopped being fun. I had conceded the game (I'm fine with losing as long as it's a fun game), but my opponent insisted on continuing so he could run up his score. Oh yay. Make your opponent keep going after he's conceded, yeah that's fun. That was also when I realized that all the armies were starting to look the same; lots of armored companies, unit spam, ally deathstars. Made much worse by netlisting, which I think is a lot of the problem. The combination just really disillusioned me for a while

Before netlisting everyone developed their own lists based on their own fluff and playstyle. Sure, people would develop similar lists and there would be cross pollination as people moved between groups, but there was a lot of variety as each group developed its own meta. Moving between groups meant adapting to the new meta. Nowadays most people listen to the perceived wisdom of the internet (Internet Received Wisdom, IRW) (unit X is great. unit Y sucks) and read lists online, and so the same lists and units appear over and over. Local metas start to look much more similar, because so many people are building from the internet meta. (This tends towards a WAAC meta over a casual meta, since those are the most posted lists) People don't buy or field unit Y because they're told it's a waste of time/money/points rather than seeing how it fits their gamestyle or fielding for entertainment value(one of my favorite changes in Fantasy 8th was when my wizards suddenly had a lot more chance to go boom, made them much more entertaining); fewer people buck the IRW to find out if it's actually true for them. The reduced variety of lists and units detracts from the fun because it becomes boring ("Oh look a Wraithknight/Waveserpent or Marine Bikestar or DropCenturion list again". "Oh hey yet another Waveserpent/Farseer ally block", etc). I'm not complaining about WAAC per se, just that it trends towards monotony; WAAC with variety I'm fine with (though if your opponent concedes, let him!).

Alas the genie is out of the bottle, but I would like to encourage people to avoid "the interwebs" when list building. Build to your own taste, not what the internet says (yes I know this is ironic, being posted on an internet board)

[Kirsten]

you have three feet? must be Manx

[Erik Setzer]

Conceding can be a bit of a tricky thing... I personally don't concede unless my opponent basically prods me to do so, at which point I'll do so in order to let them get in another game or something, but otherwise I'll fight to the end, because I'm a bit stubborn and I also don't want to take from someone's fun. There's only been one time I didn't do so when I probably should have, and that's when I was testing the new Orks with some survivability tricks against a Tau army, and was watching my army get shredded mercilessly.

I'm okay with someone wanting to call it if the game is getting out of hand for them, especially if they could be spending their time on something more enjoyable. However, there's some people who take it too far. One guy really annoyed me with his early conceding. In 3rd edition I played my Orks against his Sisters of Battle, got most of my army into combat on the 2nd turn, and before I could do my assault phase, he quit. In a 500 point tournament he brought a bike/speeder list of Marines, I got paired against him in the first round, wrecked his army with my Orks, and he not only conceded that game quickly, he dropped completely out of the tournament. And in those cases, it feels like the concession is more out of spite than anything else. So it's always good to be careful when conceding.

One of my recent games where I got completely wiped out, my opponent spent the first three hours (yep, hours) saying he was going to lose and his army was doing awful, etc. etc. Tide turned hardcore in his favor, and that was that. (Admittedly, he still had some hardy units left, and I couldn't seem to hurt them.)

[ShadowcatX]

Not sure if you're trying to inject some kind of zany humor here or being serious... so I'll go with serious.

I was referring to things like the guy who wanted to use Khorne Daemonkin characters in non-Daemonkin Chaos units in order to get bonus BT points from them killing stuff. Or similar combos, and other shenanigans. Stuff that isn't fluffy and, while technically legal, is just being done to try to find some kind of advantage in the game..

My point was you are still automatically assuming your way of gaming is better than everyone else's way of gaming. I was trying to show that isn't automatically the case and you should consider that when insisting other people shouldn't be able to game the way they choose.

[Kirsten]

the answer is really that everyone plays differently and wants different things. I am in favour of the allies system, because if you don't like it, house rule against it. if you do like it, there is a clear table with restrictions, penalties etc.

[ShadowcatX]

I feel a game should be challenging but fair.

I think we all agree with this, just one side wants the other to sand bag their list while the other side wants everyone else to step up their lists. Both sides believe they are playing at the proper level to have challenging but fair games. Yet only one side comes online and accuses the other of ruining the game.


Before netlisting everyone developed their own lists based on their own fluff and playstyle. Sure, people would develop similar lists and there would be cross pollination as people moved between groups, but there was a lot of variety as each group developed its own meta. Moving between groups meant adapting to the new meta. Nowadays most people listen to the perceived wisdom of the internet (Internet Received Wisdom, IRW) (unit X is great. unit Y sucks) and read lists online, and so the same lists and units appear over and over. Local metas start to look much more similar, because so many people are building from the internet meta. (This tends towards a WAAC meta over a casual meta, since those are the most posted lists) People don't buy or field unit Y because they're told it's a waste of time/money/points rather than seeing how it fits their gamestyle or fielding for entertainment value(one of my favorite changes in Fantasy 8th was when my wizards suddenly had a lot more chance to go boom, made them much more entertaining); fewer people buck the IRW to find out if it's actually true for them. The reduced variety of lists and units detracts from the fun because it becomes boring ("Oh look a Wraithknight/Waveserpent or Marine Bikestar or DropCenturion list again". "Oh hey yet another Waveserpent/Farseer ally block", etc). I'm not complaining about WAAC per se, just that it trends towards monotony; WAAC with variety I'm fine with (though if your opponent concedes, let him!).

Alas the genie is out of the bottle, but I would like to encourage people to avoid "the interwebs" when list building. Build to your own taste, not what the internet says (yes I know this is ironic, being posted on an internet board)

Or, before we were able to share wisdom and experience across large groups people would spend huge sums of money and large amounts of time only to discover that their army / favorite unit / whatever sucked. They may choose to buy more units and hope this time was better, or they might choose to quietly quit the game. Now, however, we can help steer people away from purchases that won't help them in game.

One other thing, abot the supposedly every army is the same, I've never seen two identical army lists in a top 8. Heck, the LVO had something like 13 codexes represented in the top 8. Compare that to MTG for instance, and that's pretty damn impressive.

[CoffeeGrunt]

You still need to chill out dude.
Im not attacking your way of life, and its not my meta that im bothered about either.
Personally id like a very tight set of allies rules, but hey gw are not going to fix anything that sells more models.
It is a real shame that the current set of rules and allies has practically killed the pick up game.
Thats my bugbear with 7th ed.

Mate, I'm very chilled out. Stop telling me to chill out.

Write house rules for Allies. Stop messing with the core rules most of us are currently happy with.

Is that concise enough to stop you telling me to chill out?

[Erik Setzer]

One other thing, abot the supposedly every army is the same, I've never seen two identical army lists in a top 8. Heck, the LVO had something like 13 codexes represented in the top 8. Compare that to MTG for instance, and that's pretty damn impressive.

No one in their right mind compares anything to MTG.

On that note, it was mildly amusing that the person working the counter at a FLGS (which is actually named "FLGS") said MTG was cheaper than 40K. Short run, maybe so, but long run, it can actually outpace even GW for sucking up your funds. (It's probably worth noting, though, that a friend and I were there browsing non-GW games to see what might be reasonably priced to jump into and avoid the mess that GW games have become for a while. Or at least on some weekends.)

[Mr Mystery]

Mate, I'm very chilled out. Stop telling me to chill out.

Write house rules for Allies. Stop messing with the core rules most of us are currently happy with.

Is that concise enough to stop you telling me to chill out?

This.

GW have left it to us. They provided the buffet, but we're the ones who have to fill our plates.

[daboarder]

Sorry but you'll have to explain how a balanced game is bad for you.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Sorry but you'll have to explain how a balanced game is bad for you.

When balance comes at the cost of features I like - faction variety, customisation, Allies, or the 'random factor' - then it's bad for me and bad for those I play with.

Going over to X-Wing, reputedly balanced but only has three factions, makes up for it with customisation, though. Warmachine? No DIY leaders, good faction variety but it has very little customisation as a lot of stuff is premade for you. Also has the randomness factor minimised as much as possible, so those memorable moments I enjoy in 40K like a Guardsman sergeant slapping a Carnifex about, or Enfeebled Veterans killing a Terminator Librarian are pretty much impossible.

In essence, I don't play games as a tactical exercise, I play them...as games. I no more play 40K with the aim to hone my tactical abilities than I do when playing Dawn of War online, or Team Fortress 2. I play, have some fun, get the odd decent kill or point cap, set up a few interesting events, then call it a day.

If the push for balance makes 40K more like Warmachine, then I'd simply quit, and the game would die at my store. The customisation is 40K's greatest strength and greatest curse, the sheer variety makes balance so very difficult to achieve, but it also makes list building so much more enjoyable, and ties into the hobby aspect so well. I don't have a single standard-issue character or leader model as a result, they're all converted and made for a certain build.

[daboarder]

When balance comes at the cost of features I like - faction variety, customisation, Allies, or the 'random factor' - then it's bad for me and bad for those I play with.

Going over to X-Wing, reputedly balanced but only has three factions, makes up for it with customisation, though. Warmachine? No DIY leaders, good faction variety but it has very little customisation as a lot of stuff is premade for you. Also has the randomness factor minimised as much as possible, so those memorable moments I enjoy in 40K like a Guardsman sergeant slapping a Carnifex about, or Enfeebled Veterans killing a Terminator Librarian are pretty much impossible.

In essence, I don't play games as a tactical exercise, I play them...as games. I no more play 40K with the aim to hone my tactical abilities than I do when playing Dawn of War online, or Team Fortress 2. I play, have some fun, get the odd decent kill or point cap, set up a few interesting events, then call it a day.

If the push for balance makes 40K more like Warmachine, then I'd simply quit, and the game would die at my store. The customisation is 40K's greatest strength and greatest curse, the sheer variety makes balance so very difficult to achieve, but it also makes list building so much more enjoyable, and ties into the hobby aspect so well. I don't have a single standard-issue character or leader model as a result, they're all converted and made for a certain build.

Except when its done right it DOESN'T

honestly, you can cry about "playing it as game" and try to put people down for playing differently to you all you want.

I too only play GW games as leisure, but I know many people who used to play them competitively. Do you know how many problems would be caused by if we had a blanced rules set with exciting options...NONE! NADA ZIP ZILCH!

Other games systems achieve this to a far better degree than GW does, and to be honest it wouldn't be hard to achieve for GW, all it would take would be three little things.
Set pts costs for each stat value based on a mathematical calculation (Not hard infinity does this)
Playtesting for those rules that are unique (Not hard, again most game systems do this)
A willingness to CHANGE, update clarify and ultimately support the product past the day its pushed out the door. (Again, OTHER games systems do this, most exemplary being warmachine I believe)

These are all fairly easy for a company the size of GW (and a fanbase as big) to achieve.

Instead you're vilifying and attacking people simply because they might enjoy playing differently to you. How very inclusive and open minded.

To the rest of us, can anyone find those long long posts we made crushing the argument that the desire for balance was inherently driven by the tournament crowds desire to "smash face" and the idea that it was the bane of "community hobby" from around the time 7th ed dropped, I remember some very good threads that should solve this discussion again for a time.

Might be good to drag them back out again.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Ah, looks like I fell for the troll bait. 8/8 m8.

As far as your points, yes, a perfectly balanced 40K would be awesome. So would the end of crime, the death of poverty and a magical alternative to fossil fuels that has no environmental effects.

Sadly many people will decide that with a couple of tweaks, what we have right now is good enough, rather than endlessly preach to the converted about how wonky GW's rules are. My argument isn't that tournament play is invalid, nor that the game is perfect atm, but that I simply do not care, and enjoy the game for what it is.

Your mathematical calculation idea is great...if you have all the options preset for the player. If not, then the player has to do the math themselves on top of building the lists, and there's a lot of openings for people to abuse the game, cheat the points values there. A Meltagun shouldn't cost as much to a BS2 model as it should to a BS5 model, after all. They simply wouldn't get the same use out of it.

Also I haven't been vilifying anyone, merely defending the features of the game that I enjoy, that others are saying need to be removed completely.

Of course, all this is useless time spent typing, because I know you, daboarder, and I know you just stir arguments up on this site for the hell of it.

[daboarder]

CG

Seriously, every time some disagrees with you you accuse them of trolling. Consider yourself reported and grow up you rodent or get hit with a mirror.

EDIT: And as to your statements

1) If you "don't care", Why are you arguing so vehemently against a desire for more balance?

2) A mathematical standard across the board is not mutually exclusive to the idea of options, plenty of other games achieve this (infinity for one)

[CoffeeGrunt]

CG

Seriously, every time some disagrees with you you accuse them of trolling. Consider yourself reported and grow up you rodent or get hit with a mirror.

EDIT: And as to your statements

1) If you "don't care", Why are you arguing so vehemently against a desire for more balance?

2) A mathematical standard across the board is not mutually exclusive to the idea of options, plenty of other games achieve this (infinity for one)

Daboarder, I only do it to you, because every site I've seen you on, you seem to exist to stir up controversy. From baiting the Feminist thread to this thread here, 3++ and elsewhere, you come across as someone trying to stir up as much as possible without overtly trolling anyone.

1) Because it goes around and around. Everywhere. I can't go anywhere in this community without the argument coming up, and all it is, is a bunch of people agreeing something needs to be done, but no-one does anything. AP over at 3++ tried to get a community Errata going and it flopped, because apparently everyone's fine with complaining until it comes to actually supporting an improvement in the game.

It was almost like there's several groups in the fanbase. Some really want a community errata designed to tweak the game, some don't care, and others really enjoy building broken stuff and don't want it nerfed.

If you truly believe every playstyle is valid, why push for balance when it ruins the latter category of player's fun? Why can't each group or tournament take the rules to build their own errata, like the LVO did by nerfing 2++ re-rollables to a 2+/4+?

Is the playstyle of stacking USRs together to form unbeatable deathstars not as equally valid as your balanced play, or my beer 'n' pringles play? If so, then surely pushing GW for a balanced game will ruin that aspect of the game for that group.

If not, then you're deciding how people should play the game, exactly what you accuse others of. Why not do something more constructive with your time?

[Path Walker]

Calls for someone to grow up then, within the same sentence, insults and wishes harm on them.

Genius.

[daboarder]

Wow, you seriously have a chip and a complex not only are you delusional about my intentions and motivation, I'd actually suggest that of the two of us I have done more to contribute to this community than your belly aching ever has.

As to your comments, you seriously, honestly believe that balance somehow means that those who enjoy a fluff motivated game somehow cant choose the options they want? Seriously, you actually believe that. Some times I wish people like you constantly b*tching about the tournament players hadn't run them off because a lot of them could far more eloquently point out just how stupid that concept is than I can.

Balance does not necessitate the removal of options, if you think it does then you are never, ever, ever going to find peace in the community because most of the rest of said community can understand that they are not mutually exclusive options. Balance does not mean that "deathstars" Somehow go poof in a puff of air, they would still exist and be a viable way of playing the game because they would be appropriately costed, This isn't rocket science!

As to why tournaments do not like to change the rules, because at heart they are COMMUNITY events, they want to most people to come to the event that they can get and make it the best time they can because they love the game. But as soon as a tournament changes a rule peoplecome out of the woodwork to moan about how they are only doing it to make X,Y,Z more powerful.

[Path Walker]

Name one balanced game thats actually fun.

There is no such thing as balance, because what is balanced to one person isn' t to another, individual play styles and level of ability will change how effective balance is in a game with many options, so you either simplify it, or you care less about balance.

Adults playing with model soldiers choose to care less about it. Childish people go online and moan about something so utterly inconcequential because they have nothing else in their lives.

[daboarder]

Name one balanced game thats actually fun.

Infinity

[CoffeeGrunt]

Wow, you seriously have a chip and a complex not only are you delusional about my intentions and motivation, I'd actually suggest that of the two of us I have done more to contribute to this community than your belly aching ever has.

As to your comments, you seriously, honestly believe that balance someone means that those who enjoy a fluff motivated game somehow cant choose the options they want? Seriously, you actually believe that. Some times I wish people like you constantly b*tching about the tournament players hadn't run them off because a lot of them could far more eloquently point out just how stupid that concept is than I can.

Balance does not necessitate the removal of options, if you think it does then you are never, ever, ever going to find peace in the community because most of the rest of said community can understand that they are not mutually exclusive options. Balance does not mean that "deathstars" Somehow go poof in a puff of air, they would still exist and be a viable way of playing the game because they would be appropriately costed, This isn't rocket science!

As to why tournaments do not like to change the rules, because at heart they are COMMUNITY events, they want to most people to come to the event that they can get and make it the best time they can because they love the game. But as soon as a tournament changes a rule peoplecome out of the woodwork to moan about how they are only doing it to make X,Y,Z more powerful.

There's a few of us who support my theory, mostly due to your constant baiting in the Feminist thread, but it's been noted elsewhere.

I thought it was the lack of balance that made tournie players leave? I highly doubt my opinion is so vaunted as to have killed off tournament 40K, my friend. A balanced 40K would be great, just show me another game system that is perfectly balanced at the same scale and complexity at 40K is, and I'll cede the point to you.

No skirmish games. No Infinity, no X-Wing, no WarmaHordes. Show me a game that is precisely 40K But More Balanced, that doesn't simplify things with less minis, less customisation or less factions, and you will sway my opinion.

As you're such a pillar of the community, why don't you write a concise list of every issue in the game, and email it to GW with recommendations to tweak the balance, like all of us have done before we gave up? I'm sure they'll listen to you over me, given your contributions and all.


Calls for someone to grow up then, within the same sentence, insults and wishes harm on them.

Genius.

I honestly can't tell if he's doing it deliberately or not. Either is worrying.

[Path Walker]

Infinity

hahahaha

Have you actually playing Infinity?

[daboarder]

hahahaha

Have you actually playing Infinity?

....oO....are you implying that the game is either not balanced, or not fun?

Because if you suggested the game was not balanced to the community relative to 40k I think you'd actually kill people from fits of laughter, and if you are commenting on its entertainment value, well....its nice to see that your standards are the universal constant. (particularly given the game has grown so rapidly)

[Path Walker]

Its not balanced, it has balance problems, same as every other game

There is no such thing as balance.

I have played the game, its a fun game with some nice models, I'd play more but no one plays it, so my Haqqislam stay in the case, see also: DZC, Firestorm Armada etc etc

The only games people actually seem to play are WFB, 40k and X Wing, none of which are "balanced" according to whiners.

[daboarder]

Its not balanced, it has balance problems, same as every other game

There is no such thing as balance.

would you care to elaborate in detail? What specifics do you find unbalanced, please do tell

and again, we are speaking of balance relative to 40k and while perfect balance may not be achievable trying and getting damned close is much better than not bothering.

[Path Walker]

No we weren't, you were, because its the only way you can try and prove your pathetic little point.

I said name a balanced game. You named a game that isn't balanced. Its pretty simple.

Balance isn't important to 95% of the customers. Why invest money in something that only pleases a tiny minority when you can spend it on artists, fluff writers and models?

[daboarder]

No we weren't, you were, because its the only way you can try and prove your pathetic little point.

I said name a balanced game. You named a game that isn't balanced. Its pretty simple.

Balance isn't important to 95% of the customers. Why invest money in something that only pleases a tiny minority when you can spend it on artists, fluff writers and models?

Can you elaborate in detail the problems with Infinity

Yes/No?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Balance isn't important to 95% of the customers. Why invest money in something that only pleases a tiny minority when you can spend it on artists, fluff writers and models?

Now now, Path Walker. I distinctly remember seeing a new guy at the store last week, who sat down and asked, "which of these games is most balanced for tournament standard play?" No-one goes in and looks for the game with cool models or interesting backstory or setting. Seriously, what kinda person goes into a game on those merits?

Also Daboarder will keep twisting his own argument until you Ignore him, it's kind annoying until you learn to find amusement in it. He'll also outright ignore posts that challenge his beliefs too radically, like my previous one where I asked him to name a non-Skirmish game that matches 40K or at least comes close in the aspects of Complexity, Faction Variety and Customisation, but exceeds it in terms of balance.

Easy to balance a game with five minis and a leader in it. Try balancing a game where that's the tip of the iceberg. Especially one that blends armoured vehicles in with Infantry, fliers, gargantuan fighting machines, and has to allow all of those playstyles to be equally viable against each other so that, for example, my Wall O' Russes doesn't smash your Gaunt swarm list.

When it's effectively 5 Infantry vs 5 Infantry, or fighter craft vs fighter craft, balance is easy. I understand that larger vessels like the Decimator upset X-Wing's balance, though.

Bolt Action is a game similar to 40K, and has a lot of variety and customisation, but I haven't played it a lot though. I've been told already that it has some power units people spam, so I'm not optimistic on that front. Thankfully I'm playing it for fun, rather than parity.

[daboarder]

Now now, Path Walker. I distinctly remember seeing a new guy at the store last week, who sat down and asked, "which of these games is most balanced for tournament standard play?" No-one goes in and looks for the game with cool models or interesting backstory or setting. Seriously, what kinda person goes into a game on those merits?

Also Daboarder will keep twisting his own argument until you Ignore him, it's kind annoying until you learn to find amusement in it. He'll also outright ignore posts that challenge his beliefs too radically, like my previous one where I asked him to name a non-Skirmish game that matches 40K or at least comes close in the aspects of Complexity, Faction Variety and Customisation, but exceeds it in terms of balance.

Easy to balance a game with five minis and a leader in it. Try balancing a game where that's the tip of the iceberg. Especially one that blends armoured vehicles in with Infantry, fliers, gargantuan fighting machines, and has to allow all of those playstyles to be equally viable against each other so that, for example, my Wall O' Russes doesn't smash your Gaunt swarm list.

When it's effectively 5 Infantry vs 5 Infantry, or fighter craft vs fighter craft, balance is easy. I understand that larger vessels like the Decimator upset X-Wing's balance, though.

Bolt Action is a game similar to 40K, and has a lot of variety and customisation, but I haven't played it a lot though. I've been told already that it has some power units people spam, so I'm not optimistic on that front. Thankfully I'm playing it for fun, rather than parity.

:rolleyes:

Its like trying to talk to anti-vacers.....

[Path Walker]

Can you elaborate in detail the problems with Infinity

Yes/No?

Camo/ODD spam is my main gripe.

The game is in no way balanced, its just not played as much so there aren't as many people working at breaking it, so it takes longer.

[daboarder]

Camo/ODD spam
really, hadn't heard that, but the easy counter would be to take units with an MSV.

as to population, you actually raise a point about people working to break the game, but there are sufficient people for any major issues to have been raised in the last 5 or so months since N3 hit, compared to the Day one issues with 40k thats a pretty good run. (they have drastically underproduced the last two major books they sold, and had to produce second print runs)

Bout the only problem wiht infinity (and honestly what I would have expected you to mention) Is the reliance on specialist in the ITS (which CB actually responds too), I cant think of any other problem that cant be solved in the game by appropriate lateral thinking,

[CoffeeGrunt]

:rolleyes:

Its like trying to talk to anti-vacers.....

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention Path Walker. He also likes to ignore posts and put a 1 sentence answer belittling your point without actually addressing it. It's actually, funnily enough, like talking to an anti-vaxxer. Any time you get close to actually pushing them to support their opinion with fact, they simply start insulting you.

Daboarder, you really are adorable at times. However, it's time to grow up and support your opinions with fact.

[Path Walker]

:rolleyes:

Its like trying to talk to anti-vacers.....

I don't know if you're trolling with this level of irony?

[CoffeeGrunt]

I don't know if you're trolling with this level of irony?

He's been trolling the entire time...

[daboarder]

He's been trolling the entire time...

Seriously dude, stop, just stop.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Seriously dude, stop, just stop.

Likewise. Or, alternatively, start actually making a point rather than just saying whatever you think will most annoy the people in the thread.

[Deadlift]

Likewise. Or, alternatively, start actually making a point rather than just saying whatever you think will most annoy the people in the thread.

To be fair your coming across just as combatative.

[CoffeeGrunt]

To be fair your coming across just as combatative.

In my defense, I'm just trying to get him to stop insulting people and back something up for a change.

[Deadlift]

He's been trolling the entire time...



- - - Updated - - -


In my defense, I'm just trying to get him to stop insulting people and back something up for a change.

How are you any different ?
I'm not defending anyone, but I'm getting sick to the back teeth of how BoLs has degenerated recently. It used to be a good community, but as of late the constant bickering is ruining that. The Oubliette especially was "fun" mixed with debate. Not so much anymore.

[40kGamer]

Infinity

Absolutely.

[Haighus]

To be fair your coming across just as combatative.
I think he might have hit Daboarder saturation point and it is all bleeding over. Or in other words, his daboarder s*** bucket has filled up and is overflowing at the moment.

I don't know where I stand in this whole debate. GW could certainly do more (regular FAQs would be nice), but at the same time the game is workable at the moment, especially with a good local community. Most of the problems arise when different types of players attempt to play each other, which is making pick-up games more difficult.

On the other hand, the simple solution to making the game more balanced is simple to cut options, and whilst I don't think GW would do that, it is a possibility. Also a valid point that a more balanced game would ruin the fun off people who like crushing other players with maximised lists, although to be honest, I would rather not play that sort of person (that isn't the same as someone who wants to play competitively in a tournament, but someone who likes power-gaming in an environment where no one else is, solely to win even though it isn't challenging. I have met and played people like that).

[40kGamer]

Easy to balance a game with five minis and a leader in it. Try balancing a game where that's the tip of the iceberg. Especially one that blends armoured vehicles in with Infantry, fliers, gargantuan fighting machines, and has to allow all of those playstyles to be equally viable against each other so that, for example, my Wall O' Russes doesn't smash your Gaunt swarm list.

Don't look at the models as these are just placeholders for the actual game. Put on your matrix goggles and see the math behind these models. You can always (and I do mean always) balance the math & probability. The fact that no efforts are made to actually do this speaks volumes.

[daboarder]

To be fair your coming across just as combatative.
Dont stress deadlift. Its not worth it. This has already wasted a bunch of posts

- - - Updated - - -


Don't look at the models as these are just placeholders for the actual game. Put on your matrix goggles and see the math behind these models. You can always (and I do mean always) balance the math & probability. The fact that no efforts are made to actually do this speaks volumes.

For others what gamer is stating is that its more appropriate to view a 40k squad as a single multi wound entity. In that while other skirmish games may use less "models" the number of units or elements in play is roughly the same. Hence balancing techniques employed by other companies should be relatively easy to translate across

[Haighus]

Wouldn't a mathematical balancing process require abstract line of sight to work? That is something I really can't be bothered with, my least favourite aspect of playing 4th Edition was abstract LOS. Otherwise rough model dimensions would somehow have to be factored into the calculations, because of the advantages and disadvantages of model size. A tough, well protected gunboat wants to be quite tall for good LOS, but an assault unit with no ranged weapons is better when it is small and easier to hide.

[Deadlift]

I think he might have hit Daboarder saturation point and it is all bleeding over. Or in other words, his daboarder s*** bucket has filled up and is overflowing at the moment.

Yeah comments like that help.
I'm not a competitive player, never have been. But that doesn't stop me from appreciating that for some 40k is fun when played competitively. It's not a thing to be sneered at and taken the piss out of. It really gets me how obnoxious people get towards others who enjoy a style of play different to them. 40k is hugely imbalanced in comparison to x-wing, but then x-wing only has 3 factions. The difference is any faction can compete with another in x-wing and whilst list building is a factor, player skill is also a big decider. With 40k not so much. Doesn't make me like 40k any less, but I'm not blind to it's faults as a game either. I can't comment on Infinity, never played it.

[daboarder]

Wouldn't a mathematical balancing process require abstract line of sight to work? That is something I really can't be bothered with, my least favourite aspect of playing 4th Edition was abstract LOS. Otherwise rough model dimensions would somehow have to be factored into the calculations, because of the advantages and disadvantages of model size. A tough, well protected gunboat wants to be quite tall for good LOS, but an assault unit with no ranged weapons is better when it is small and easier to hide.

Not on the point scale that 40k is typically organized. Sure you might account for the size of a 6w MC in points compared to a 4W one. But the players dont need to see that calculation. Just the ultimate end result (the units pts cost). Any in game effect should be handled by the base cost of the unit and the error and noise should be negligible on the scale of the game as a whole

[Psychosplodge]

This has already wasted a bunch of posts


We get ten thousand per thread...

[daboarder]

I can't comment on Infinity, never played it.

You should try it. The new edition is super tight and the game is fun and cheap (starter sets are typically complete 125 pt lists for around 30-40Aud. And you can do a "horde" army for about 140 aud and 300pts (largest common game size.)

The community is also super chilled partly because there isnt an inherent disconnect between the different styles of play

[Haighus]

Ah ok, so it is accounted for by the units base cost. That is good, abstract LOS added an annoying amount of book keeping IMO. How are the mathematical systems created? I assume they require a good deal of play-testing to get the relative worth of stats etc worked out? I'd imagine that each stat roughly follows an S-shaped curve in terms of gained effectiveness to stat increase, say T4 to T5 is much more useful than T1 to T2 or T9 to T10 proportionally. In terms of calculating points, that would mean a greater increase in points to improve from T4 to 5, than from T9 to 10, in this example. I'm guessing that would be how it works.

[daboarder]

We get ten thousand per thread... :)
I meant more that its been a page or two since a reasonably on topic post had been made (and yeah i get thats partly my fault)

[Deadlift]

You should try it. The new edition is super tight and the game is fun and cheap (starter sets are typically complete 125 pt lists for around 30-40Aud. And you can do a "horde" army for about 140 aud and 300pts (largest common game size.)

The community is also super chilled partly because there isnt an inherent disconnect between the different styles of play

Yeah I looked at Haqqislam actually. I love the models and my local game store says it's taking off in a big way. That and Malifaux are getting more playing time here than 40k I am told.

[daboarder]

Ah ok, so it is accounted for by the units base cost. That is good, abstract LOS added an annoying amount of book keeping IMO. How are the mathematical systems created? I assume they require a good deal of play-testing to get the relative worth of stats etc worked out? I'd imagine that each stat roughly follows an S-shaped curve in terms of gained effectiveness to stat increase, say T4 to T5 is much more useful than T1 to T2 or T9 to T10 proportionally.
Im not sure for infinity exactly. You can see base elements of the cross the board values in the cost of equipment (which comes with two values to limit spam) but the specifics of hows its calculated are beyond me.

For example. In infinty a HMG is almost always 8 pts and 1 special weapon cost (an equipment limit that scales with pts limit).
They dont need to adjust for the BS of each unit because the BS is already calculated in the base statline of the unit and the SWC limit prevents the spaming of cheap guys with big guns

[Kirsten]

this entire subject is utterly subjective. nobody can prove that one game is more balanced than another because there are far too many factors at work.

[Haighus]

I've just been thinking back to my old Guard codices, and back in the 4th ed one, there were weapons costs like 7pts and 4 pts and so on, but in the 5th ed codex, these were all evened out to multiples of 5 for the most part, and in the 6th ed one, power weapons became the same price as SM ones, despite being far less effective on a Guardsmen. It has made list writing a lot easier, but has made the weapons options seem less nuanced and varied depending on effectiveness. Maybe that is something that could be worked on with regards to making the game more balanced. Would people take grenade launchers if they were 3pts or 4pts not 5pts?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Okay, back to the issue at hand. I added Daboarder to my Ignore list, and I recommend he does the same to me.

On the note of playstyles, the problem we have is that 40K is currently trying to cater to a lot of different styles, while not really fulfilling all of them. Do I recognise that as a problem? Yes, but maybe as a repair technician, it's my viewpoint to try and workaround things if I can't directly fix them. Apologies for the previous comments, but after two years of playing this game, I've found the community to be the largest driver for making people leave the game. So much negativity, I've never seen the like even in online gaming.

But I digress. The problem is we have several different playstyles all enjoying the game. Narrative gamers, fluffy players, tournament players, and That Guy. Tbh, while one or two may be compatible, none are compatible with all the others.

Everyone likes to rip on That Guy, who brings the ferociously cheesy list they spent ages math-hammering and playtesting to a level of hair-ripping brutality. However, I've had some of my most fun games against one of our local That Guys, because he wanted to test his list out, challenged me, and I told him, "okay, we'll play on Saturday, and I'll bring the best possible list I can think of to counter that." He enjoyed the extra challenge, we had some good banter, and due to a combination of planning and bringing the right kit, I managed to eke out a win.

At the same time, I'd consider myself a fluffy gamer, or hobbyist. I tend to play the models I like the paintjob on the most, or whatever I've recently bought I thought would be cool. This could be a mass of tanks or a blob of Bullgryns with a Priest and Primaris Psyker in what I affectionately call the, "Dumbstar." At best I place 5th in local tournaments, (of 8 people,) I wouldn't ever consider myself to be competitive at the game.

Thing is, every playstyle is equally valid, yet if you look at other games, they tend to home in on one or two. If you want balance, you'd have to compress 40K to tailor it down to those sorts of games. Narrative campaigns are rarely designed around equal strength forces, for example.

[daboarder]

Yeah I looked at Haqqislam actually. I love the models and my local game store says it's taking off in a big way. That and Malifaux are getting more playing time here than 40k I am told.

Ask if they are doing a slow grow league. They can come in the standard community event style list or as an ITS Style structure where CB recomends the way to teach and scale up the game (working your way up through the pts and complexity until you have a tournament at the end)

[Haighus]

Im not sure for infinity exactly. You can see base elements of the cross the board values in the cost of equipment (which comes with two values to limit spam) but the specifics of hows its calculated are beyond me.

For example. In infinty a HMG is almost always 8 pts and 1 special weapon cost (an equipment limit that scales with pts limit).
They dont need to adjust for the BS of each unit because the BS is already calculated in the base statline of the unit and the SWC limit prevents the spaming of cheap guys with big guns
Ahh, fair enough, it does sound like something that would be complex.
The equipment being standard but the extra costs being included in the skills of the model should work in theory, but porting this over to 40k would have problems with very expensive equipment and very cheap troops (5pt Guardsmen with 25pt power fist, which is worse in most situations than a 15pt plasmagun for the army, but can be better than the same 15pt plasmagun when used on a SM). Hmm, I think 40k would need it on a Codex by Codex basis.

[Deadlift]

this entire subject is utterly subjective. nobody can prove that one game is more balanced than another because there are far too many factors at work.

I would disagree with that Kirsten, we've all read codex reviews on seen how they stack up against each other. Some are better than others competitively, you only have to look at the results from tournaments to see which armies are more competitive. BoLs posted a list on it's front page from a recent tournament. It was all Tau, Eldar and Space Marines.
Now for us less competitive folks the competitive lines are more blurred as we take models we like more than the ones we would to win. 40k does have balance issues that are more prevalent the more competitive you get.


I think I may have over used the word competitive. Lol.

[daboarder]

Ahh, fair enough, it does sound like something that would be complex.
The equipment being standard but the extra costs being included in the skills of the model should work in theory, but porting this over to 40k would have problems with very expensive equipment and very cheap troops (5pt Guardsmen with 25pt power fist, which is worse in most situations than a 15pt plasmagun for the army, but can be better than the same 15pt plasmagun when used on a SM). Hmm, I think 40k would need it on a Codex by Codex basis.

Oh youd have to change the way units are purchased. But id auggest that modern 40k has the basis for such a system built into. In that GW no longer really allows you to min max within a unit anymore (6man las plas for example). Therefore it should be trivial to account for the number of units on the field (that guardsman army only gets a single lascannon per squad for example) which means that if the baselines of the units are calculated correctly such a system would inherently limit itself.

Sorry ive gone off on a tangent. Yes you would need to be careful with the force multipliers like PFs and theyd probably need a sliding baseline. But that should be easily done for an expert

[Deadlift]

Ask if they are doing a slow grow league. They can come in the standard community event style list or as an ITS Style structure where CB recomends the way to teach and scale up the game (working your way up through the pts and complexity until you have a tournament at the end)

Thanks, I think I will. Looks like a cheap investment for a punt at a new game.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Ahh, fair enough, it does sound like something that would be complex.
The equipment being standard but the extra costs being included in the skills of the model should work in theory, but porting this over to 40k would have problems with very expensive equipment and very cheap troops (5pt Guardsmen with 25pt power fist, which is worse in most situations than a 15pt plasmagun for the army, but can be better than the same 15pt plasmagun when used on a SM). Hmm, I think 40k would need it on a Codex by Codex basis.

This I agree with. I basically never take Power Weapons on my Guardsmen, because at T3 I3 5+, I'm dead before I get to swing. Not to mention WS3 S3 making it pretty irrelevant when I do swing.

15pts gets them a nice Plasma Gun, or Carapace Armour for the squad. The Plasma Gun on Veterans hits on a better number, from further, doing more damage, without getting punched in the face first. It's a no-brainer.

Can't imagine why I'd put a Power Fist on someone. S6 AP2 at I1 is a bit pants. ID-ing T3 models as easy, Multi-Lasers do that. At 25pts on the off-chance the Sergeant will still be alive to swing, it's not really worth it. :/

[Kirsten]

I would disagree with that Kirsten, we've all read codex reviews on seen how they stack up against each other. Some are better than others competitively

not really, reviews are still subjective, how we see each book depends on how we play, and what we play with. Marines are by far the most popular range, it is no wonder they win most tournaments. and yet all the time we see lists that people call useless triumphing at big events. as I have said before, any 40k race can beat any other. that is amazing for a game with such a massive range of races and units. your chances of encountering an unwinnable game are virtually nil.

and how can you possibly compare 40k to X Wing for example, or Infinity? they are totally different games, different sizes, different rules, different quantities of models, factions...

[daboarder]

Thanks, I think I will. Looks like a cheap investment for a punt at a new game.
If you decide you dont like it (and thats fair its a steep learning vurve and a very different thought approach to problem solving compared to 40k.) You should be able to easily shift the minis. The second hand infinity market is fairly voracious as far as i am aware (low supply and all that)

[CoffeeGrunt]

It's also pretty fun seeing underdogs win, like that Lictors and Stealers list that took the LVO, (IIRC.)

[daboarder]

and how can you possibly compare 40k to X Wing for example, or Infinity? they are totally different games, different sizes, different rules, different quantities of models, factions...

The idea isnt to compare the games to each other. Its to compare the variance within each game (or set).

[Erik Setzer]

Now now, Path Walker. I distinctly remember seeing a new guy at the store last week, who sat down and asked, "which of these games is most balanced for tournament standard play?" No-one goes in and looks for the game with cool models or interesting backstory or setting. Seriously, what kinda person goes into a game on those merits?

I like to play for fun mostly, don't do many tournaments (the last tournament I played was an Unbound tourney at the local GW store that was meant to be fun themed armies... some of us did that, some people clearly didn't). But I'd like balance because it means those games I'm playing just for fun *will* be fun. I'm fine with losing, but feeling like I never had a chance isn't fun. Watching a one-sided match, throwing everything you have at the opposing army and knowing it won't change the end result, that's not fun at all.

We can't just hole up in our own tiny groups of people we absolutely trust not to play in a way aimed at breaking a game. Games are meant to be social. I want a social experience, having fun with people, meeting new folks, and not having to worry I'll spend the next four hours going through a painful experience.

As for how figures look getting me into games... well, that's part of the reason I'm looking at Malifaux and Infinity. Even if I don't get to play much Malifaux, those models are freaking awesome. As background goes, that's what draws me to want to try Bolt Action, I like the idea of leading the British army (especially the Eighth Army) to victory, because they were pretty kick-*** in WWII. And, of course, being a Star Wars nut, I like X-Wing, Armada, and Imperial Assault.

Really, the only thing 40K has over those other games is that it has more people playing it, but that seems to be changing. The only reason a lot of folks stick with it is because they've already sank so much money into it. That could be an issue when Kings of War's new edition comes out and people decide to try a new fantasy game that would let them use the models they already have...

[Haighus]

Oh youd have to change the way units are purchased. But id auggest that modern 40k has the basis for such a system built into. In that GW no longer really allows you to min max within a unit anymore (6man las plas for example). Therefore it should be trivial to account for the number of units on the field (that guardsman army only gets a single lascannon per squad for example) which means that if the baselines of the units are calculated correctly such a system would inherently limit itself.

Sorry ive gone off on a tangent. Yes you would need to be careful with the force multipliers like PFs and theyd probably need a sliding baseline. But that should be easily done for an expert
Why is this on a tangent? :) Wasn't the OP about working on a solution for how to fix the game ourselves if desired? Seems like this fits the bill at a preliminary level. I actually think that this could be implemented. I wonder if it is possible to achieve greater balance in 40k simply by adjusting points costs, or whether there are core rules issues that simply will always unbalance the game (I'm sure some people would suggest allies at this point).

[daboarder]

Why is this on a tangent? :) Wasn't the OP about working on a solution for how to fix the game ourselves if desired? Seems like this fits the bill at a preliminary level. I actually think that this could be implemented. I wonder if it is possible to achieve greater balance in 40k simply by adjusting points costs, or whether there are core rules issues that simply will always unbalance the game (I'm sure some people would suggest allies at this point).

Edit: nevermind. My reply seems to fit the way intended. Please disregard that bit about being off tangent


Theoretically pts cost adjust should be all 40k needs. But i think a more practical approach would include some limitations on the access different armies have to force multipliers. The allies rules namely greatly favour imperium armies. If force multipliers werent a thing then that wouldnt be an issue. But with them you might need to change things like the way allies interact so that you limit cross bleed.

I think.

[Haighus]

Ahh, ok, well I guess that would be restricted by the already existing limits on what units can and can't take. (heavy weapon spam)

Hmm, Battle Brother Independent Characters being unable to join allies would go some way to mitigating that. I like the Hierarchy idea though:
Inquisition
Space Marines
Sisters of Battle
Imperial Guard

With IC only being able to join the same level or lower. Space Marines would need to be split up further too I think. Ad Mech separate.

[daboarder]

Ahh, ok, well I guess that would be restricted by the already existing limits on what units can and can't take.

Yeah basically

[40kGamer]

I think I may have over used the word competitive. Lol.

That's pretty funny! Anyone using the word 'balanced' may edge it out though. :p

- - - Updated - - -


not really, reviews are still subjective, how we see each book depends on how we play, and what we play with. Marines are by far the most popular range, it is no wonder they win most tournaments. and yet all the time we see lists that people call useless triumphing at big events. as I have said before, any 40k race can beat any other. that is amazing for a game with such a massive range of races and units. your chances of encountering an unwinnable game are virtually nil.

Oh I see unwinnable 40k games laid out all the time. That's why you have to talk about the game you want to play in advance now.

[Psychosplodge]

It's also pretty fun seeing underdogs win, like that Lictors and Stealers list that took the LVO, (IIRC.)


The idea isnt to compare the games to each other. Its to compare the variance within each game (or set).

So if you're ignoring each other can you both still see these quotes?

[Erik Setzer]

So if you're ignoring each other can you both still see these quotes?

I'd guess they can, given that I can still see "Path Walker" being quoted by other people, but otherwise mercifully can't see his posts. It's an imperfect system...

[Psychosplodge]

It's only science if I write it down.

Ignored people are still visible on quotes.

Thank you for taking part in this scientific test.

[Popsical]

Most of the problems arise when different types of players attempt to play each other, which is making pick-up games more difficult.

This.

[40kGamer]

It's only science if I write it down.

Ignored people are still visible on quotes.

Thank you for taking part in this scientific test.

I'd say your experiment was a resounding success! Pints for everyone. :p

- - - Updated - - -


Theoretically pts cost adjust should be all 40k needs. But i think a more practical approach would include some limitations on the access different armies have to force multipliers. The allies rules namely greatly favour imperium armies. If force multipliers werent a thing then that wouldnt be an issue. But with them you might need to change things like the way allies interact so that you limit cross bleed.

In theory if the system balanced the points to effectiveness across all the armies the Imperials having access to 50% of the available units wouldn't cause any problems. :)

[daboarder]

It's only science if I write it down.

Ignored people are still visible on quotes.

Thank you for taking part in this scientific test.

Sorry splodge. Was asleep

[ShadowcatX]

In theory if the system balanced the points to effectiveness across all the armies the Imperials having access to 50% of the available units wouldn't cause any problems. :)

While that sounds obviously true, it isn't, even in theory. They will have access to 50% of the best units for a situation, and thus more flexibility and more ability to tweek their army list.

For example, let's talk about anti-tank in a foot'dar army. That basically means fire dragons. Now fire dragons are great (and perfectly costed in our example) but they have a short range and slow movement. That makes the foot'dar army, despite being perfectly costed, highly suceptable to tanks. Marines on the other hand, can choose from a plethora of options and for their foot slogging army like devestators, centurions, or scouts. This gives them significantly more viable options than the eldar and makes them a more viable army. (I hope that makes sense.)

[daboarder]

While that sounds obviously true, it isn't, even in theory. They will have access to 50% of the best units for a situation, and thus more flexibility and more ability to tweek their army list.

For example, let's talk about anti-tank in a foot'dar army. That basically means fire dragons. Now fire dragons are great (and perfectly costed in our example) but they have a short range and slow movement. That makes the foot'dar army, despite being perfectly costed, highly suceptable to tanks. Marines on the other hand, can choose from a plethora of options and for their foot slogging army like devestators, centurions, or scouts. This gives them significantly more viable options than the eldar and makes them a more viable army. (I hope that makes sense.)

What Gamer means, is that in a properly balanced game the extra units available to imperium wouldn't matter beyond a larger choice pool. because EVERY unit would be build to the same standard, therefore while the imperium might get more options, if the game was balanced those options would not be the "best" units because all units are viable if used correctly.

Think of it like this.
Team 1 has access to units X,Y,Z

Team 2 only has access to X and Y.

If hte game is balanced then the only difference is that team 1 can choose Z, but this has not an issue as z is not "Better" in terms of its cost, profile weapons ect, than X or Y, its just different (ie, better stats but more expensive)

In an UNBALANCED game, then yes the argument would be that Team 1 has hte advantage because they have a larger pool of potential broken units to pick and choose from.

[40kGamer]

What Gamer means, is that in a properly balanced game the extra units available to imperium wouldn't matter beyond a larger choice pool. because EVERY unit would be build to the same standard, therefore while the imperium might get more options, if the game was balanced those options would not be the "best" units because all units are viable if used correctly.

Think of it like this.
Team 1 has access to units X,Y,Z

Team 2 only has access to X and Y.

If hte game is balanced then the only difference is that team 1 can choose Z, but this has not an issue as z is not "Better" in terms of its cost, profile weapons ect, than X or Y, its just different (ie, better stats but more expensive)

In an UNBALANCED game, then yes the argument would be that Team 1 has hte advantage because they have a larger pool of potential broken units to pick and choose from.

Exactly. With a proper balance of points to abilities one side would have more choices but in the grand scheme of things this would not make them any more or less useful than another armies more limited choices. The way things are now it's a huge bonus to have lots more choices as it dramatically increases the odds of something unbalanced being in your selection pool.

[Psychosplodge]

I'd say your experiment was a resounding success! Pints for everyone. :p


Yes! but proper imperial pints that are about 20% bigger than dinky US pints :D



Sorry splodge. Was asleep

'tis ok, the science got done and lessons were learned by the people that were still awake.

[CoffeeGrunt]

While that sounds obviously true, it isn't, even in theory. They will have access to 50% of the best units for a situation, and thus more flexibility and more ability to tweek their army list.

For example, let's talk about anti-tank in a foot'dar army. That basically means fire dragons. Now fire dragons are great (and perfectly costed in our example) but they have a short range and slow movement. That makes the foot'dar army, despite being perfectly costed, highly suceptable to tanks. Marines on the other hand, can choose from a plethora of options and for their foot slogging army like devestators, centurions, or scouts. This gives them significantly more viable options than the eldar and makes them a more viable army. (I hope that makes sense.)

Indeed, you have to get balance and flavour to intermingle. If you don't have any long-range anti-tank, and I have lots of tanks, I can work on stopping you getting your short-range anti-tank close enough to matter, and then the game is effectively mine.

Similar to how I see Marine players locally put half their anti-tank capability into one Lascannon Devastator squad, which ends up severely crippled by Battle Cannons. Guard can spread that out into multiple weaker units which are less effective, but an elite army can only fire or charge at so many targets a turn, thus you can simply swamp them in options and allow them to make mistakes.

It's hard to balance that into a normal game. I think half the problem with 40K is the dichotomy between Vehicles and Toughness, where you need to bring two different toolsets to deal with either, especially AV14. However, while far from perfect, it does reflect a well-armoured hull's ability to deflect small arms fire very well, so logically there should be a need for AT weapons against those kinds of targets.

I haven't really found an alternative system that deals with that dichotomy better, though. :/

[Erik Setzer]

Yes! but proper imperial pints that are about 20% bigger than dinky US pints :D

Pisses me off when I get a "pint glass" and then a 12oz. drink fills it up. That's not a pint! If I'm remembering my school right, that's not even a pint here in America. It's like they call them "pint glasses" just to get away with serving less beer and thinking people will not notice because they're too drunk on crappy Budweiser and junk... which sadly might be true for a lot of people.

[Mr Mystery]

Indeed, you have to get balance and flavour to intermingle. If you don't have any long-range anti-tank, and I have lots of tanks, I can work on stopping you getting your short-range anti-tank close enough to matter, and then the game is effectively mine.

Similar to how I see Marine players locally put half their anti-tank capability into one Lascannon Devastator squad, which ends up severely crippled by Battle Cannons. Guard can spread that out into multiple weaker units which are less effective, but an elite army can only fire or charge at so many targets a turn, thus you can simply swamp them in options and allow them to make mistakes.

It's hard to balance that into a normal game. I think half the problem with 40K is the dichotomy between Vehicles and Toughness, where you need to bring two different toolsets to deal with either, especially AV14. However, while far from perfect, it does reflect a well-armoured hull's ability to deflect small arms fire very well, so logically there should be a need for AT weapons against those kinds of targets.

I haven't really found an alternative system that deals with that dichotomy better, though. :/

Perhaps bizarrely, that's one of 40k's biggest balancing factors - if you overload on anyone area of expertise (Combat, Anti-Tank, Anti-Infantry for example), then you risk running up against a force you just cannot handle. Particularly in Tournaments, where you won't have an inkling of what your opponent might be fielding.

Have a look at some of the complaints you read - many are theoretical 'but I can't take that out with my Bolters' type stuff. Units looked at in isolation from the rest of the army and indeed the board itself.

Really successful players don't rely entirely upon single stacked lists. They look to cover various corners, and will take the field with the acceptance there's some things their force will struggle against, and a general tactics plan of what to do should the worst happen - for instance, my general tactics in that situation is 'don't panic, it's only this one game'.

Likewise those who rely on the meta. It's much too local to provide any real insight, and makes no allowance for individual player skill.

How many complaints do you see about someone being out played, compared to 'X is broken, that's why I lost'. It's easier to claim your codex is crap/your opponents codex is too good than to actually say 'well struck Sir, well struck' and just take your licks.

Tactical advice online is often laughable. Player A lists what they have bought, and asks 'anyone got any tips?'. Players B-P all chip in 'yes. Sell it all, buy these units because meta'. That's in the chocolate teapot realms of usefulness. And attempts to get a discussion going about what they have got get drowned out in the general hubbub of opinion being confused with fact.

Good example? I tried an experiment in the Tactics Board regarding maligned units. I'd pick something everyone knows is apparently sub-par, and ask the simple question 'If you had to use this unit, how would you get the most out of it?[/I]. Guess what most of the advice was? Yep. 'just use Unit A'. Tried that with Warp Talons and Pyrovores. Yes, both have ostensibly better choices within their slots and their wider army - but they can be useful if you get a bit clever - and it's a level of clever your opponent might not expect, on account they've read the tactics and everyone knows the unit in question is rubbish.

Me, I've had good success with a single Pyrovore. I'd bundle it into combat with a high points valued enemy unit, and let them beat it up and take their chances with the acidblood. Not ideal no, but it's a use for the maligned unit, and again, one your opponent probably won't see coming, because everyone knows they don't do anything....

[Path Walker]

Pyrovores are DEADLY in zone mortallis, or really any game with properly dense terrain. Its one of those variables that the internet tactics can't account for, the logistics of tournaments mean the terrain is always a little subpar, so a lot of lists that aren't hampered by being able to draw Line of Sight to anything on the board flourish.

[ShadowcatX]

Good example? I tried an experiment in the Tactics Board regarding maligned units. I'd pick something everyone knows is apparently sub-par, and ask the simple question 'If you had to use this unit, how would you get the most out of it?[/I]. Guess what most of the advice was? Yep. 'just use Unit A'. Tried that with Warp Talons and Pyrovores. Yes, both have ostensibly better choices within their slots and their wider army - but they can be useful if you get a bit clever - and it's a level of clever your opponent might not expect, on account they've read the tactics and everyone knows the unit in question is rubbish..

What did you expect people to tell you? A lot of 40k is rudamentary. Does it have a gun? If so put it in cover and shoot with it. Gun an anti-tank weapon? Shoot tanks. A.P. 3? Shoot marines. A.P. 5? Shoot guardsmen. Don't have a gun? Get into melee. Occassionally use it to capture an objective.

And that is pretty much the entirety of tactics in 40k, absent the rest of your list, your opponent's list, and your table top. Try posting your question again with full army lists, measurements, and pictures of the battle field and people can give you more detail. But don't blame the people answering your question when you set the question up to fail.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Indeed, my Tau really struggled after I started packing the boards with good LoS-Blocking terrain. The heavy stuff like Broadsides struggled to get a shot on anything, so I stopped taking them as their lack of mobility made them useless. We actually don't have any regular Eldar players here, so it's interesting that the tournament meta that's so based around them doesn't exist here. If anything, our's is more AV14 heavy, due to a couple of Guard players and some Land Raiders.

[ShadowcatX]

What Gamer means, is that in a properly balanced game the extra units available to imperium wouldn't matter beyond a larger choice pool. because EVERY unit would be build to the same standard, therefore while the imperium might get more options, if the game was balanced those options would not be the "best" units because all units are viable if used correctly.

Think of it like this.
Team 1 has access to units X,Y,Z

Team 2 only has access to X and Y.

If hte game is balanced then the only difference is that team 1 can choose Z, but this has not an issue as z is not "Better" in terms of its cost, profile weapons ect, than X or Y, its just different (ie, better stats but more expensive)

I get that. What I'm trying to explain is that costs are static where as values are flexible. How would you cost a lascannon against an army of gaunts? Against an armored company?

Because of that fact, and because of the ability to create board situations where you can get more value out of one kind of unit than another flexibility in choosing units is point advantage.

[40kGamer]

I get that. What I'm trying to explain is that costs are static where as values are flexible. How would you cost a lascannon against an army of gaunts? Against an armored company?

Because of that fact, and because of the ability to create board situations where you can get more value out of one kind of unit than another flexibility in choosing units is point advantage.

Valid point. I imagine it as a series of stacked probability matrices to capture and stack multiple probabilities/distributions. It would be one heckuva algorithm for such a big game!

[daboarder]

I get that. What I'm trying to explain is that costs are static where as values are flexible. How would you cost a lascannon against an army of gaunts? Against an armored company?

Because of that fact, and because of the ability to create board situations where you can get more value out of one kind of unit than another flexibility in choosing units is point advantage.

I understand what your saying, and this actually ties well into a point Mystery was attempting to make.

In that if the game was balanced then the armies you build would be to a certain extent, built to handle multiple situatioms.

IE: instead of going, I'm only taking lascannons because they are the most cost efficient weapon, you have to take a mix of lascannons and Heavybolters.

Now this may seem like trouble, but your opponent is playing on the same scale, so he has the exact same relationship occuring in his own lists.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Valid point. I imagine it as a series of stacked probability matrices to capture and stack multiple probabilities/distributions. It would be only heckuva algorithm for such a big game!

At which point the game gets too unwieldy to really play. It's easier with video games because a computer can crunch the numbers, but if a player forgets to carry the one and ends up at a disadvantage, they'll blame the game for being too complex, the same as we blame the game for being too unbalanced.

Also if it was tailored to your current opponent, you'd need a new list for every game. E.g., facing Green Tide, my Wyverns are very, very valuable. Facing Draigostar? Less so. Conversely Lascannons would be near-worthless against Green Tide, but excellent at one-shot-killing those pesky Paladins.

[40kGamer]

At which point the game gets too unwieldy to really play. It's easier with video games because a computer can crunch the numbers, but if a player forgets to carry the one and ends up at a disadvantage, they'll blame the game for being too complex, the same as we blame the game for being too unbalanced.

Also if it was tailored to your current opponent, you'd need a new list for every game. E.g., facing Green Tide, my Wyverns are very, very valuable. Facing Draigostar? Less so. Conversely Lascannons would be near-worthless against Green Tide, but excellent at one-shot-killing those pesky Paladins.

I envision all the awful probability work being done behind the scenes. One starting assumption might be that every unit has an equal probability of facing every other unit. This way you could place a relative value on a model based upon it's ability to interact with any other model in the game. Especially since there are a host of models that literally have zero value against other units.

Someone would have to craft the theoretical algorithm based upon certain assumptions. Empirical evidence could then be gathered from playtesters to highlight any 'holes' with the theory and then the model could be revisited/tweaked. At the end of the day players wouldn't even have to know that this existed since 'hopefully' it would be transparent.

Although we also have the option of layering a bunch of random events onto one another, grabbing a proper 'pint' as Psy pointed out and rolling some dice until no one can reliably count the pips anymore. While entirely unscientific this method has it's own merits. :p

[Haighus]

So basically, you would calculate the probability of a given unit encountering any of the other units in the game, and the probability of the damage it could do to those units, and then use that to work out an overall usefulness relative to every other unit in the game, and give it a points cost based on that? Not sure how movement would be added into the raw power measurement, but I like the concept. Would take a fair bit of number crunching for a game as huge as 40k.

[CoffeeGrunt]

So basically, you would calculate the probability of a given unit encountering any of the other units in the game, and the probability of the damage it could do to those units, and then use that to work out an overall usefulness relative to every other unit in the game, and give it a points cost based on that? Not sure how movement would be added into the raw power measurement, but I like the concept. Would take a fair bit of number crunching for a game as huge as 40k.

Not to mention it would have to be updated extremely frequently as new units and factions are added.

[Haighus]

Not to mention it would have to be updated extremely frequently as new units and factions are added.
Oh dear, that wouldn't be good :/ maybe a special programme could be developed that just required adding a new unit's stats and it auto updates. But then it would require Codex changes. Hmm, the points costs could all be based on efficacy vs specific, test units perhaps?

[ShadowcatX]

It would also highly bias the environment towards imbalanced armies. You throw off your opponent's army cost by playing no tanks or nothing but tanks. (Of course, that still works, but less so.)

[40kGamer]

So basically, you would calculate the probability of a given unit encountering any of the other units in the game, and the probability of the damage it could do to those units, and then use that to work out an overall usefulness relative to every other unit in the game, and give it a points cost based on that? Not sure how movement would be added into the raw power measurement, but I like the concept. Would take a fair bit of number crunching for a game as huge as 40k.

The necessary amount of linear algebra interacting with probability distributions is enough to make my eyes go wobbly. Lots of variables and interactions to try and capture in an algorithm. It would definitely be the opposite of easy.


Not to mention it would have to be updated extremely frequently as new units and factions are added.

It would be updated for new units but at some point with the USRs, the 10 point characteristic system and the d6's things become repetitive. Somehow the model would have to allow for the points being fixed on the existing models and change the relative value of the new models being added based upon how they interact with the existing models in the base algorithm.

It would be complicated but I'm sure some enterprising statistically inclined party could pull something together. Some may even consider the challenge of trying to calculate the relative values to be a fun exercise even. :)

- - - Updated - - -


It would also highly bias the environment towards imbalanced armies. You throw off your opponent's army cost by playing no tanks or nothing but tanks. (Of course, that still works, but less so.)

An obvious weakness in the equal probability of facing other units. That's why I think the theoretical model would have to be beaten on by playtesters a bit to highlight and try to address any blatant flaws.

[Mr Mystery]

Or we could accept that GW do a decent job overall on balance, given the sheer number of variables?

[40kGamer]

Or we could accept that GW do a decent job overall on balance, given the sheer number of variables?

Surprisingly enough if you actually follow the guidelines for terrain they don't do bad. Although it's more the layering multiple random events onto one another and then drinking until you can't count the pips kind of balance. :p

[Haighus]

Hmmm, could the issue of extreme armies becoming unbalanced be addressed by some sort of sliding scale for points costs? The first Leman Russ costs x, the second x+10 etc etc?
That would then require the probability to include any combination of units coming up against any other combinations though... possibly... May just be easier to decide that there is a limit on just how balanced you wanted it to be, rather than attempting to account for every single one of the vast number of variables.

[ShadowcatX]

Hmmm, could the issue of extreme armies becoming unbalanced be addressed by some sort of sliding scale for points costs? The first Leman Russ costs x, the second x+10 etc etc?
That would then require the probability to include any combination of units coming up against any other combinations though... possibly... May just be easier to decide that there is a limit on just how balanced you wanted it to be, rather than attempting to account for every single one of the vast number of variables.

Could be. But then that leads armies to be more generic and uniform. Which leads to the great problem, variety has built in imbalance, the more you variety you introduce the more imbalance you introduce. True and perfect balance while giving people options just isn't possible.

[Haighus]

Why does it lead to armies becoming more uniform? If anything it would promote taking a variety of units because using multiples of the same unit would begin to increase the points per model, due to the increased effectiveness against a take-all-comers army, balancing out the increase in effectiveness.

[ShadowcatX]

Why does it lead to armies becoming more uniform? If anything it would promote taking a variety of units because using multiples of the same unit would begin to increase the points per model, due to the increased effectiveness against a take-all-comers army, balancing out the increase in effectiveness.

Currently I can play however I want. If I want to play fully mechanized I can. If I want to play fully foot slogging dudes, I can. If I want to play a hybrid I can. If I want to play 'Nid (or Eldar) 'Zilla, I can. Artificially increasing the costs to prevent spamming, while it sounds like it would increase variety, will instead force lists to be more similar to one another across various codices. Instead of seeing marine armies taking 4x units of bikes and the next taking 4x units of dudes in transports, you'll see both marine armies taking 2x units of bikes and 2x units of dudes in transports to avoid the tax.

[Haighus]

Well, it might look like that on the surface, but the cost increases would be balanced to counter-act the fact that an all-bike army is harder for most armies to counter than an army with a bit of everything. The army with 4 bikers would not pay much more than the army with 2 biker units and 2 transported Marine units, but if they took 8 bikers, it would have more of an effect. The issue with this is still the same issue with the probability based system in the first place, which is it would be horrendously complex to calculate accurately.
The whole idea of "artificially" increasing the points costs was because you raised the point that armies built to extremes would be unbalanced again, because they would be harder to deal with, except with this system, they would also be smaller than their opponent (unless their opponent also took an extreme list).

[CoffeeGrunt]

We've also seen from Comp initiatives, that they tend to hit the less-able armies harder than the more able ones. Consider Sisters with their minimal choices per FOC slot and single Troop option for one. Forcing a variety of units hurts weak armies with few viable units arguably harder than it hits strong Codices.

I mean, Tau and Eldar only have "weak" units because they're in a slot with a better option. Even Vespid are merely mediocre.

[Haighus]

Oh yeah, it certainly does with the current system, this was floating the idea in conjunction with the probability based points balancing idea, but adding in more points. Units which have less of an impact in larger numbers would also see much lower to no points increases per unit too. Ah well, I doubt anyone is ever going to make such a probability algorithm for 40k, so it doesn't really matter hugely. I don't understand probability well enough to do it myself, that is for sure.

[Mr Mystery]

There's also that some players find simple arithmetic challenging enough to mistake 1.200 for 1,000 points as is.. :p

[40kGamer]

The relevant issue with comp is not all armies/slots/units are even remotely created equal. Armies with limited options would have to be handled through a different mechanism than an army that has so many good interchangeable choices.

While things have never been 'balanced' they really went south with the whole 'let's make the math easy initiative' where PV's for upgrades went to factors of 5 and the silliness of Power weapons being the same upgrade no matter who wields them. Pure design madness.

- - - Updated - - -


Oh yeah, it certainly does with the current system, this was floating the idea in conjunction with the probability based points balancing idea, but adding in more points. Units which have less of an impact in larger numbers would also see much lower to no points increases per unit too. Ah well, I doubt anyone is ever going to make such a probability algorithm for 40k, so it doesn't really matter hugely. I don't understand probability well enough to do it myself, that is for sure.

I only had a couple Graduate level stats classes at the University (spent far more time in Linear Algebra and Calc which is funny as none of it has anything to do with how I make my $). Still I think it would be fascinating to craft an algorithm of linked probability tables. Maybe a retirement project. I did something similar for a historical game system a few years back and it worked out well in playtesting. It was very limited in scope compared to 40k but the theory should be applicable to a larger scale system.

[Haighus]

While things have never been 'balanced' they really went south with the whole 'let's make the math easy initiative' where PV's for upgrades went to factors of 5 and the silliness of Power weapons being the same upgrade no matter who wields them. Pure design madness.

- - - Updated - - -



I only had a couple Graduate level stats classes at the University (spent far more time in Linear Algebra and Calc which is funny as none of it has anything to do with how I make my $). Still I think it would be fascinating to craft an algorithm of linked probability tables. Maybe a retirement project. I did something similar for a historical game system a few years back and it worked out well in playtesting. It was very limited in scope compared to 40k but the theory should be applicable to a larger scale system.

Yeah, the multiples of 5 change made a big difference IMO. :(
Well, you could always start with the HH- less variety, at least if you stick to the Marines.

[40kGamer]

Yeah, the multiples of 5 change made a big difference IMO. :(
Well, you could always start with the HH- less variety, at least if you stick to the Marines.

Not a bad idea!

[Mr Mystery]

Can you factor in butthurt, and those who feel the system has been stacked, deliberately and personally against them? :p

Yes, I am being silly.

[40kGamer]

Can you factor in butthurt, and those who feel the system has been stacked, deliberately and personally against them? :p

Yes, I am being silly.

Absolutely. :p

[ShadowcatX]

I mean, Tau and Eldar only have "weak" units because they're in a slot with a better option. Even Vespid are merely mediocre.

That is far from true. A unit of 10 Striking Scorpions with the exarch with the scorpion claw have a damage output inferior to that of a unit of 10 flayed ones, despite costing 80 points more and being significantly less survivable. Or Banshees. . . Or Guardians. Really, a lot of the codex was pretty bad, it just had some options that were extremely good and so the bad options were forgotten. That's why I'm so hopeful for the new codex.

[CoffeeGrunt]

That is far from true. A unit of 10 Striking Scorpions with the exarch with the scorpion claw have a damage output inferior to that of a unit of 10 flayed ones, despite costing 80 points more and being significantly less survivable. Or Banshees. . . Or Guardians. Really, a lot of the codex was pretty bad, it just had some options that were extremely good and so the bad options were forgotten. That's why I'm so hopeful for the new codex.

Well, you are talking about Flayed Ones as of their new, shiny 7th Ed Codex. We'll see what happens in the upcoming Eldar Codex.

I was talking more of things like Falcons, Wraithlords and Storm Guardians that are mostly overshadowed rather than outright terrible.

[Mr Mystery]

Wraithlords, 1-3 per slot. Boof. Issue solved.

- - - Updated - - -

Wraithlords, 1-3 per slot. Boof. Issue solved. (suggestion, not rumour!)

[Charon]

I was talking more of things like Falcons, Wraithlords and Storm Guardians that are mostly overshadowed rather than outright terrible.

Even without Serpent, Wraithknight and everything else in the whole wide world Falcons, Wraithlords and Storm Guardians would be terrible.

Falcons do not only suffer from their Heavy support slot (instead of dedicated transport) but also from their weapons. The Pulsar Lance does not go well with a lot of eldar heavy weapons, so it stays with Lances and maybe a starcannon which makes the tank ridiculous expensive for his lack of firepower.
The wraithlord suffered from steady point increases since 3rd edition. Even in the previous codex (without WK) we saw lots of Warwalkers as they provided more firepower for less points (and they scale better with Psi).
I don't even know where to start with Storm guardians. No armor, no S, no T. A unit that is not even capable of reliably beating Imperial guard or Tau in melee is beyond terrible.

[Erik Setzer]

Wraithlords, 1-3 per slot. Boof. Issue solved.

As an Ork player, who has most of the good stuff stuck in Heavy Support without useful formations to make it less painful, I'm not a fan of other people getting more squadrons and multiple selections per slot. Each Deff Dread I take is a Heavy Support slot that could be used on other stuff, like Lootas, Battlewagons to carry my Boyz, Looted Wagons, Mek Gunz, Orkanauts, etc.

[Houghten]

As an Ork player, who has most of the good stuff stuck in Heavy Support without useful formations to make it less painful, I'm not a fan of other people getting more squadrons and multiple selections per slot. Each Deff Dread I take is a Heavy Support slot that could be used on other stuff, like Lootas, Battlewagons to carry my Boyz, Looted Wagons, Mek Gunz, Orkanauts, etc.

You can do that. Take a Dread Mob, a Blitz Brigade, and fill up your HS slots with the other stuff.

And really, how petty do you have to be to want to deny other armies cool stuff based on the fact your chosen one can't have it yet? Give it time, Orks will get their WAAAGH! detachment.

[ShadowcatX]

Well, you are talking about Flayed Ones as of their new, shiny 7th Ed Codex. We'll see what happens in the upcoming Eldar Codex.

I was talking more of things like Falcons, Wraithlords and Storm Guardians that are mostly overshadowed rather than outright terrible.

So when you said "Eldar only have "weak" units because they're in a slot with better options" you weren't actually talking about the weak Eldar units?

[Erik Setzer]

You can do that. Take a Dread Mob, a Blitz Brigade, and fill up your HS slots with the other stuff.

And really, how petty do you have to be to want to deny other armies cool stuff based on the fact your chosen one can't have it yet? Give it time, Orks will get their WAAAGH! detachment.

I didn't say I want to deny people stuff. I said I'm not happy that I didn't get it.

First off, to get those formations, I have to have a second book, so $100 for the rules. (I already have it, though, because being an Ork fanatic, I got the special edition, which is the best deal of any of them yet, but GW realized they weren't messing up something Ork-related and then left off the numbers, later mailing us stickers. Woot.)

Dread Mob, eh? Hmm, so yeah, rather than 1-3 Dreads in a single HS slot (as the proposed idea for Wraithlords would be, or as tanks now seem to be), that would mean I would have to take a Big Mek, Painboy, 2 Orkanauts, 3 Deff Dreads, and 3 units of 3-6 Killer Kans. Aside from not fitting into a typical detachment, doesn't really work so well, as Orkanauts are expensive (money and points) and not terribly effective. Heck, the entire formation is pretty expensive, in both ways. Right now I don't have a second Orkanaut (as cool as they look, they're bloody terrible for their points in-game), and to get three units of Killer Kanz I'd have to dig out some old ones that aren't painted to match my Blood Axes (the different style can be forgiven... they're Orks, after all).

Blitz Brigade is better, but it's 5 Battlewagons. Not a choice of number. (It's a nice formation for the Scout move, though. Handy if you load them up with shooty Orks and move them up into blasting range.)

Orks have two detachments already:

Ork Horde Detachment: 1-3 HQ, 3-9 Troops, 0-3 Elites, 0-3 Fast Attack, 0-3 Heavy Support, 0-1 Lord of War, 0-1 Fortification
Great Waaagh! Detachment: 1-2 HQ, 2-8 Troops, 1-4 Elites, 0-3 Fast Attack, 0-3 Heavy Support, 0-1 Lord of War, 0-1 Fortification

No, they don't have a formation of formations at the moment. And I'm quite fine with that. I don't need some massive mess to play the game, I quite like my sub-4000 point games. You also don't need to use the formation-of-formations in Eldar to get multiple tanks in one slot, if "unit of Falcons/etc." is what it sounds like, so people playing standard size games can take multiples in one slot. And if you make Wraithlords 1-3 in one slot, the same will apply there; you won't need the Epic 28mm "Detachment" to take multiples, you'll be able to fit up to 3 Wraithlords, 3 Falcons, and 3 Night Spinners into Heavy Support, with a Wraithknight on the side for good measure.

I think it's acceptable to feel that if another army gets an option to let them take multiples in a Force Organization slot, Orks should be able to, given that they're supposed to be the most numerous race out there outside of Tyranids (which might be debatable... though new fluff seems to have pushed the bugs ahead). Even playing field and all that, right?

Either way, I'm not expecting a new Ork codex that soon. It was released less than a year ago. Amazing that in less than a year's time we've gone from $100 for two books with all kinds of formations and detachments meaning FOCs (like they do in the rulebook), to $41-$58 for one book (depending on army) with all kinds of formations and detachment meaning a formation of formations. It took less than a year for the game to shift *again,* after the initial 7th edition codices had already indicated a big shift. Kind of makes it seem like there's no direction in the office.

[ShadowcatX]

This:


I'm not a fan of other people getting more squadrons and multiple selections per slot.

Does not mean:


I said I'm not happy that I didn't get it.

[Erik Setzer]

This:

Does not mean:

Yes, it does. It could mean something else, I suppose, but you'd have to be reaching pretty hard to claim it means "I want to take this away from other players because I can't have it!" And that's what was claimed. I was also called "petty" for that inaccurate claim, a rather offensive term when someone is making up a claim that isn't true to begin with. So please do feel free to take the actual offending party and have a good chat with them, rather than trying to defend offensive behavior through grammatical gymnastics.

[ShadowcatX]

Yes, it does. It could mean something else, I suppose, but you'd have to be reaching pretty hard to claim it means "I want to take this away from other players because I can't have it!" And that's what was claimed. I was also called "petty" for that inaccurate claim, a rather offensive term when someone is making up a claim that isn't true to begin with. So please do feel free to take the actual offending party and have a good chat with them, rather than trying to defend offensive behavior through grammatical gymnastics.

I'm going to guess English isn't your first language. Saying "I'm not a fan of other people getting more squadrons and multiple selections per slot" does mean you are unhappy that they are getting them which is significantly different than saying you wish you had gotten some as well. It may not have been what you meant, but it is what you said. You say that wasn't what you meant, and that's fine, but don't think you were attacked because he said it was petty, it was petty the way you worded it the first time.

[Erik Setzer]

English *is* my first language, and one I'm rather good at (too good, most of the time).

My comment wasn't petty, and it's silly to argue it was something it wasn't in order to defend an offensive comment. Or to claim that I said something that I clearly didn't say.

I'd suggest moving along to something more relevant. Otherwise, you'll just waste your time, because if I bother to read, much less respond, to any more of this nonsense, I will drop all pretense at civil discourse and respond to the offense with like offense. I'm sure that would brighten everyone's day.

(For those of you who are bad with English, the last sentence was sarcasm. I suppose we have to explicitly state these things now, especially as people are so eager to claim entire sentences of text exist that clearly do not exist.)

[Haighus]

(For those of you who are bad with English, the last sentence was sarcasm. I suppose we have to explicitly state these things now, especially as people are so eager to claim entire sentences of text exist that clearly do not exist.)

I find that sarcasm is lost all too often in text conversations. There isn't really a good emoticon to suggest a sarcastic tone either :/

[40kGamer]

Maybe this would help. :p

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/94/f0/cb/94f0cb21bd56b93e42b4e712200eced6.jpg

[Haighus]

It would help somewhat, yup :D