Levels of Expansion for 40K

[YorkNecromancer]

I've been thinking about 'Age of Sigmar', balance, and the constant calls for 40K to be one specific kind of game. That it has to be one kind of game, and that that's just how it is. That the game can be perfectly balanced, perfectly competitive and perfectly able to forge a narrative, all while juggling over fifteen unique codicies and their supplemental companion books.

I've said it before, but I think it would be nice if there was acknowledgement that actually, what various players want are actually wildly different games. That they can, sadly, be mutually exclusive. And that in truth (whisper it) there is no one right way to play the game; there are as many right ways as there are people involved, plus a few more besides.

So what if there were four expansions for the game?

1.) Kill-Team. Designed for entry-level pick up play, this is a skirmish game for matches of 500 points, designed to be played in games lasting about 45 minutes. It's also got dedicated levelling up/campaign rules, like Necromunda or XCOM.
2.) 40K 'standard'; the game as it is at the moment, to be played 'as is'.
3.) 40K Tournament. Designed to be played purely competitively. Minimal-to-no Forging The Narrative, no campaign rules in the story sense, but a dedicated rebalancing of armies, restrictions on certain units/army combos/what have you. This type of game plays more like an eSport.
4.) 40K Narrative. Closer in tone to 'Age of Sigmar', with full rules for a variety of campaign styles, including the frankly superb rules from the FW HH series of books (especially the 'Victory Is Vengeance' campaign from HH3). Rebalancing of armies to make them more 'fluffy'; far more use of Allies/Unbound, with dedicated Warzone books. Every year, there would be a single Warzone book, with shiny new characters and miniatures who do not get rules in any of the other games; the narrative of that warzone would play out across the year, with December bringing the campaign's end. After that, these new characters and models would be incorporated into tournament play.

1, 2, and 4 would be produced much as books are presently.

3 would be a 'living rulebook', with adaptions and balances brought in regularly to rebalance armies as time went on. Players wouldn't buy a book; they would buy a subscription to an app, say the price of a codex once a year. The rule changes from tournament play would be gradually rolled out over game types 1,2 and 4 as they became necessary/relevant.

All four games would be official, running parallel to each other; you would have to agree with players ahead of time what you want to play.

I think it could work.

[Wolfshade]

I might like to split 2 into different levels, the same way that 5th had normal 5th then Apocalypse

[Charon]

It is still beyond me why people seem to think that a ruleset dictates if a game can be played as part of a campaign or a narrative scenario.

You do not need "aos style" to play narrative, neither is it impossible to play campaigns with a tournament proof rulework.

You can basically do it wall if you go RPG style. Basic rules, advanced rules and optional rules with (at least) monthly errata and FAQ

If you look at the average RPG group you can be sure that around 30% of the rules in the book get ignored completely because they hinder gameplay or result in boring book keeping. Another 10 % get altered in order to fit with the rest or further gameplay and another 10 % are house rules that get added over time.
I see no reason why Warhammer can't do the same.
I can understand tournament players asking for more balanced codices as they do a lot of work in creating houserules for their event and with a better codex is way less effort to houserule a few outliers.

[daboarder]

gotta push that incompatibility Charon, afterall, its the logic fallacy that so many of the standard arguments rely on to support the often professed idea that balance is a dirty concept.

would like some updated killteam rules though, not a huge fan of the current ones, the original ones were cool if clunky

[Morgrim]

It is still beyond me why people seem to think that a ruleset dictates if a game can be played as part of a campaign or a narrative scenario.

You do not need "aos style" to play narrative, neither is it impossible to play campaigns with a tournament proof rulework.

You can basically do it wall if you go RPG style. Basic rules, advanced rules and optional rules with (at least) monthly errata and FAQ

If you look at the average RPG group you can be sure that around 30% of the rules in the book get ignored completely because they hinder gameplay or result in boring book keeping. Another 10 % get altered in order to fit with the rest or further gameplay and another 10 % are house rules that get added over time.
I see no reason why Warhammer can't do the same.
I can understand tournament players asking for more balanced codices as they do a lot of work in creating houserules for their event and with a better codex is way less effort to houserule a few outliers.

Convenience for pick up games, mostly. If you want a narrative-style game, which tend to be more fun and forgiving for lower skilled players, it's so much easier if you can grab the rules and know what you're doing without having to discuss houserules first. Houserules can certainly work! But they work better when everyone knows each other.

For example I started playing in 5th ed. But none of the people I learnt with liked the wound allocation rules and we felt they slowed play down. So we used 3rd ed rules for wounding. (Due almost everyone playing codexes that didn't get updated in 4th, 4th ed kind of got skipped.) And when playing pickup games outside that group it was surprising how often I could say "hey the wound allocation rules are clunky, do you want to use 3rd ed ones?" and get an affirmative. I didn't have to explain house rules or balance or justify my request because almost everyone knew what I was talking about. We were just swapping one thing for another.

Having a narrative-style codex would do similar, by having a familiar base to build off that all players would know, and making it easy to discuss minor tweaks before a game. Because if a houserule takes more than 30 seconds to explain it's unlikely to happen.

[Charon]

Convenience for pick up games, mostly. If you want a narrative-style game, which tend to be more fun and forgiving for lower skilled players, it's so much easier if you can grab the rules and know what you're doing without having to discuss houserules first. Houserules can certainly work! But they work better when everyone knows each other.

And how do you communicate your narrative scenario to a player you do not know? Does he read your mind and is instantly informed that you intent to have a narrative game on an unstable vulcano world where you made up random tables anc charts for catastrophes?
Narrative gaming is the absolute opposite of a pickup game. Narrative gaming needs and creates a story that is more than "fancy a 1500 points game against Eldar?"


For example I started playing in 5th ed. But none of the people I learnt with liked the wound allocation rules and we felt they slowed play down. So we used 3rd ed rules for wounding. (Due almost everyone playing codexes that didn't get updated in 4th, 4th ed kind of got skipped.) And when playing pickup games outside that group it was surprising how often I could say "hey the wound allocation rules are clunky, do you want to use 3rd ed ones?" and get an affirmative. I didn't have to explain house rules or balance or justify my request because almost everyone knew what I was talking about. We were just swapping one thing for another.

All fine and exactly what I mentioned before. You do not need a new "codex" for each army to do this.
Basic rules: wound allocation from 3rd
Advanced rules: wound allocation from 7th


Having a narrative-style codex would do similar, by having a familiar base to build off that all players would know, and making it easy to discuss minor tweaks before a game. Because if a houserule takes more than 30 seconds to explain it's unlikely to happen.

Narrative gaming is not about the basic rules it is about creating a story where you bend rules, introduce new rules or delete rules to further your story. This is not about houserules but rules that only exist in this single game. No book could ever hope to contain everything you can make up for your game.

[Mr Mystery]

I dunno that it's something the company really needs to delineate.

Tournaments already offer their own tweaks and restrictions.

Less formalised play? It's really between the two players. The four broad proposals above are already part of the game arranging process. Once upon a time, it was a really straight forward 'how many points?' to be agreed. Now? Slightly longer - how many points? Mind if I field a formation? Happy with Lords of War? Allies yay or nay?

It's a community game to do with as we please. Treat GWs as a 'serving suggestion' and then flavour to your own tastes and preferences.

Me? I'm game for pretty much whatever, as long as I know in advance. If you want to field a Lord of War, I can select my army to give me at least a fighting chance. Formations? Well, there's one or two I'd prefer to veto ta, namely those that give you lots of free upgrades - at least, until I've expanded my own Mechanicum collection to be able to field my take - and I will absolutely return the favour. I may enjoy a win as much as the next gamer, but I'm just as interested in the game being fun for all involved.

If you've got a tournament coming up and want to practice against their rules pack - that's cool too - just, as ever, let me know in advance.

Points? I'm never really comfortable playing my army at its full size. I don't enjoy writing a list to maximise my points level, doubly so if you happen to have a larger collection, and can therefore field a more bespoke force than 'just bung it all on'.

In return? All I ask is the same level of consideration. I've got four Knights, because I love the models, and have always liked their background, ever since my own personal Golden Age of Titan Legions. If you're up for the challenge, I can totes field all four. If you'd rather not, I'll leave them on the shelf.

It's all about respect for your opponent. As you say Yorkie, there is no correct way to do this hobby, so we've all just got to work around each other, reaching a compromise with every opponent.

And the best bit? In all my years gaming in store, and my three occasions working for GW in various stores, only very, very rarely have I seen someone turn up for games night with a knowingly beardy army without their intended opponents foreknowledge - and on some the rare occurrences, it's because said intended opponent wasn't able to make it, and they've not brought an alternate force.

Overall, we tend to be an entirely reasonable bunch.

[YorkNecromancer]

And how do you communicate your narrative scenario to a player you do not know?

There's this thing we have called 'talking'.

Now, you might think I am being sarcastic there; I'm not. Effective communication is something I have a very strong opinion on. (http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/04/40k-safe-sane-and-consensual-or-the-arrogance-of-unacknowledged-playstyles.html) Seriously, how do you play games without talking to your opponent beforehand?

You want to know how we do it? It doesn't need a massive amount of pre-prepared stuff, or a huge amount of planning.

So: game starts. When setting up scenery, I have a collection of 'character pieces'. These are buildings and things I've made to represent Critical Objectives over the years. I've made generators, summoning circles, communications arrays, ammo dumps, all kinds of stuff. You don't to make them - you can just write 'ammo dump' on a bit of paper and use that.

Then, you discuss the scenario with your opponent. Say I've put down three generators and a communications array. My opponent, she's playing Astra Militarum, and I'm playing Deathwatch.

So the narrative we forge goes as follows:

The Deathwatch have become convinced her Militarum are heretical, and need to kill them all. Her Militarum are not, though. So, she needs to send a message to the Imperium to cancel the attack. If she can hold at least one generator (to supply power) and all the communications arrays, she instantly wins. If I destroy either all generators or all the arrays, I instantly win.

Boom. Narrative forged. If we feel like making things more interesting, we add more stipulations - techpriests/marines can repair smashed arrays and generators. Or if her Commander can get into assault, Challenge my Commander, and survive a single round of combat, she instantly wins as her Commander persuades the Deathwatch's leadership to stand down.

We could add other elements. Maybe there's a Vindicare assassin on the board with orders to kill both Commanders due to miscommunications. On my turns, I control the model, on her turns, she does.

None of these things would take more than five minutes to discuss/set up. If it turns out that they seem to be favouring one army or the other overmuch, we just talk it over, and rebalance mid-game.

Now, would I recommend Forging a Narrative in a tournament? No, because a tournament's goals are completely different. But you know what? If you came up against someone you knew, nothing could stop you doing it.

Talking. It's the most powerful tool at a player's disposal, and I worry that a lot of people want to take that pre-game discussion out of the game. Like, if you're not gaming to make new friends, then seriously: what the f**k reason does anyone have to game? Using other people's defeats as a sharpening stone for one's ego? Because if that's a person's reason, they're probably a psychopath.


It's all about respect for your opponent. As you say Yorkie, there is no correct way to do this hobby, so we've all just got to work around each other, reaching a compromise with every opponent.

Yup. Respect for one's opponent and respect for oneself. I'd clear away my army with a smile, and let the guy have the win if he wants it so bad he's going to be arrogant about it. We none of us have enough time living, and I've got more important things to do in my life than waste a single moment of it with a bell end.

[Charon]

There's this thing we have called 'talking'.

Now, you might think I am being sarcastic there; I'm not.

As "not having to talk through anything" was the whole point of Morgrims post I do not see how your answer is contributing to his "problem"


it's so much easier if you can grab the rules and know what you're doing without having to discuss houserules first.


Because if a houserule takes more than 30 seconds to explain it's unlikely to happen.

[Alaric]

Its not just gaming that social contratcts must be forged as to me thats what it is. When you go out with friends to eat you all decide the specifics. Even with dnd I believe most DMs will talk to the PCs as to what type of PC they wanna be.
To say that you should be able to just show up and play willy nilly seems off to me unless its in a tournament settung of course. And even there I have no issue with comp Cuz the guy putting it on often doesn't get to play which to me is the "ultimate" sacrifice. So if he wants restrictions you dont like, put on yer own damn tournament.
The idea is cool but unless its gonna generate a whack load a money I can't see it happening. I think AOS can tank in peace and they will keep chugging along, they have fw after all.

Da have u not read the zone mortalis rules? I hear they r good, haven't tried meself.

[daboarder]

Surely it's better to acknowledge that different people want different things than it is to just blindly keep insulting people because they prefer a different playstyle to us?

York, you're absolutely right.

Now actually try and stick your head up around here and point out that,
1) a balanced system does not preclude the more relaxed players from still playing the way they want, while still allowing the more competitive players to play the way they want.
2) that demanding the game only be "relaxed"and deriding those who wish for a more competitively able game IS insulting people for merely wanting to play the game differently.

[Lexington]

a balanced system does not preclude the more relaxed players from still playing the way they want, while still allowing the more competitive players to play the way they want.
I don't know that this is true in 40K, or at least as 40K works right now. There's simply too much scale in the game at the moment to combine proper balance and proper representation. A Warhound Titan should stomp all over a bunch of Space Marines and their tanks if they're not absolutely prepared to deal with heavy armor. Hell, even then, it probably shouldn't be a fair fight. A Regular 40K / Apocalypse, like Wolfshade suggested, at the very least, is probably necessary to bring some kind of balance back to 40K as it stands. That is, of course, before we take things like Formations, Metaformations and the always-present basic Codex power level discrepancies into account, but you've gotta start somewhere...


The Deathwatch have become convinced her Militarum are heretical, and need to kill them all. Her Militarum are not, though. So, she needs to send a message to the Imperium to cancel the attack. If she can hold at least one generator (to supply power) and all the communications arrays, she instantly wins. If I destroy either all generators or all the arrays, I instantly win.
It probably seems like an odd thing to point out, but this is actually a terrible scenario for 40K, IMO. I don't mean to nitpick you like this, York - you've got smart things to say, as always, and the idea's not bad as a narrative - but I think this is part of the problem with 40K scenario design, and probably with 40K as a whole right now. There's just too much character in there. Yes, characters are interesting and sell the setting to some point, but getting back to the scale of 40K again, they just don't matter a whit on the battlefield. Character-driven scenarios in a game that involves tank squadrons, mass drop insertions and freaking Titans are kind of insane, when you think about it. That the rulebook contains the Relic mission, where whole armies are sent to bobble around some tschotske like a football, is one of the most embarrassingly stupid things in 40K - and this is a setting that's had Dreadknights and Thunderwolf Cavalry inflicted upon it in recent years. It's a mess.

The scale of 40K right now means that missions should be designed around large, military objectives. Hold that bridge. Take that bunker. Demolish that fortress. These are the things that Centurions and Knights are made for, not acting as background pieces for Captain Dunderhead's personal dramas. 'Narrative' doesn't equate to 'RPG,' but that's where the conversation seems to inevitably go, and it dilutes the idea terribly.

[Path Walker]

This is the problem as I see it, it's an entirely different set of expectations around what we as players should do. On one hand, those who think the game is pretty much fine as is and don't care too much about rules and balance being written down think it's their responsibility to ensure their opponent enjoys their game, on the other, some see it as the job of the rule designers to ensure that's possible and that its therefore not their fault if they abuse the loose guidelines given and cause their opponent to have a miserable time.

What's even stranger is that when told that they way they should be playing it has been explicitly stated for at least 2 editions now and that they should be talking to the opponents and making sure the game is fun, they scoff and think of excuses.

It's fine to think that a game with tighter rules would be better, you can even say that's better for narrative gaming (As an aside, it's not simply because you have to tend towards simplicity for units because various cool over the top abilities are hard to balance, see Kings of War/3rd Edition 40k as examples) what's not fine is demanding that a product sold as a narrative wargame should do what you want it to.

You bought a rule set, many others exist, 40k is not a tight tournament ready game and was not sold to you as such and so requires modifications to make it suitable for that purpose. Again, that's fine, that's a thing you can do if you want and you have every freedom to do that, it just doesn't mean your way of playing is any more correct and you have no right to belittle those in the majority who just enjoy their hobby as it is.

In short, if you don't like it, don't play it. I've bought lots of games that I've not really enjoyed playing, infinity for example, I love the models and still add to my Haqqislam and terrain, but the game itself isn't fun for me, I know a lot of people like it but it's not for me. I'll play it if a friend wants a game and I'll still enjoy myself, what I won't do is endlessly complain about how Corvus Belli are inept because the game they made isn't exactly how I'd want it.

As far as 40k expansions go, I don't think that's something GW want or need to introduce, you risk adding confusion to a hobby that can already be a little daunting, I think what is needed is a community more willing to adapt their games to their opponent, if someone is new To the hobby and only has a few squads and none of the scary things, to match that and let them enjoy using what they have.

Fans can make better expansions and so once a person is established they can discover these, the Kill Team rewrite by Heralds of Ruin, for example, is great.

[daboarder]

What's even stranger is that when told that they way they should be playing it has been explicitly stated for at least 2 editions now and that they should be talking to the opponents and making sure the game is fun, they scoff and think of excuses.


See York, its NEVER been the tournament players, its the people like this that try to enforce their own sense of the game on others.

Its the same old posters and the same old little clique.

In fact, imagine meeting someone with an attitude like this in an AOS game. If they are willing to demand that they alone understand how the game is meant to be played on a forum imagine what they would do in a gaming setting where there is no structure to support their opponent? They would in most likelyhood be the type of player that demands it all their own way, choice of mission, unit cap, what constitutes "balance" and fairness, which units are just too powerful etc.

[Path Walker]

See York, its NEVER been the tournament players, its the people like this that try to enforce their own sense of the game on others.

Its the same old posters and the same old little clique.

In fact, imagine meeting someone with an attitude like this in an AOS game. If they are willing to demand that they alone understand how the game is meant to be played on a forum imagine what they would do in a gaming setting where there is no structure to support their opponent? They would in most likelyhood be the type of player that demands it all their own way, choice of mission, unit cap, what constitutes "balance" and fairness, which units are just too powerful etc.

I mean, thats pretty much the exact opposite of what I said, pretty sure I said that you have to work with your opponent to make it a game you will both enjoy, but hey, you keep doing you.

[Morgrim]

Honestly, my one request is for something, ANYTHING, to give me a game where I can take my non-coven Dark Eldar with only 3 raiders (because that's how many of the bloody awkwardly shaped things can fit in any case arrangement I've every found and still manage to be taken on the bus) and play an opponent and have a fun game. Because either I have to do meticulous arranging with pages of rules and conditions (no longer possible since my friends have quit) or I can go to the local store and get my arse kicked by all the 'competitive' armies, then get told that if I want a fun game I need to buy a heap of models I can't transport and/or buy an army I don't like.

And if it takes some alternately statted B-list 'narrative' that only includes the stuff the tournament players think suck with different points/rules/modular options then fine. I will play the B-list 'narrative' alternate rules expansion. I would just. Like. To play. And to be allowed to have some fun playing. And not be told that I am not allowed to have fun because I lack a group that can arrange regular stuff and discuss a heap of things beforehand and be willing to talk, and that I have to put up with pickup games at the local GW store where all rules have to be discussed in under 30 seconds or the people will refuse.

[Charon]

From the sound of it you are more lacking a decently balanced army. Because exactly this is what bad internal and external balance causes. Dont have units that do not suck? Too bad for you, you lost the codex lottery now suck it up. While on the other side well written books can basically field anything without losing hard.

[Morgrim]

Charon, telling players to "suck it up" and blaming them for not playing a power army does not help.

[Charon]

Im not telling you to "suck it up" this is basically what the "Warhammer does not need to be balanced" guys reciting every thread. I was just parroting them.
There are 5 sentences. It should have been clear that the 2 of them you jumped on are sarcastic... even on the internet.

[Morgrim]

Im not telling you to "suck it up" this is basically what the "Warhammer does not need to be balanced" guys reciting every thread. I was just parroting them.
There are 5 sentences. It should have been clear that the 2 of them you jumped on are sarcastic... even on the internet.

Sadly not, because I get your 'sarcastic' lines given to me in all seriousness on far too many forums. And even the local GW store manager's response to me not getting games was "Well, you should start playing a different army if you want to play."

[daboarder]

Sadly not, because I get your 'sarcastic' lines given to me in all seriousness on far too many forums. And even the local GW store manager's response to me not getting games was "Well, you should start playing a different army if you want to play."

thats rough Morgrim, sorry to hear that

[Mr Mystery]

Sounds like the manager may have got too pally with his regulars.

In all seriousness? Might want to see if you can make a complaint to his manager. GW stores are meant to be 'neutral ground' type affairs, not sad little cliques, whichever way said sad little clique prefers to game.

[Charon]

Sadly not, because I get your 'sarcastic' lines given to me in all seriousness on far too many forums.

Which is odd as we do not even post in the same threads (yes I went through all your posts). So where does the notion come from that I am sarcastic with you on far to many forums?
Especially as I play DE too...


And even the local GW store manager's response to me not getting games was "Well, you should start playing a different army if you want to play."

Can relate to that. DE are garbage atm. But don't worry. Mystery or Pathwalker will come as soon as possible and try to tell you that DE are balanced, you should just get a different gaming group or the store manager should be punished for beeing honest.

[Muninwing]

i've been trying to write about this same idea for a bit... i might post it later as an addendum.

one point of order... do you think that Wargames need to be less of a sport-style A vs B setup, and more of a GM/ref mediating the game that one is playing and the other is opposing?

it might only work in leagues, but it would certainly change the flow of the game, and would definitely distract from the old meat-grinder missions...

alternately, would it be a good idea for a group (or an individual) to have a short multistep process to lead to a series of objectives? like
1. why are these two fighting?
2. based on that, what is the most important thing that the attacker can achieve? what can the defender do instead?
3. are they roughly equal in difficulty, based on your lists? if not, how can you make them more balanced?

and done. two people discuss for five minutes before setting up terrain, and they have a game that they can play with a narrative and a fair set of rules. if they want to use Maelstrom missions to adequately represent the needs of the mission, or if they want to just use objective markers, or buildings, or whatnot, it's really about how they stitch it together.

still... some people need more guidelines as to what is posssible and what is reasonable. i know in the decades-old article Jervis wrote about points and balance being detrimental to the game (because he played with people who are good at setting up rough balance and seemed to not understand that that's not always available to players) he seemed to claim that the rulebooks and codexes encouraged narrative play -- but it's not been truly supported.

even in the supplements (planetstrike, cities of death, etc), it was merely "here are some additional rules" and not "this is an example of a narrative campaign in various steps that uses these rules." thus, why they were dropped pretty quickly by players.

[Charon]

and done. two people discuss for five minutes before setting up terrain, and they have a game that they can play with a narrative and a fair set of rules.

If you watch the forums we have page long discussions for days about the quality of armies, what is balanced and what is OP.
As long as there are people who think the Wraithknight is reasonable balanced, CSM is a strong codex or the FW tau suit is overcosted there is no way you settle these contradictionary viewpoints in 5 minutes.
A friend of mine still considers his ravenwing bike army "weak"....

[daboarder]

Which is odd as we do not even post in the same threads (yes I went through all your posts). So where does the notion come from that I am sarcastic with you on far to many forums?
Especially as I play DE too...



Can relate to that. DE are garbage atm. But don't worry. Mystery or Pathwalker will come as soon as possible and try to tell you that DE are balanced, you should just get a different gaming group or the store manager should be punished for beeing honest.

i think you'll find Morgrim means that most people encountered on forums are like that, not you in particular, hence Morgrims initial response

[Muninwing]

From the sound of it you are more lacking a decently balanced army. Because exactly this is what bad internal and external balance causes. Dont have units that do not suck? Too bad for you, you lost the codex lottery now suck it up. While on the other side well written books can basically field anything without losing hard.

i'm amazed that you and i seem to be at odds frequently in posting sections of articles, because this is pretty much what i would have responded... well, i'd have gone on for three more paragraphs because that's what i do, but you get the gist.

there's lots of factors that play into this.

- game balance is hard. legitimately, it's not an easy task to accomplish.

- many systems for balancing exist, but few are universally effective. this does not mean that they are worthless, but that they are imperfect and imcomplete.

- game balance issues can be overcome with agreeable players, a constructive gaming scene, and fair reworkings of rules that do not work for a given player. but this requires the other player to accept the fix. some people want to play as-is, either because they like simple directions, they only know how to play one way, or they gain an advantage they do not want to give up.

- sometimes, you only have the opportunity to play with people who do not want to play how you want to play. when you are having balance issues, sometimes they don't care, and you get frustrated.

- points are not the only style of balance, but are one of the more comprehensive and (when done properly) more fair ones, if done properly.

- few to no other alternatives exist to mititgate the unfairness issues within points-based balance, except entire layers of additional limitations (such as Highlander), and these come with their own problems.

- GW in particular is terrible at actually striving for balance with a points-based system, worse at managing their system, and it's probably because they have little respect for the "game" end of their product.

- because it is not a priority, we have not seen proper efforts taken to balance 40k. an official GW product that detailed better balancing systems, or easy contruction of narrative games, would do wonders to mitigate the resistance you might encounter to having a fair game with a subpar army. asking people to accept a homebrew or unofficial product is sometimes difficult.

- competitive play is fun. narrative play is fun. league play is fun. all three are less fun, overall, for everyone involved, when the balance is skewed and one person has an unfair advantage. unless you are playing to try something out, to investigate a possibility, in a super-relaxed manner, or in any other circumstance in which a winner is unimportant, which might just be your thing, but it isn't always and should not be an excuse for bad product.

- sometimes, you need to adapt to game balance issues with changes and house-rules, but a good product will have that as a feature (the ability to say "we wanted to represent this instead, so we tweaked it to represent this idea") and not as a requirement for play, or even a system billed as a positive. an incomplete gaming product, or a poorly-constructed one, should not be let off the hook.

- unweighted extremes are often bad, meaning that the people who only play competitive cutthroat games regardless of what their opponent wants, or the people who actively strive to break a system while their competitors are playing in good spirit, often give competitive players a bad name. not all tournament-players are this competitive. not all competitive players are this disrespectful. and two people playing this way and knowing that it's what is expected or even promoted is great when it's clearly what is intended.

- some armies are wonderful in theory, but terrible in practice... usually due to balance issues. not just the book itself, but the style of play. these, in a balanced game, would be reviewed and fixed. people who want to play these armies should have some sort of recourse for getting trounced all the time due to their sensical army not being min/maxxed to the teeth, but unfortunately some people just get screwed. a system could be put into place to give a "handicap" to these players in order to create better balance, but that goes back to the issue of how much work do you need to put in, and how many unofficial structures do you need to create to also create that balance when the product as-is does not seem to care about balance.

- we would all probably be better off if GW contracted their game out to another company for rules, and just focused on making minatures and supplies.

[Morgrim]

i think you'll find Morgrim means that most people encountered on forums are like that, not you in particular, hence Morgrims initial response

daboarder is correct. I was meaning 'your' in the "the argument you made sarcastically" sense, not in the "the comments you have made to me elsewhere" sense.