6th ed... still not good enough

[Mr Mystery]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[the jeske]

It's not objective based,

0_0 what ? caster kill is just one of ways to win . Each seson WM gets new scenarios and new game conditions [think GW giving totaly new sets ups and scenarios every 4+ months] .

Once you introduce objectives, it invites a narrative.

Warmahordes has objectives and you dont get people doing narrative most of the time .

What are you fighting over?

a gaming board most of the time ?

. To play 40k or Fantasy purely competitively where it's all about winning the battle is missing out on so much more

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

To switch to rules written for competitive play changes this, as it attracts a more specific group of players, players which in my case I struggle to enjoy playing against!

I remember the time when they made the 3.5 dex for chaos , it was suppose to be a tournament one . then they made the gav dex and it was suppose to be[alonge side the DA one] the "for fun" dex. And behold both sold bad [comparing to the later tournament Ward dexs for example] , had communities getting smaller [and with that there was both less dudes doing "gaming" and "fluff heading" for chaos].
Also I think everyone remembers how "popular" those necron and DE dex were . they were bad from the start . no one wanted them . And again behold them being top tier and sells rise . I realy love how you fluff guys say that it is because of the fluff sells rise , when it is actualy the opposit[GK fluff=the horror . GK sells=the bomb].

If an Assault Squad charges my Tacticals, the guy with the Tacticals can use Challenges to disable the Assault Sergeant.

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

If a unit of Ymgarls charges, the Tacticals are boned. Remember, having a unit's main assaulty punch be tied up in a character can be a bad thing.

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

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

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

[Mr Mystery]

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

[velox atrum]

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

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

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

[DarkLink]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

[cobra6]

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

[Iyandagar]

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

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

[Mr Mystery]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Iyandagar]

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

[DarkLink]

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



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