PDA

View Full Version : GW and their thoughts on "Balance"



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

ObiWayneKenobi
08-03-2014, 02:18
I bought the White Dwarf Weekly because I wanted to see info on the Helbrute and Crimson Slaughter. I found the following quotes in an article talking about the Knights that illustrates the how the designers seem to approach things and the idea of balance.

A quote from Jervis:



The addition of a model on the battlefield that is so powerful and potentially dominant has the inevitable effect of causing all Warhammer 40,000 players to take stock. It's a massive war machine, capable of having a profound effect on any game. Over the coming weeks, as more players add them to their collections, and their impact on the battlefield is played out across gaming tables around the world, there is going to be a race to unravel its secrets and work out the best ways to use it or destroy it.


Next, from Simon Grant immediately following the above:



Jervis has hit the nail on the head there. Because Imperial Knights have a fully-fledged Codex of their own, you will see them both as allies and as primary detachments. They'll also be appearing in any style of Warhammer 40,000 game, whether that's allied to armies in Eternal War missions, marching into the fray in Stronghold Assault games, and so on. The possibilities are endless. Even during playtesting we realised this was going to be a game changer. Do you adapt your army to deal with an Imperial Knight, or do you adapt your tactics?



Two more quotes from Jervis which IMO sum up some real insanity:



"In the end, we are very satisfied with the place the Imperial Knights have taken in Warhammer 40,000," says Jervis. "This is because no one army can ever deal with all-comers. The holy grail of many hobbyists is to fashion a single, all-conquering army that can win in any eventuality, but in truth there is probably no such thing. It doesn't make the search any less fun, but there are just too many variables, and the Imperial Knight adds another wrinkle to it. What's good at killing a Baneblade is not necessarily much good at dealing with an Imperial Knight, and it almost certainly won't help against a Tyranid Hive Crone. All this encourages people to experiment with their tactics and their collections, and I think this is one of the things adding the Imperial Knight has done. As a games developer, the most important thing I have learned to be most wary of is cutting down options," Jervis concludes. "It's our duty to provide more choices and opportunities for people to have fun with their friends. I think the tactical challenge the Imperial Knight offers are going to do that."



and a bit about their design process:



So, though it may surprise some people, my first concern with rules is always that they are a fair reflection of the background behind the model. Once we get that nailed down, and we're happy with the character of the rules, we then turn our minds to other practicalities: how long will it take people to figure out the best ways to use them? Will people be able to develop counter-tactics once they have played a few games?



So there you have it. They don't like the idea that there exists a "take all comers" army, and thinks there shouldn't be one and I guess expect you to show up to a game, get the snot kicked out of you by 3 Titans, and then next week show up with a list to crush the 3 Titans. They WANT an escalating arms race, presumably because it involves buying more models.

Another quote from Robin (Cruddace? Not familiar with the current generation of designers):



If people find the idea of facing an Imperial Knight (or six) in their games shocking, then combining them with Escalation is going to blow their minds. Realistically you could squeeze an Imperial Knight into your army with your Lords of War unit. A Shadowsword or Baneblade with an Imperial Knight to protect? That sounds like the start of a great narrative, and a massive battle right there.


Another quote from Robin that I didn't post calls the Imperial Knight "a complex tactical puzzle"

Also of note is how with very few exceptions they refer to their customers as "hobbyists". Not gamers, not players, but hobbyists.

Kakapo42
08-03-2014, 02:34
Also of note is how with very few exceptions they refer to their customers as "hobbyists". Not gamers, not players, but hobbyists.

Errrm... how is this a bad thing? It's my understanding that GW has always thought of their customers as hobbyists first and gamers or players a distant second (though I may be wrong on this. I certainly know that GW has always frequently referred to their customer base as hobbyists), and well that's what they aim their products towards: hobbyists who are primarily concerned with cool models and background over raw in-game efficiency. That's not to say that there isn't a sizeable portion of the Warhammer and 40k communities who are predominantly gaming-oriented, but GW first and foremost targets the hobbyists first. That's my understanding at least.

You also seem to have glossed over an important part on one of their statements about TAC armies - "It doesn't make the search any less fun." From that, it seems that in they eyes of the GW designers it's the pursuit of a Take All Comers force, as opposed to the force itself, that's the important part. It's not about reaching the summit, but the climb to get there, so to speak.

IcedCrow
08-03-2014, 03:29
I dont like the concept of TAC either. TAC is usually finding the right powerlist to Take On the Two Other Powerlists in the meta, not really all comers, and imo leads to stagnation and boredom.

Tebrey
08-03-2014, 04:25
I'm proud to be a hobbyist.

I have a lot of armies, and I play lists that I think are fun. I don't know how many times I've set my army down and been told by my opponent that I didn't have a chance to win because I took fluffy choices. I always respond that I'm just there to have a good game, and then crush them. Anyone who says 40k isn't or can't be a tactical game relies on "I win" button lists. Five knights are not harder to fight than an armored company, taudar.

In my experience the more specialized (netlists) a list gets, the less points they have to spend on basics, which is where codexes really shine.

I would happily run any list I've ever run against an army of knights. Win or lose, it would be a fun game.

Sildani
08-03-2014, 04:37
Not intended for anyone personally, but:

Does anyone ever TALK to their opponent before the game starts to see what kind of game BOTH participants would like to have, and then try to work towards that gaming goal? If so, armies of Knights and Baneblades should be no issue - you'll have sufficient counters.

And if you don't, you talk to your opponent, and cut things down, so that you will.

If that doesn't happen, then DON'T PLAY AGAINST THAT ARMY. You won't have fun, your opponent probably won't have fun. That kills the point of the game to begin with!

A quote I haven't seen around here for a while, but it bears mentioning: The OBJECT of the game is to win. The POINT of the game is to have fun. Do NOT confuse the two.

And if you play in a tournament, the organizers have had your pre-game talk in advance, on your behalf. If you don't like the results of that talk, don't play in that tourney.

None of the above is GW's fault, strictly speaking. Yes, they make OP stuff. I play Eldar. I should know. I care enough about the Social Contract, though, to know to make some concessions to my opponent for his/her satisfaction. And she/he likewise. That's on US.

Again, the above is not directed at anyone in particular. Simply my view on the matter.

Sgt John Keel
08-03-2014, 05:15
I will make no comment on the balance or rules of the Knight, because honestly I have no idea on how it performs.

I do kind of agree with Jervis on some things, but I think he reasons poorly and draws the wrong conclusions.

First things first: "So, though it may surprise some people, my first concern with rules is always that they are a fair reflection of the background behind the model."

Absolutely agree. Flavour should be a priority when it comes to designing the rules. Things need to perform the way people expect them to perform. However, in most cases there are probably several different ways to represent something flavourfully. Some of these are probably a better fit for the game and balance than others. However, if the flavour and the game balance is fundamentally incompatible, I think you should simply not include the unit at all (or change the game).

I also agree with not designing for a take-all-comers environment, but not for Jervis' reasons. I think it is incredibly, incredibly hard to design a balanced game in a TAC environment and it would limit the designers massively and lead to a lack of variety.

Different games deal with this in different ways. In Star Craft (both varieties), you adapt the units you choose to build to what your opponent is doing (which leads to an information advantage being massively helpful), and you won't really see every unit in every matchup because they are simply not effective against all races. In Magic, you have the sideboards to help adapt against an opponent your deck isn't optimal against from the start.

Therefore, I think tailored lists should be the norm, and with a balanced game I mean a game where every matchup will lead to about a 50/50 win ratio with experienced players (or as they say in Star Craft, at the highest level of play), and over all possible matchups every unit will be used a reasonable amount of time (obviously Troops will be used more often). It also seem more fluffy to me, certainly in most cases armies will be aware of what threats they could be facing?

Ideally, this should also reduce the need for a unit to be "good at all things" to be worth taking, which hopefully would increase variety.

(Here, I think Allies and Data Sheets [and ever-expanding unit options] are problematic, because they make it harder to tailor properly.)

Obviously balance would still be super hard, and I would really like to see GW take advantage of the Internet and do full scale reviews and balance updates of every army say, every six months. As much as I love physical books, I think I'd prefer this more pragmatic way for the sake of the game.

"As a games developer, the most important thing I have learned to be most wary of is cutting down options. It's our duty to provide more choices and opportunities for people to have fun with their friends."

False equivalence. More options is not equal to more fun. More good, balanced options may contribute to more fun (few people take poor options if they can help it). Also, cutting down options we already had will obviously lead to whining and angst, since people have invested time and energy and money in armies build around them. That is not an indicator that more new options should necessarily be added. I also think too many options may lead to the game being daunting for beginners and casual players. Especially if they are poorly balanced and/or it is unclear which is better in which situation. For example, as a casual observant of the Eldar, I'm not sure when I should choose the Shuriken Cannon over the Scatter Laser (my gut feeling is "never").

Not a super clear example, I admit, and I don't think there are any clear answers. There needs to be some sort of balance at all levels, which would arguably lead to some units being solid, easy choices for beginners and some being sub-optimal for beginners, since they are hard to use but would truly shine in the hands of an experienced player. To return to the Magic universe, I'm sure a beginner and a pro player have very different opinions on which cards are good (there are tons of people wondering what's the deal with Black Lotus, for example). And I also think segmenting entire armies as "easy" and "hard" to use is a mistake. There should be units of both varieties in both Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Dark Eldar, because preferring a different aesthetic should not make your life miserable as a beginner.

So, to summarise, I agree with their design goals to a degree, but I think they are leaving a lot on the table. Not necessarily stuff that is free, but stuff that is very tasty (yes, I'm changing the idiom from money to food).

Also, if they really take game design seriously, communicate with and educate players why you did things, how things work best, what you might have done wrong, how you fixed it and why you won't do it again. I've heard a fair few programmers saying that open sourcing their work leads to them doing better work because of the public scrutiny prompting them to not embarrass themselves with ugly hacks. I think it might be a healthy philosophy in general.

duffybear1988
08-03-2014, 08:54
Sounds like they have all lost the plot. I especially liked the bit where he said a unit that kills a baneblade won't be able to kill a knight or a nid monster - my drop podding sternguard want to day hi.

It all comes across as an excuse to cover up their stupidity. I mean the bit where they say that sometimes you are just going to lose is completely true, but there are different. levels of losing. Not having a chance to even dent the enemy is absolutely no fun. Last week I suggested that they probably playtested knights vs a horde of termagaunts who had no way of damaging them. By the sounds of things I was right. To their backwards thinking that makes for a fun game.

Judging by this I think we can expect codex baneblade squadron pretty soon.

7th edition is going to be the end.

MajorWesJanson
08-03-2014, 09:04
Sounds like they have all lost the plot. I especially liked the bit where he said a unit that kills a baneblade won't be able to kill a knight or a nid monster - my drop podding sternguard want to day hi.

Potentially. Some units can do it. But things that normally would trash a baneblade, like THSS Terminators or Greater Daemons are not going to do nearly as well against the Knight with the D weapon in close combat. And Drop pod sternguard are far from the most effective unit to kill a flying monstrous creature (that has not been grounded)

Also note that the quote is not an absolute like you imply. "What's good at killing a Baneblade is not necessarily much good at dealing with an Imperial Knight, and it almost certainly won't help against a Tyranid Hive Crone."

Denny
08-03-2014, 10:07
I dont like the concept of TAC either. TAC is usually finding the right powerlist to Take On the Two Other Powerlists in the meta, not really all comers, and imo leads to stagnation and boredom.

Agreed. The TAC mentality limits the game and makes it far less interesting. Each army should have strengths and weaknesses, which means certain other armies will be at an advantage/disadvantage.

If you can truly make a TAC list that would, paradoxically, suggest to me that the game is unbalanced, because nobody should be able to do everything.

Spiney Norman
08-03-2014, 10:17
I dont like the concept of TAC either. TAC is usually finding the right powerlist to Take On the Two Other Powerlists in the meta, not really all comers, and imo leads to stagnation and boredom.

No, its not, TAC is just the absence of list-tailoring. Designing a take all comers list is just designing your army to work against a variety of threats so you will stand a chance whatever your opponent brings to the game (which typically you will not know in advance), whereas List-tailoring is knowing what your opponent will bring in advance and loading up on the counters to his specific build.

Deliberately trying to make TAC lists impossible (and thereby encouraging list tailoring as the only viable strategy) means that if you write your list before you see your opponent's, then nine times out of ten you will show up at a game and have no answer to sections of your opponents list. Flyers are possibly still the most extreme example of this because they can't be touched by anything that doesn't have Skyfire.

Ultimately this kind of model drives sales but makes for a very poor game


Agreed. The TAC mentality limits the game and makes it far less interesting. Each army should have strengths and weaknesses, which means certain other armies will be at an advantage/disadvantage.

If you can truly make a TAC list that would, paradoxically, suggest to me that the game is unbalanced, because nobody should be able to do everything.

Again I totally disagree, I think every army should potentially have a way to deal with everything. You shouldn't turn for a game and auto lose because you have brought sisters of battle (with no access to skyfire) and your opponent has turned up with 9 night scythes.

I can remember a time when the game was decided primarily by the decisions you made during the game, by your target priority or when you chose to launch an assault, suitably modified by a bit of dice randomness. Now the game is almost always decided by the models you show up with, and for me that's not a good thing.

Vipoid
08-03-2014, 11:13
No, its not, TAC is just the absence of list-tailoring. Designing a take all comers list is just designing your army to work against a variety of threats so you will stand a chance whatever your opponent brings to the game (which typically you will not know in advance), whereas List-tailoring is knowing what your opponent will bring in advance and loading up on the counters to his specific build.

Deliberately trying to make TAC lists impossible (and thereby encouraging list tailoring as the only viable strategy) means that if you write your list before you see your opponent's, then nine times out of ten you will show up at a game and have no answer to sections of your opponents list. Flyers are possibly still the most extreme example of this because they can't be touched by anything that doesn't have Skyfire.

Ultimately this kind of model drives sales but makes for a very poor game



Again I totally disagree, I think every army should potentially have a way to deal with everything. You shouldn't turn for a game and auto lose because you have brought sisters of battle (with no access to skyfire) and your opponent has turned up with 9 night scythes.

I can remember a time when the game was decided primarily by the decisions you made during the game, by your target priority or when you chose to launch an assault, suitably modified by a bit of dice randomness. Now the game is almost always decided by the models you show up with, and for me that's not a good thing.

Agreed on all counts.

I guess I just don't see the appeal of playing what amounts to Rock, Paper, Scissors.

Spiney Norman
08-03-2014, 11:20
Agreed on all counts.

I guess I just don't see the appeal of playing what amounts to Rock, Paper, Scissors.

I don't mind rock/paper/scissors as long as I can build an army with a small amount of all three, sadly that's no longer the case.

Lord Damocles
08-03-2014, 11:22
Wait, so what are we all indignant and up in arms about this time..?

That GW are bad at balance? That Jervis waffles in White Dwarf? That some units/lists/rules are out of kilter with others? That GW don't want people having a single list which is equally as powerful against every possible foe?

Seriously, what happened to the last ten years?

Pssyche
08-03-2014, 12:13
So there you have it. They don't like the idea that there exists a "take all comers" army.

Could you point out where they say that in the article, please.
It certainly doesn't say that in any of the quotes that you've provided.



"They WANT an escalating arms race, presumably because it involves buying more models."

Imagine that!
A company that sells stuff, wants to erm... sell stuff!
Bad Company!



"Also of note is how with very few exceptions they refer to their customers as "hobbyists". Not gamers, not players, but hobbyists."

What's wrong with "Hobbyist"?
I can assure you that not everybody who collects 40K is a Gamer or Player.
In the first twenty years of me being into the Hobby I collected and painted +8K Eldar, +5K Space Wolves, +3K Imperial Guard, +5K Tyranids, +3K Space Orks, +2K Chaos Space Marines, +2K Tau and +2K Necrons.
In that time, I played less than ten games.


Every Player is a Hobbyist, by definition.
But not every Hobbyist is a Player.

ObiWayneKenobi
08-03-2014, 12:19
I'd wager there are more people who play for the game than there are people who just collect the models, especially given how expensive they are - there are a lot of cheaper but similar looking sci-fi models from other companies that fit right in with GW's models.

What skews my point of view is I have never, ever seen this "forge the narrative" stuff out in the real world. Every game I've played and seen played was a pick-up game at a game store, with little or no idea beforehand who was going to turn up and what army they would have or what their collection contained or how they played. So the only discussion beforehand was usually how many points, and once in a blue moon whether you wanted a competitive or casual style game. None of this "Let's come up with a story" stuff that GW seems to think the entire game is about. The only times I've seen games that had a story behind it was for campaigns.

I'm not sure if it's a cultural thing or not since it seems most games in Europe and the UK especially are done via close-knit gaming clubs and in the US it's mostly via a game store, but the way they seem to think the game should be played I have never once seen occur.

Ironbone
08-03-2014, 14:01
Well, if GW is thinking about game balance this way, then their failiere is even greater than i've ever imagined :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes:........

IcedCrow
08-03-2014, 15:56
Agreed on all counts.

I guess I just don't see the appeal of playing what amounts to Rock, Paper, Scissors.

This game has been rock/paper/scissors since its inception. TAC is not TAC. Its the illusion of taking on everything that comes your way but it really isn't. Its being able to take on what you feel you are going to see at wherever you are going. Its a form of list tailoring under the guise of not list tailoring.

my TAC eldar list of the 90s was to cram as many star cannons into it. Because I knew most of my opponents would be marines, most (all) events would put three small pieces of terrain on the table that amounted to nothing really for cover (much like today) and that I wouldn't likely be facing orks or nids or guard since those were not very common or used much where I was. That wasn't really TAC. That was list tailoring vs the meta but I would have argued all day long how it was TAC because I didn't know who my opponent was.

I'm very happy that its now very difficult to make a list that can "do everything". This is of course why I am at odds with some of you, who are very much opposed to it, but that's ok that happens. I didn't like where 5th edition 40k was either and others loved it *shrug* I love games where there are actual disadvantages, which is why I never really liked playing min/max because in the min/max world you can do pretty well to eliminate all weaknesses out of a list which is IMO lame and equates to me like playing chess with nothing but queens.

And even today you can build an army that has "all three" elements. You need anti flyer, anti infantry, and anti tank in your list. The knight codex swung anti tank to be more important. I see a lot of people focused on anti infantry because "vehicles just die right away from being glanced to death" so they don't put as many anti-tank weapons n their list.

Now if you don't and you face off against a knight you are going to have to "watch out for your corn-hole bud" to quote Lawrence from Office Space.

yabbadabba
08-03-2014, 16:08
Seriously, what happened to the last ten years? Past 25-30 years mate. Every generation thinks GWs "faults" are somehow new and unique to them.


Well, if GW is thinking about game balance this way, then their failiere is even greater than i've ever imagined :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes:........ They don't think about balance. You can't fail at thinking about balance if you don't think about it. Rule of Cool has been GWs mantra in 40K since 2ed, what's changed is that definition of cool.

duffybear1988
08-03-2014, 16:25
They may as well just come out and admit that the game they are making is just rock/paper/scissors now. TAC doesn't mean equally good at beating everything, it means that you are able to offer some resistance in each phase. You are able to react to all kinds of threats. Instead GW are pushing the game towards specific builds - the assault build, the flyer build, the titan build, the tank spam build, the gunline, MSU transport spam. Every one of those will beat a TAC list. So much for the narrative. It's sounding like a complete crock of s***. This is even more evident when they say that they expect people to lose against these spam builds and then come back and beat them next game. The only possible way they can do that is to build a spam list of their own to counter it. That sounds like competition to me. There's no mention of negotiation or asking players to trim back on the cheese. Oh no, it's "You lost because we can't be bothered to do the work to give everyone an equal chance. If you ever want to win again take a spam list. Then we can create the next broken thing that others can spam to beat you."

It's funny that most rock/paper/scissors wargames have ended in failure and that is where 40k is heading...

ObiWayneKenobi
08-03-2014, 16:35
They may as well just come out and admit that the game they are making is just rock/paper/scissors now. TAC doesn't mean equally good at beating everything, it means that you are able to offer some resistance in each phase. You are able to react to all kinds of threats. Instead GW are pushing the game towards specific builds - the assault build, the flyer build, the titan build, the tank spam build, the gunline, MSU transport spam. Every one of those will beat a TAC list. So much for the narrative. It's sounding like a complete crock of s***.

It's funny that most rock/paper/scissors wargames have ended in failure and that is where 40k is heading...

Worse. They are pushing the game towards "Oh, you brought a flyer build and beat me? Next game I'm bringing more AA than you can shake a stick at".

They are basically doing this: http://www.cellsea.com/video/detail/V51489760d25f5.htm an over the top arms race with the underlying intention being that you'll buy the newest and best thing to beat your opponent, who in turn will do the same.

Wayshuba
08-03-2014, 16:37
This game has been rock/paper/scissors since its inception. TAC is not TAC. Its the illusion of taking on everything that comes your way but it really isn't. Its being able to take on what you feel you are going to see at wherever you are going. Its a form of list tailoring under the guise of not list tailoring.

my TAC eldar list of the 90s was to cram as many star cannons into it. Because I knew most of my opponents would be marines and that I wouldn't likely be facing orks or nids or guard since those were not very common or used much where I was. That wasn't really TAC. That was list tailoring vs the meta but I would have argued all day long how it was TAC because I didn't know who my opponent was.

I'm very happy that its now very difficult to make a list that can "do everything". This is of course why I am at odds with some of you, who are very much opposed to it, but that's ok that happens. I didn't like where 5th edition 40k was either and others loved it *shrug*

And even today you can build an army that has "all three" elements. You need anti flyer, anti infantry, and anti tank in your list. The knight codex swung anti tank to be more important. I see a lot of people focused on anti infantry because "vehicles just die right away from being glanced to death" so they don't put as many anti-tank weapons n their list.

Now if you don't and you face off against a knight you are going to have to "watch out for your corn-hole bud" to quote Lawrence from Office Space.

But the game has NEVER been this bad or out of whack.

Just for kicks, I played a game with a friend last night because we thought this was going to create a mess. We played 1875 point with me taking 5 Knights Paladin and him building a fairly standard Eldar army. I got first turn.

Game ended on the first half of turn one. He never went. Has anyone thought about what 10 S8 AP3 Ordnance shots do to an army on turn one? This is made worse by the size of the Knight model, which makes model LoS so much easier for destroying armies.

I will say this, I agree with Jervis and Robin, this is definitely a game changer - it changes the game into something I haven't recognized over 25 years of playing it. My friend and I both agreed after the game. IK sounds good in theory, it is absolute stupidity in reality.

duffybear1988
08-03-2014, 16:37
Yeah I edited my post above with similar thoughts.

IcedCrow
08-03-2014, 16:40
I dont agree. The game to me has always been out of whack. The difference between today and yesteryear is that there are simply more options.

The fact is that knights will be the hotness until tactics have been figured to counter them. I fully expect my doors to be blown off in my first few games, but i will counter them.

My starcannon army averaged 2.5 turns a game before i won via tabling my opponent. There were counters to it but no one used terrain and everyone was hellbent on rhino rushing me.

Gotta find the counters.

Spiney Norman
08-03-2014, 16:42
But the game has NEVER been this bad or out of whack.

Just for kicks, I played a game with a friend last night because we thought this was going to create a mess. We played 1875 point with me taking 5 Knights Paladin and him building a fairly standard Eldar army. I got first turn.

Game ended on the first half of turn one. He never went. Has anyone thought about what 10 S8 AP3 Ordnance shots do to an army on turn one? This is made worse by the size of the Knight model, which makes model LoS so much easier for destroying armies.

I will say this, I agree with Jervis and Robin, this is definitely a game changer - it changes the game into something I haven't recognized over 25 years of playing it. My friend and I both agreed after the game. IK sounds good in theory, it is absolute stupidity in reality.

Its a shame really, if they had stuck to just allowing one knight as an ally to imperial armies no-one would have cared and it wouldn't have made any real difference, but they had to go and get greedy and try and flog 5+ to the same person and make an army of them.

This is only going to get the knight codex banned by Tournement organisers and any groups that actually care about having a good game, much the same as happened with escalation (except this is far worse than escalation).

yabbadabba
08-03-2014, 16:46
I doubt GW will care if it gets banned from tournaments, much like it hasn't cared about how tournaments arrange theirt comp, after all it follows on of GWs prime directives - play the game how you feel is right.

As for
any groups that actually care about having a good game not only is that subjective, but it is insulting to those who use the Knights and have a good game.

IcedCrow
08-03-2014, 16:51
Agreed. Playing with knights does not preclude a good game

Wayshuba
08-03-2014, 16:52
I dont agree. The game to me has always been out of whack. The difference between today and yesteryear is that there are simply more options.

The fact is that knights will be the hotness until tactics have been figured to counter them. I fully expect my doors to be blown off in my first few games, but i will counter them.

My starcannon army averaged 2.5 turns a game before i won via tabling my opponent. There were counters to it but no one used terrain and everyone was hellbent on rhino rushing me.

Gotta find the counters.

You may not agree, but I actually played it. It sucks and it is not fun - for either side. It is nowhere near anything 40k has gone through in 25 years. For me it was rolling a few dice, for him it was removing a bunch of models or having them run off the table. We decided that we could save $700 and just decide if we were to try that battle again, I will just roll 2D6 before setup. If I roll a 3 or better I win, on snake eyes he wins. Otherwise you spend more time setting up that actually playing. It is nowhere near anything 40k has gone through in 25 years.

You cannot counter getting destroyed on turn one. Also, if you do figure out a way to fight an IK army, you pretty much have to build an army specifically for the purpose. If you do this, the army build will be close to useless versus other builds.

40k NEVER EVER required a specific army build to deal with another specific army build. Yet this is what they are trying to lead everyone to believe is okay. It is not. It is very poor and amateurish game design and, if it continues, mark my words it WILL destroy 40k. The game was not fun AT ALL. It requires no tactics, or movement, to stand and shoot 10 Ordnance shots. None at all.

Edit: One thing I want to add from my discussion with my friend after the battle. Imperial Knights ARE NOT AN OPTION, like Escalation. They were released as a new army. IK is officially an army (an thus why it is listed the way it is on the GW website). So telling someone that an entire army is an option or invalid is NOT like 40k has ever been in 25 years. I have never known anyone to outright ban an entire army.

Spiney Norman
08-03-2014, 16:53
I doubt GW will care if it gets banned from tournaments, much like it hasn't cared about how tournaments arrange theirt comp, after all it follows on of GWs prime directives - play the game how you feel is right.

As for not only is that subjective, but it is insulting to those who use the Knights and have a good game.

I'm not saying you can't use knights and have a good game, I'm saying that when the 5+ knight armies hit the table and comprehensively break the game the inevitable result will be that progressively more groups decided they want out of knights altogether and just ban the codex. If GW would only think about doing things in moderation instead of milking the udder dry at the expense of playability then this wouldn't even be an issue.

duffybear1988
08-03-2014, 16:53
Yabba I seriously doubt that is their prime directive any more. It's recently been replaced with spam for wins. They don't even mention playing how you want to play any more. GW are hoodwinking people.

IcedCrow your constantly mentioned starcannon spam would be tame by todays standards - 5 guardians are as flimsy as wet tissue paper. Honestly my TAC lists from back in the day would have no problems beating them/putting up a good long fight I would wager. If you ever visit the UK maybe we could have a face off and see :).

Vipoid
08-03-2014, 16:54
This game has been rock/paper/scissors since its inception.

Never to this extent though.

If nothing else, there are just more units that require pretty specialised counters. Added to this is the aspect that it's a lot easier to spam broken elements - rather than being limited to your own codex, you have Allies, Dataslates and various other books that add to your army.

Ssilmath
08-03-2014, 16:56
It's recently been replaced with spam for wins. They don't even mention playing how you want to play any more.

I don't think they really care about people's wins, all they care is that people are playing and enjoying their game.

Wins are meaningless anyways. I mean seriously, you spammed 5 Knights and won ten games in a row. So what did you accomplish? What have you achieved? What could a win at 40k do other than stroke a personal ego?

yabbadabba
08-03-2014, 17:02
I'm not saying you can't use knights and have a good game, I'm saying that when the 5+ knight armies hit the table and comprehensively break the game the inevitable result will be that progressively more groups decided they want out of knights altogether and just ban the codex. If GW would only think about doing things in moderation instead of milking the udder dry at the expense of playability then this wouldn't even be an issue. Why? It doesn't need to be an issue if gamers acted maturely and considered the meta of the local playing environment. What you are essentially saying is that in clubs and groups gamers are essentially pre-school children incapable of rational decisions about the impact of their behaviour and choices, and making social agreements. If someone turns up with 5 Knights without warning, and then their group get's in a hump and ban all Knights, then both sides are acting immaturely.

Yabba I seriously doubt that is their prime directive any more. It's recently been replaced with spam for wins. They don't even mention playing how you want to play any more. GW are hoodwinking people. I refer you to the comment above. It is one of their prime directives and guess what? it works in this situation. If you are being hoodwinked by GW then you are 12, or you deserve to be hoodwinked in my opinion.

Here is the simple, rational, mature Vet response - "Hmm, not sure how this is going to work at all, and 5 Knights seem over kill. We will have to wait and see if anyone wants to use Knights then we can play a few games at different levels and decide for ourselves how we think they should be used in the game. In the meantime, so no one wastes money, we will allow proxying."

I am not even going to bother to compare it to the current reaction.

Choice is better than no choice, especially when it comes with the option for the user to define the parameters of that choice.

ObiWayneKenobi
08-03-2014, 17:12
Here is the simple, rational, mature Vet response - "Hmm, not sure how this is going to work at all, and 5 Knights seem over kill. We will have to wait and see if anyone wants to use Knights then we can play a few games at different levels and decide for ourselves how we think they should be used in the game. In the meantime, so no one wastes money, we will allow proxying."

Now what happens in reality is that you head down to your local game store for a game, and face some tool with more money than brains who fields 5 Knights. They proceed to wipe the floor with you because they paid $700 for five overpriced items. You wasted X much time and had no fun at all because you didn't get to act.

People don't generally ask to use or wait and see, they buy what they want and play whoever turns up for a game.

Spiney Norman
08-03-2014, 17:13
Choice is better than no choice, especially when it comes with the option for the user to define the parameters of that choice.

When your choice doesn't affect anyone else aversely that is true, but your decision to bring a 5 knight armies aversely affects your opponent and he has zero control over the making of that decision.

For those that love the spam and thrive on uber broken Tournement builds knight armies are a wonderful casket of potential exploitation, for everyone else its just one other disaster of a game you could find yourself playing against because GW think its funny to make their game rules so unworkable.



People don't generally ask to use or wait and see, they buy what they want and play whoever turns up for a game.

Dear god, another poster on warseer who lives and plays in the real world, I'm actually aghast.

yabbadabba
08-03-2014, 17:15
Now what happens in reality is that you head down to your local game store for a game, and face some tool with more money than brains who fields 5 Knights. They proceed to wipe the floor with you because they paid $700 for five overpriced items. You wasted X much time and had no fun at all because you didn't get to act.

People don't generally ask to use or wait and see, they buy what they want and play whoever turns up for a game. Then more fool them. Much like I don't waste my money on crap I don't need, I am not going to waste my time playing a game I know I won't enjoy. A simple, poliute "No thanks" followed by efforts to make sure my time is not wasted again follows.

There is a realy pseudo-victim culture on here at the moment. The GW shareholders will be laughing their backsides off.

Ssilmath
08-03-2014, 17:16
When your choice doesn't affect anyone else aversely that is true, but your decision to bring a 5 knight armies aversely affects your opponent and he has zero control over the making of that decision.

And he has 100% control over whether he plays against you or not.

Wayshuba
08-03-2014, 17:17
I don't think they really care about people's wins, all they care is that people are playing and enjoying their game.

Wins are meaningless anyways. I mean seriously, you spammed 5 Knights and won ten games in a row. So what did you accomplish? What have you achieved? What could a win at 40k do other than stroke a personal ego?

Like I said, I tried one game with the 5 knights setup. So if their goal is that people are enjoying their game, they also failed miserably there. The game was not fun at all (unless you consider setup fun, since we spent more time doing that). It wasn't an ego thing, it was a trial to see if these things even seem playtested (which they definatley do not appear to be).

yabbadabba
08-03-2014, 17:19
When your choice doesn't affect anyone else aversely that is true, but your decision to bring a 5 knight armies aversely affects your opponent and he has zero control over the making of that decision. I refer you to my pseudo-victim culture observation.

For those that love the spam and thrive on uber broken Tournement builds knight armies are a wonderful casket of potential exploitation, for everyone else its just one other disaster of a game you could find yourself playing against because GW think its funny to make their game rules so unworkable. Let me edit that for you, so that it actually makes sense:
For those that love the spam and thrive on uber broken Tournement builds knight armies are a wonderful casket of potential exploitation, quickly followed by the realisation they have wasted money and lost gaming opportunities and friendships; for everyone else its just one other opportunity to discover the immature gamers who will eventually ruin your hobby, no matter what, and those who have a similar gaming philosophy to you and will therefore result in you having the best gaming experience. For a few it will be the realisation that they are in the wrong hobby.

Spiney Norman
08-03-2014, 17:19
Then more fool them. Much like I don't waste my money on crap I don't need, I am not going to waste my time playing a game I know I won't enjoy. A simple, poliute "No thanks" followed by efforts to make sure my time is not wasted again follows.

There is a realy pseudo-victim culture on here at the moment. The GW shareholders will be laughing their backsides off.

But don't you think it would be a better state of affairs if the game rules were of sufficiently high quality to promote fun games? The very fact that we are talking about situations where you end up walking from a game because it is clear from before the start of the game that you will not enjoy it, tells me that the game rules are failing, and failing epicly.

Games that rely on self-regulation to work are all ultimately doomed to failure if the objective is to win because you rely on your opponent damaging their chance at victory to help you out.

Ssilmath
08-03-2014, 17:23
Like I said, I tried one game with the 5 knights setup. So if their goal is that people are enjoying their game, they also failed miserably there. The game was not fun at all (unless you consider setup fun, since we spent more time doing that). It wasn't an ego thing, it was a trial to see if these things even seem playtested (which they definatley do not appear to be).

So, you played a single game with 5 Knights, beat somebody, and now you can declare definitively that nobody else can enjoy such a game?

Right.

yabbadabba
08-03-2014, 17:24
But don't you think it would be a better state of affairs if the game rules were of sufficiently high quality to promote fun games? The very fact that we are talking about situations where you end up walking from a game because it is clear from before the start of the game that you will not enjoy it, that the game rules are failing, and failing epicly. No, because the games are about people. The more I have seen GW release their products for the games recently, the more I am convinced that hobbyists reactions to using them is a clear indication of their social and hobby maturity.

If someone turns up with 5 Knights, full in the knowledge that it is a spammed army that is almost an auto-win, without working with an opponent to make that challenge as fun and as realistic as possible, then I am not going to enjoy playing them not matter what the game.

Wayshuba
08-03-2014, 17:25
So, you played a single game with 5 Knights, beat somebody, and now you can declare definitively that nobody else can enjoy such a game?

Right.

Play it first before you reply please. It is not a competitive army and it is not fun. It doesn't take a bunch of games to figure out that 10 S8 AP3 72" range Ordnance shots are A BIT MUCH for the current implementation of the rules. Broken is broken. You don't need ten games to determine that the first game was enough to tell you how broken it is.

Ssilmath
08-03-2014, 17:29
If I knew ahead of time that my opponent had 5 Knights to play, I could easily come up with a list that would make for an enjoyable and nailbiting game. Tailoring for fun, if you will.

And if you think 10 Battlecannons is excessive, you must have never played against Guard before.

ashc
08-03-2014, 17:30
I thought that It used to be that you wanted to build an army that could do a bit of everything, but this looks really difficult and apparently not what gw desires with what they are doing now. I saw it coming with flyers to be fair.

Sent from my GT-I8190N using Tapatalk

Spiney Norman
08-03-2014, 17:33
If I knew ahead of time that my opponent had 5 Knights to play, I could easily come up with a list that would make for an enjoyable and nailbiting game. Tailoring for fun, if you will.

And if you think 10 Battlecannons is excessive, you must have never played against Guard before.

Lol, of course you can, if you know exactly what your opponent will be bringing you can come up with a counter list that will blow him off the table in a couple of turns no matter what he is bringing. Everything in the game has a hard counter, that's exactly why the majority of gamers I've played don't give you an advance copy of their army list.


No, because the games are about people. The more I have seen GW release their products for the games recently, the more I am convinced that hobbyists reactions to using them is a clear indication of their social and hobby maturity.


I think its a bit arrogant of GW to assume that everyone who plays their games is a "hobbyist", I know plenty of guys who basically treat GW games like computer games with a social element, they are gamers pure and simple and don't give a fudge about the 'hobby', heck, half the games I play are against completely unpainted armies. But I suppose that makes them "immature", when "immature" actually means "plays the game by a different philosophy, which gives me the right to belittle you online".

Ssilmath
08-03-2014, 17:35
Lol, of course you can, if you know exactly what your opponent will be bringing you can come up with a counter list that will blow him off the table in a couple of turns no matter what he is bringing. Everything in the game has a hard counter, that's exactly why the majority of gamers I've played don't give you an advance copy of their army list.

Oh, so you missed the part where I said it was tailoring for a good game, not a blowout. Yeah, I knew I could count on your intellectual dishonesty.

ObiWayneKenobi
08-03-2014, 17:38
If I knew ahead of time that my opponent had 5 Knights to play, I could easily come up with a list that would make for an enjoyable and nailbiting game. Tailoring for fun, if you will.

And if you think 10 Battlecannons is excessive, you must have never played against Guard before.

If being the key word. Maybe your area is different but in mine, you rarely if ever know what somebody is going to bring because you're not having a pre-arranged game, but a random game with whoever turns up at the game shop.

Spiney Norman
08-03-2014, 17:43
Oh, so you missed the part where I said it was tailoring for a good game, not a blowout. Yeah, I knew I could count on your intellectual dishonesty.

Don't get me wrong, it sounds wonderfully noble that you are willing to sacrifice your chances of winning for the sake of your opponent, but in my experience its very easy to talk that way, but almost never translates into anything on the tabletop. Most people who claim they field soft lists because they want a 'good game' are usually just on an ego trip.


If being the key word. Maybe your area is different but in mine, you rarely if ever know what somebody is going to bring because you're not having a pre-arranged game, but a random game with whoever turns up at the game shop.

I play mostly pre-arranged games, and I rarely know which faction I will be facing, let alone which allied detachments, dataslates, fortifications or escalation units will be tagged on. I have never been given an army list in advance of a game.

Ssilmath
08-03-2014, 17:44
If being the key word. Maybe your area is different but in mine, you rarely if ever know what somebody is going to bring because you're not having a pre-arranged game, but a random game with whoever turns up at the game shop.

Then I suppose what somebody turns up with for a game is entirely dependent on their maturity level and the local meta, is it not? I have 3 IG lists (And one bag to carry 2500 points in, it's not that hard) set up, each at varying levels of competitiveness. I ask my opponent what they want to play against, and pick that list. Something like 5 Knights is clearly not meant for random pickup games, but would make for an awesome preset game. In my local area, anybody who shows up with 5 Knights and requests pickup games isn't going to play. Somebody who posts on our Facebook group asking for a game with 5 Knights will likely get one. It's really that simple.


Don't get me wrong, it sounds wonderfully noble that you are willing to sacrifice your chances of winning for the sake of your opponent, but in my experience its very easy to talk that way, but almost never translates into anything on the tabletop. Most people who claim they field soft lists because they want a 'good game' are usually just on an ego trip.

I didn't say soft list either, did I? And since winning doesn't matter to me, what could I possibly care about lowering my chance to win the game? If it's a fun game for both players, who cares who wins? Only people who put their ego on the line in a game of 40k, I think.

Wayshuba
08-03-2014, 17:46
If I knew ahead of time that my opponent had 5 Knights to play, I could easily come up with a list that would make for an enjoyable and nailbiting game. Tailoring for fun, if you will.

And if you think 10 Battlecannons is excessive, you must have never played against Guard before.

And thus why it is broken (on so many levels). Never have we had to come up with a specific list against a specific army. Secondly, as I mentioned, what is overlooked with the Knights is the 8" height, which makes a HUGE difference with initial LoS which the IG do not enjoy. Secondly, the IG usually cannot lay down that much Ordnance. They are usually limited by available Heavy Support choices (of which there are three) usually limiting it to three Ordnance shots (but yes, they have barrages). In an IK army, you can have up to 6. So this flies in the face of almost every other army out there which is limited to three Heavy Support choices. Once again, this is where the IK breaks the game balance.

Wayshuba
08-03-2014, 17:48
Then I suppose what somebody turns up with for a game is entirely dependent on their maturity level and the local meta, is it not? I have 3 IG lists (And one bag to carry 2500 points in, it's not that hard) set up, each at varying levels of competitiveness. I ask my opponent what they want to play against, and pick that list. Something like 5 Knights is clearly not meant for random pickup games, but would make for an awesome preset game. In my local area, anybody who shows up with 5 Knights and requests pickup games isn't going to play. Somebody who posts on our Facebook group asking for a game with 5 Knights will likely get one. It's really that simple.

Why? It is a fully fledged army. When, in 25 years, has anyone ever said I refuse to play against an army. Sure, we may limit certain play against some cheese builds of armies, but not the entire army itself. So you are saying we are setting a new precedent here - that the IK army is broken and people will refuse to play against it, even if that is what a player built of his army. In effect, we have indeed entered new territory here.

So, since this is a post about game balance, then the game balance has indeed been broken when we are now going to invalidate entire armies because they do indeed break the balance of the game so badly. I don't remember this happening when the Tyranids first became an army... or the Tau... or the Dark Eldar... but now it is happening.

Ssilmath
08-03-2014, 17:50
And thus why it is broken (on so many levels). Never have we had to come up with a specific list against a specific army. Secondly, as I mentioned, what is overlooked with the Knights is the 8" height, which makes a HUGE difference with initial LoS which the IG do not enjoy. Secondly, the IG usually cannot lay down that much Ordnance. They are usually limited by available Heavy Support choices (of which there are three) usually limiting it to three Ordnance shots (but yes, they have barrages). In an IK army, you can have up to 6. So this flies in the face of almost every other army out there which is limited to three Heavy Support choices. Once again, this is where the IK breaks the game balance.

I can cram 9 Basilisks into 3 Heavy Support slots for 1200 points. That's 9 Str 9, AP 3 Ordnance Barrage shots for less than the cost of the Knights, and they can be positioned where they can't be shot at.


Why? It is a fully fledged army. When, in 25 years, has anyone ever said I refuse to play against an army.

I have, multiple times in the last 9 years since I started playing. If I look at an opposing army and it doesn't look like fun to play, I say so. Sometimes I refuse the game, sometimes point out that Thousand Sons are useless against a Green Tide and ask if I can switch to Night Lords. Sometimes I have walked away from games because my opponent was acting like a jerk or brought a jerk list.

Felwether
08-03-2014, 17:50
Secondly, the IG usually cannot lay down that much Ordnance. They are usually limited by available Heavy Support choices (of which there are three) usually limiting it to three Ordnance shots (but yes, they have barrages). In an IK army, you can have up to 6. So this flies in the face of almost every other army out there which is limited to three Heavy Support choices. Once again, this is where the IK breaks the game balance.

I'm pretty sure that guard can take all of their heavy support choices in Squadrons of up to three so you could theoretically be taking 9 Basilisks or Leman Russ.

Sgt John Keel
08-03-2014, 17:53
Choice is better than no choice, especially when it comes with the option for the user to define the parameters of that choice.

Just no. There's literally never a good reason to provide more choice than is absolutely necessary given the structure of the problem, in particular for non-power users. It's just bad human interaction design.

If you really like infinite variety, guess what, you don't need GW. At all. Go make your own game.

To try my hand at a simile, you can either want a game that is like a solid, well built house that you can move into immediately and then expand as you need in the future according to your whims. Or you can want a game that is like a rotting mansion. Fun to explore until the roof crashes down on you, and you need to cut away lots of it to make something useful.

Spiney Norman
08-03-2014, 17:55
I didn't say soft list either, did I? And since winning doesn't matter to me, what could I possibly care about lowering my chance to win the game? If it's a fun game for both players, who cares who wins? Only people who put their ego on the line in a game of 40k, I think.

Hmmm, in my experience people who go into a game protesting that they don't want to win are usually self-deluded. But full points for trying to paint a picture of yourself as more enlightened and superior to the rest of us.

When I play 40k I am trying to win, not because my ego is on the line, or because I will go into a 6 week sulk and require therapy to coax me out of my bedroom if I lose, but because that is the objective of the game, and you do a disservice to your opponent if you are playing to lose.

Ssilmath
08-03-2014, 18:10
I didn't say I don't play to win, did I? I said I don't care about the win. I still play hard, I still try to win but I play the game for the fellowship with other people. I play for the laughs that a fluffed dice roll provides, and the laughs that an improbably good dice roll provides. I play to nerd out with other nerds about the game world and how my armies fit into it. I play for the nailbiting finishes where a single dice roll determines the outcome of the game, and take enjoyment even when those dice rolls don't go my way. The moment might be frustrating, but the aftermath isn't. So I don't take the most hardcore lists and browbeat people into playing against me in order to get my win. A 'W' means absolutely nothing in even the short run.

yabbadabba
08-03-2014, 18:21
I think its a bit arrogant of GW to assume that everyone who plays their games is a "hobbyist", I know plenty of guys who basically treat GW games like computer games with a social element, they are gamers pure and simple and don't give a fudge about the 'hobby', heck, half the games I play are against completely unpainted armies. But I suppose that makes them "immature", when "immature" actually means "plays the game by a different philosophy, which gives me the right to belittle you online". No one is belittling anyone's gaming style - and has been proven earlier every gamer is a hobbyist, but not every hobbyist is a gamer.

Just no. There's literally never a good reason to provide more choice than is absolutely necessary given the structure of the problem, in particular for non-power users. It's just bad human interaction design. Its bad human interaction on the behalf of the users. Its like blaming a sharp knife for cutting you.


If you really like infinite variety, guess what, you don't need GW. At all. Go make your own game. I do, and I am in the position thanks to GWs games and their design philosophy.

To try my hand at a simile, you can either want a game that is like a solid, well built house that you can move into immediately and then expand as you need in the future according to your whims. Or you can want a game that is like a rotting mansion. Fun to explore until the roof crashes down on you, and you need to cut away lots of it to make something useful. Poor simile, that is just selective interpretation. I can do similar. Either you need agame that is like a prison, restricting you and insituitionalising you to a degree where you no longer need to make decisions for yourself, or you enjoy a agame where there are no horizons other than the choices you make with your friends and colleagues.

I don't buy either versions of that old tosh.

duffybear1988
08-03-2014, 18:34
This is the problem - the Knights aren't an add on or a supplement, they are an actual army. This is the stone being cast into the pond. If people start to refuse to play certain armies then the ripples are going to be huge for the game in general. I mean it's not like Knights players are spamming units or maxing out on allies or dataslates. They have only 2 choices in the entire codex.

What's next? Shall we start refusing to play Eldar and Tau players? What happens if the Knights player doesn't agree that their 5 knight army is too powerful? 5 knights is a pretty fluffy force and without allies etc it's hardly WAAC in the current sense, but at the same time it is pretty much.

Voss
08-03-2014, 18:39
Just no. There's literally never a good reason to provide more choice than is absolutely necessary given the structure of the problem, in particular for non-power users. It's just bad human interaction design.

One, that statement comes across as pretty creepy and disturbing, even if we take it at face value and just apply it to game theory, since that still covers a lot of ground (politics and warfare, for two). And even within games, there are a lot of games where limiting player choice makes for a really terrible game. It was one of the major stumbling blocks of 4th edition D&D, since it wrecked the basic assumptions of what was involved in an RPG.

Two... perhaps the 'structure of the problem' isn't what you think it is? Open, narrative games with lots of options (and even freeform creation) have been a part of 40k since literally day 1, where prison breaks through Deathworld jungles, eldar pirates raiding imperial colonies and orks raiding farms where far more common than 'two equal forces meet across an open, nameless battlefield.' The relatively highly structured pamphlet game of third edition was a weird aberration in the history of 40k, one that GW and a lot of players consciously rejected.

Third, one person's useful is another persons trash. If the game is precut down to no options because of some bizarre idea that users shouldn't be given choice, there is nowhere to expand or grow. If it isn't fit for its one singular purpose, it is simple garbage. With more options, people can take what they like, and leave the rest, leaving it open to growth and development in all sorts of directions. And sometimes the unexpected directions are best of all.

Seriqolm
08-03-2014, 19:42
One, that statement comes across as pretty creepy and disturbing, even if we take it at face value and just apply it to game theory, since that still covers a lot of ground (politics and warfare, for two). And even within games, there are a lot of games where limiting player choice makes for a really terrible game. It was one of the major stumbling blocks of 4th edition D&D, since it wrecked the basic assumptions of what was involved in an RPG.

Two... perhaps the 'structure of the problem' isn't what you think it is? Open, narrative games with lots of options (and even freeform creation) have been a part of 40k since literally day 1, where prison breaks through Deathworld jungles, eldar pirates raiding imperial colonies and orks raiding farms where far more common than 'two equal forces meet across an open, nameless battlefield.' The relatively highly structured pamphlet game of third edition was a weird aberration in the history of 40k, one that GW and a lot of players consciously rejected.

Third, one person's useful is another persons trash. If the game is precut down to no options because of some bizarre idea that users shouldn't be given choice, there is nowhere to expand or grow. If it isn't fit for its one singular purpose, it is simple garbage. With more options, people can take what they like, and leave the rest, leaving it open to growth and development in all sorts of directions. And sometimes the unexpected directions are best of all.


Your third point is critical in long term games and is known as emergent gameplay, options allow creative players to formulate new strategies and gameplay that the game designers cannot predict themselves. This is a buzz word in the modern MMORPG sphere at the moment where games designers over the past decade have been obsessed with balance and thus eroded variety and options in pursuit of allowing all available options to be viable, everyone's on a level playing field so to speak. This was not how the older style MMORPG's played, these options were available in the early MMORPG's like Asherons Call and Ultima Online where players had access to much more variety of playstyles and builds, though this also created a very similar situation as we have in Fantasy and 40k, it allowed for uber builds like the infamous Ultima Online OP Tankmage build but players on the whole remember a richer more involving experience from those games that what is offered in modern MMO's as they over time were able to mitigate this OP builds or as is the understanding in the Wargame community, create a meta game. Modern games designers are learning this so the new breed of online RPG's like The Elder Scrolls online is trying to add back in this variety of options in its skill system.

Its also one of the reasons for the ongoing success of the MOBA genre like League of Legends and DOTA 2. I can only imagine that Jervis and his team understand this as the way to help monetise their game and keep the GW train trundling on, its how Riot games have become incredibly rich in only a few years. For me it keeps the interest in a game longer because as with the democratising and homogenising of modern MMORPG's we've seen the lasting interesting in them wane were players blow through the content in a few months and either carry on "grinding" through the game or leave as the learning process has gone only to be left with repetition ie grinding, as all known strategies have been found.


These video's explain it better than I can, the first has been linked to in other threads and is from the superb Extra Credits series.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhE-NluybnI

ObiWayneKenobi
08-03-2014, 19:52
As a WoW player I have to say that balance is the key aspect, and I find homogenization good because it encourages what MMORPGs refer to a "Bring the player, not the class" that is you bring a skilled player to group content because they are skilled and don't look for a specific class because the encounter is so unbalanced that you need a specific class in order to either defeat it at all or because a specific class makes it much easier.

40k is erring on the side of difference to the point where we almost have "bring the army, not the player" to give an analogy to the above, where it doesn't matter how good you are, what you field is what lets you win not your own skill and merit. Obviously there must be SOME difference to make armies unique, but not so much that a skilled player with Army A will always lose against Army B because Army B is that much better.

To me that's a terrible thing.

Wayshuba
08-03-2014, 20:23
Your third point is critical in long term games and is known as emergent gameplay, options allow creative players to formulate new strategies and gameplay that the game designers cannot predict themselves. This is a buzz word in the modern MMORPG sphere at the moment where games designers over the past decade have been obsessed with balance and thus eroded variety and options in pursuit of allowing all available options to be viable, everyone's on a level playing field so to speak. This was not how the older style MMORPG's played, these options were available in the early MMORPG's like Asherons Call and Ultima Online where players had access to much more variety of playstyles and builds, though this also created a very similar situation as we have in Fantasy and 40k, it allowed for uber builds like the infamous Ultima Online OP Tankmage build but players on the whole remember a richer more involving experience from those games that what is offered in modern MMO's as they over time were able to mitigate this OP builds or as is the understanding in the Wargame community, create a meta game. Modern games designers are learning this so the new breed of online RPG's like The Elder Scrolls online is trying to add back in this variety of options in its skill system.

Its also one of the reasons for the ongoing success of the MOBA genre like League of Legends and DOTA 2. I can only imagine that Jervis and his team understand this as the way to help monetise their game and keep the GW train trundling on, its how Riot games have become incredibly rich in only a few years. For me it keeps the interest in a game longer because as with the democratising and homogenising of modern MMORPG's we've seen the lasting interesting in them wane were players blow through the content in a few months and either carry on "grinding" through the game or leave as the learning process has gone only to be left with repetition ie grinding, as all known strategies have been found.


These video's explain it better than I can, the first has been linked to in other threads and is from the superb Extra Credits series.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhE-NluybnI

I don't think the analogy is correct. You are referring to PVE environments where players are devouring the content and opponents generated by the developers. In PvP online play it is alot different and this is more akin to 40k. Think of how many players played for a long time with Diablo, Starcraft, et al. and play things such as PvP in GW2, SWTOR or in straight PvP MMOs. The devs simply provide an environment and the players use it as a sandbox for their own games.

40k is more like a sandbox, but one where they keep changing what and is in it. It is fine to add options for players to explore, or expand at their leisure, but this is NOT what GW does. GW forces you down a path by making newer releases more powerful, especially versus their point cost, and nerfing older units so a newer unit replaces what they once did. They do this with the game as well. One edition is transport heaven, so everyone buys a ton of transports. Next edition the transports are nerfed and assault is made over the top, so people stock up on assault units. The very next edition assault it nerfed and shooting becomes key, so people expand on their shooting units.

Change is one thing, but GW always makes changes for their benefit and not that of the customer. It really does grow thin after 25 years. But they are not going to change it, no matter how many customers it is costing them. Their business model on their site says as much. They basically indicate they are going to keep rinsing and repeating what they have done for the last 30 years, that players will pay any price for the best models in the world, and that their is no competition because they have built a Fortress and a Moat (actual terms from their business model).

MadHatter
08-03-2014, 20:25
I have seen lots of WAAC players and they all make the game un fun for those who do not share their philosophy. I watched in second edition a tyranid player get utterly smashed by a eldar phantom titan from armor cast without any chance to even hurt the thing. It was poor manors of the eldar player to be a jerk about his win even after the bug player showed he had no grudges.

In a small community of this hobby we find ourselves going to one of a few places to meet regularly, so we are going to become familiar with the other players in the groups quickly, your gonna know your jerk players, the Win at all cost players and the i'm here to have fun players. The common list of these players will be seen after a few games, after all we all have a unit or two we like having in every game. there is always going to be someone who will abuse the game in every group.

But in the local community most people sit around discussing tactics and the different skill level and even the other players attitude and play styles. Back in the day that Eldar player with the cool Phantom titan could not get anyone in the store/club to play against his list because no one else could field anything to take it. (Or more truthfully we had not figured it out.) But one day our IG player got back into town (he was in the army and was deployed) and he agreed to a a game with the eldar player. And his Basilisks ate the titan before it even had a change to move, in turn one. this was before the FOC was implemented and only 25% of your army could be heavy support units. And we watched in utter fascination as we saw this titan get brought down. And the conversations were amassed after this game. the sad thing was the eldar player never came back. his attitude was one of a jerk. And Mark the IG player was more than happy to teach the rest of us tactics for 40K

I personally cannot say anything on the IKs yet, I have not read thier codex and I have not faced off with them. But I am betting they will make it more fun and give me a reason to field the Wraith Knights. and I am sure once i have read their stats I can come up with the tactics to beat them down. But what I have read about a 8" tall model here seems sad, not because of the model itself, but because there are people saying they will not play against a 5 model army. Yes i get they are hard hitters, but where are the tactics? No I would not have fun against this list if it was a open table top which had little terrain, But i rarely enjoy those games since as an Eldar I depend on the terrain to give me my saves against most weapons AP. So if the 8" tall model can see over the entire battlefield, change the battle field. Saying its unfun to play because you had clear line of site and your opponent didn't does not make sense. A 3 story building in cities of death will take that problem off the table in a minute.

this hobby is different to everyone, even those we actually have the most common play styles with. For me it was building the clubs terrain. I love building terrain and seeing how much more realistic I can push it. Or how alien can I make it and still have everyone in the group appreciate it. After that it more the modeling and painting aspect. I still enjoy playing and I play to win, when I do play. But its hard to find people who want to just have fun.

As for GW thoughts on Balance. I have seen since 2nd edition (this includes me) everyone trying to turn the skirmish game into a epic war with titans and all these huge war machines with mass armies running around under foot. So they gave us that. After year of them trying not too. They insisted its all about fun and community, and they are right. it is all about fun and community. If you know a person in your community just blew $700 on five models, you can assume he or she is gonna want to field is as soon as it is humanly possible for that player. And again, a community is what you have at a game store. Yes you have those few that show up once in a blue moon or the person who is visiting a friend who is there to have a couple random games. but for the most part a game store is the club house of the community at large. yes there maybe small factions who only play at their friends houses, but even they will set a standard for their style of play. And yes we have the rights to refuse to play with the Ass hat players in any of those communities. I rather play with the 12 year old kid who can only field a starter box army then a jerk any day of any age. And there is the other challenge of the older vets of this hobby. Teaching the new players the edict of being a player in a group. Tactics to make the game more fun, and most importantly to treat it as it was meant to be, A social experience to enjoy with others.

Vipoid
08-03-2014, 20:31
I have seen since 2nd edition (this includes me) everyone trying to turn the skirmish game into a epic war with titans and all these huge war machines with mass armies running around under foot.

I didn't... :(

Seriqolm
08-03-2014, 20:31
As a WoW player I have to say that balance is the key aspect, and I find homogenization good because it encourages what MMORPGs refer to a "Bring the player, not the class" that is you bring a skilled player to group content because they are skilled and don't look for a specific class because the encounter is so unbalanced that you need a specific class in order to either defeat it at all or because a specific class makes it much easier.

40k is erring on the side of difference to the point where we almost have "bring the army, not the player" to give an analogy to the above, where it doesn't matter how good you are, what you field is what lets you win not your own skill and merit. Obviously there must be SOME difference to make armies unique, but not so much that a skilled player with Army A will always lose against Army B because Army B is that much better.

To me that's a terrible thing.


What you see as a boon to many is the biggest criticism levelled at WoW by the vet MMO community as it does exactly the opposite to what you are saying, dumbing the game down by removing the options in builds that existed in the Vanilla/BC era. The big raids lack so much in the modern era that they are completed within hours of release as there are set strategies as the smaller known builds will only be able to achieve a smaller pool of strategies, these are inturn easily learned and then perfected quickly whereas in the older era dungeons had multiple sometimes obscure ways to attack them and was up to the creativity and organisation of the raid team and class build/raid makeup to see who could crack it first, these raids took months to clear and many more to get onto the farm status. This is why 70+ man Everquest raids disappeared, then 40 man WoW raids, and now there being talk of getting rid of 25 man raids as these are to complex to run and design and stop a big percentage of players from accessing the content because of their inherent complexity. Its got to the stage as you just have to turn up with the right gearscore and you'll beat the raid.


Also when you levelled in older games certain monsters could only be taken down by certain party builds or individual classes but you didn't know what builds are needed and you did not know how to approach these monsters unless you "conned" the mob and new what type of resistances they had and also knew the counter. The range of classes and builds in older MMO's far outstrip modern MMO's and many of the odd and very specialised builds/classes where removed as they were hard to play or were OP. Options have slowly been removed from MMO's in the pursuit of balance and have removed variety and this simplifies the meta game, thus introducing known strategies and grind. I would not want to see this in Warhammer 40k or Fantasy to me it is akin to removing the games soul.

yabbadabba
08-03-2014, 20:31
This is the problem - the Knights aren't an add on or a supplement, they are an actual army. This is the stone being cast into the pond. If people start to refuse to play certain armies then the ripples are going to be huge for the game in general. I mean it's not like Knights players are spamming units or maxing out on allies or dataslates. They have only 2 choices in the entire codex.

What's next? Shall we start refusing to play Eldar and Tau players? What happens if the Knights player doesn't agree that their 5 knight army is too powerful? 5 knights is a pretty fluffy force and without allies etc it's hardly WAAC in the current sense, but at the same time it is pretty much. Are you saying that somehow you are being forced or coerced into playing games you don't want to?

ObiWayneKenobi
08-03-2014, 20:32
Are you saying that somehow you are being forced or coerced into playing games you don't want to?

I think what he's saying is that sometimes you have two choices: Play the guy who shows up with 5 Knights, or don't play at all that day. If you start refusing to play a Knight player, why stop there? Refuse to play Tau, or Tau+Eldar, or Eldar+Dark Eldar, or whatever else the cheese combinations are. It's a slippery slope.

Seriqolm
08-03-2014, 20:42
I don't think the analogy is correct. You are referring to PVE environments where players are devouring the content and opponents generated by the developers. In PvP online play it is alot different and this is more akin to 40k. Think of how many players played for a long time with Diablo, Starcraft, et al. and play things such as PvP in GW2, SWTOR or in straight PvP MMOs. The devs simply provide an environment and the players use it as a sandbox for their own games.

40k is more like a sandbox, but one where they keep changing what and is in it. It is fine to add options for players to explore, or expand at their leisure, but this is NOT what GW does. GW forces you down a path by making newer releases more powerful, especially versus their point cost, and nerfing older units so a newer unit replaces what they once did. They do this with the game as well. One edition is transport heaven, so everyone buys a ton of transports. Next edition the transports are nerfed and assault is made over the top, so people stock up on assault units. The very next edition assault it nerfed and shooting becomes key, so people expand on their shooting units.

Change is one thing, but GW always makes changes for their benefit and not that of the customer. It really does grow thin after 25 years. But they are not going to change it, no matter how many customers it is costing them. Their business model on their site says as much. They basically indicate they are going to keep rinsing and repeating what they have done for the last 30 years, that players will pay any price for the best models in the world, and that their is no competition because they have built a Fortress and a Moat (actual terms from their business model).


Ultima Online was a open world FFA PvP sandbox environment and Asherons Call had one of the most infamous sandbox PvP servers Darktide, TESO has PvP as endgame similar to DAOC and GW2. Also Blizzard strived to balance Starcraft 1 for years ultimately creating gameplay that was called "Click Time" its mentioned in the Extra Credits video, where players would study known strategies and who could execute them the fasted would win, would you like to see 40k go that way?


Also I can assure you that Blizzard and these days Riot games (makers of League of Legends) do exactly the same when they expand their games just search their forums to see the outrage you might see a mirror image of the Warseer forums just after a Codex/Armybook release. They do it on purpose just like GW watch the first video link I posted.

Muad'Dib
08-03-2014, 20:47
Also Blizzard strived to balance Starcraft 1 for years ultimately creating gameplay that was called "Click Time" its mentioned in the Extra Credits video, where players would study known strategies and who could execute them the fasted would win, would you like to see 40k go that way?
Extra Credits is drivel that seems to have found their niche in rationalizing poor design choices, developer laziness and intentional imbalances.
S1 is not "click time", one only needs to see few pro games on youtube to see this. There's some mechanical skill required, but that's actually key part of the game - making strategic choices as to where to use one's attention and actions.

Nubl0
08-03-2014, 20:50
Disagree, sc does reward the better player however if you take 2 equally well informed and skilled players the one with higher apm will probably win.

Wolf Lord Balrog
08-03-2014, 20:52
No, its not, TAC is just the absence of list-tailoring. Designing a take all comers list is just designing your army to work against a variety of threats so you will stand a chance whatever your opponent brings to the game (which typically you will not know in advance), whereas List-tailoring is knowing what your opponent will bring in advance and loading up on the counters to his specific build.

Deliberately trying to make TAC lists impossible (and thereby encouraging list tailoring as the only viable strategy) means that if you write your list before you see your opponent's, then nine times out of ten you will show up at a game and have no answer to sections of your opponents list. Flyers are possibly still the most extreme example of this because they can't be touched by anything that doesn't have Skyfire.

Ultimately this kind of model drives sales but makes for a very poor game



Again I totally disagree, I think every army should potentially have a way to deal with everything. You shouldn't turn for a game and auto lose because you have brought sisters of battle (with no access to skyfire) and your opponent has turned up with 9 night scythes.

I can remember a time when the game was decided primarily by the decisions you made during the game, by your target priority or when you chose to launch an assault, suitably modified by a bit of dice randomness. Now the game is almost always decided by the models you show up with, and for me that's not a good thing.

What this man said.

Muad'Dib
08-03-2014, 20:56
Disagree, sc does reward the better player however if you take 2 equally well informed and skilled players the one with higher apm will probably win.
Or...maybe the player who makes the best decisions will win? Or the one who surprises his opponent with something bold and creative?
And what is "higher APM" ? You make it sound like APM is so important that even 5 APM more will result in a victory in an even match-up.
Also - the 'click fest' term makes it sound like Starcraft player literally train in clicking the fastest, which is not true. It's very easy to click a lot - but very hard to click a lot while making tons of strategical and tactical decisions on the whole map. Any dummy can learn to produce from 12 buildings in few seconds. To have meaningful high APM you need to develop your skills as a player so that you are able to analyze situations in seconds and know what to prioritize with your attention/APM.

ObiWayneKenobi
08-03-2014, 20:57
Or...maybe the player who makes the best decisions will win? Or the one who surprises his opponent with something bold and creative?

Which doesn't happen in 40k anyways, because armies are unbalanced.

IcedCrow
08-03-2014, 21:03
I think what he's saying is that sometimes you have two choices: Play the guy who shows up with 5 Knights, or don't play at all that day. If you start refusing to play a Knight player, why stop there? Refuse to play Tau, or Tau+Eldar, or Eldar+Dark Eldar, or whatever else the cheese combinations are. It's a slippery slope.

Its only a slippery slope when one wants to make it one.

Ive never seen an environment where if you dont want to play something that means you dont play at all that day.

Wolf Lord Balrog
08-03-2014, 21:22
Ive never seen an environment where if you dont want to play something that means you dont play at all that day.

While some of us on the other hand have seen it all too often. That's why I started bringing my painting supplies with me to the store as well as my miniatures, so my time isn't completely wasted.

IcedCrow
08-03-2014, 21:36
Sorry to hear. We have a big facebook group. Try getting one of those started to help arrange games?

yabbadabba
08-03-2014, 21:41
I think what he's saying is that sometimes you have two choices: Play the guy who shows up with 5 Knights, or don't play at all that day. If you start refusing to play a Knight player, why stop there? Refuse to play Tau, or Tau+Eldar, or Eldar+Dark Eldar, or whatever else the cheese combinations are. It's a slippery slope. Not really, its called having principles and sticking to them - in other words being in control of your hobby.

Spiney Norman
08-03-2014, 22:18
This is the problem - the Knights aren't an add on or a supplement, they are an actual army. This is the stone being cast into the pond. If people start to refuse to play certain armies then the ripples are going to be huge for the game in general. I mean it's not like Knights players are spamming units or maxing out on allies or dataslates. They have only 2 choices in the entire codex.

What's next? Shall we start refusing to play Eldar and Tau players? What happens if the Knights player doesn't agree that their 5 knight army is too powerful? 5 knights is a pretty fluffy force and without allies etc it's hardly WAAC in the current sense, but at the same time it is pretty much.


Are you saying that somehow you are being forced or coerced into playing games you don't want to?

No, but you already get events and groups that operate a 'codex only' policy, basically no dataslates or allies, or escalation/stronghold assault, only core rules and codex, now we have a totally game-breaking codex, so what now? The old 'codex only' policy doesn't work any more and they will look at banning individual codexes, starting with knights, but once you have opened the Pandora's box of codex-banning why stop there?

I understand that no-one wants oppressive army-building restrictions that totally close down all creativity, but for gods sake lets have some restrictions, there has got to be some kind of happy medium between the current free-for-all and uber-restrictive. 40k is at the point where it is too unstructured and open and as a result is not enjoyable for me. I'd submit that you need a certain level of restriction to make any game workable as a game, and 40k no longer has that.

IcedCrow
08-03-2014, 22:20
Which is why ive always operated under a system that works in restrictions

leopard
08-03-2014, 22:28
Do wonder with the Knights if this is a very gentle push towards more terrain and potentially the release of a 'paper' to the new rock in a few months, perhaps something to sit alongside a revised "Codex: Cities of Death" with much higher density terrain, areas of the table where a knight just physically doesn't fit that infantry can play the game much better (will shift a few terminator kits I dare say). Of course followed a few months later by a 'scissors' book, that is very good against infantry in buildings but utter pants against vehicles of any sort.

GW are basically gently yanking the chain.

Games get a lot more fun when you agree before hand what sort of game to play, have played FoW that way, opponent wants to run an infantry list, an infantry horde, will struggle against heavy armour so we agreed before the game to leave the tigers and similar at home and run infantry companies each - result, we both had lists that could fight each other pretty well and had a good game, neither of us had stuff that was overpriced (in that environment) or just useless. Done similar in 40k with the "spearhead" supplement from WD ages ago, decided what sort of game we wanted, who would attack and who would defend and the scenario, both built armies that could cope and had a real blast with it - armies that were different to what either of us normally used.

I can see a move to have a lot more scenarios in the game, some of which these various units cannot play well in and some with different org charts to try and force you to discuss what on earth you are doing with your opponent. If you take tournaments out of the equation thats how GW seem to want you to play it - decide what story you are trying to tell, then try to change history as it were.

duffybear1988
08-03-2014, 23:20
The game is just an arms race now. I actually see this pushing more people towards WAAC lists. I imagine Necron airforce is going to be making a comeback.

Horus38
08-03-2014, 23:27
We had a Friday Night Fight mini-tournament yesterday and about half the people were fielding between 1 and 3 knights. My observations found they were powerful and added a new dimension to the game, but by no means broke it.


The game is just an arms race now. I actually see this pushing more people towards WAAC lists. I imagine Necron airforce is going to be making a comeback.

I'd disagree with this in reference to knights. In my example above a Tau force was able to destroy three knights and pull off a victory without any "super heavy" support of their own. Having bigger toys in 40k does not mean your list is inherently superior or more flexible then an opponent.

Spiney Norman
08-03-2014, 23:34
We had a Friday Night Fight mini-tournament yesterday and about half the people were fielding between 1 and 3 knights. My observations found they were powerful and added a new dimension to the game, but by no means broke it.



I'd disagree with this in reference to knights. In my example above a Tau force was able to destroy three knights and pull off a victory without any "super heavy" support of their own. Having bigger toys in 40k does not mean your list is inherently superior or more flexible then an opponent.

I'm not sure that a story about the most overpowered codex in the game being able to destroy three knights in the same game (its unclear whether that was a tailored list or not) is really good evidence that multiple knights are not game breaking. I still think even a tailored list from most armies is going to really struggle with a knight army of 5-6 of those things.

insectum7
09-03-2014, 00:19
The game is just an arms race now. I actually see this pushing more people towards WAAC lists. I imagine Necron airforce is going to be making a comeback.

I was gonna mention this as well. If Knights are "rock", there is already "paper" in the form of lists that are heavy on the flyers. It seems to me that Knights really need support if Knight players expect to take on the full variety of lists out there.

On the flipside, Knights have an inherent weakness against certain tough units by way of not being able to do very many wounds at range against models with higher toughness, or armor. Already seeing the weakness of the more popular battlecannon Knight against Land Raiders.

Wraithknights seem pretty good against them. Even Wraithlords in cover will take multiple Knights to kill with shooting.

Gauss.

Sternguard with Combimeltas, Deep Striking Land Speeders with dual MultiMeltas.

Gonefishing
09-03-2014, 00:35
The games never been "Balanced", but in the past it used to be less of an issue, I played Tau throughout 4th and 5th edition when popular wisdom was that they were an underpowered list and loved every second of it, there was nothing more satisfying then rocking up to a tourney with "underpowered" Tau and then tabling some one with a "superior" race.

I don't play anymore, I disliked 6th and the new Tau Codex bore no resemblance to the Tau I loved (Not saying it was a bad codex but to me it was no longer the army I had previously loved). With every new release I am more and more convinced I did the correct thing in quitting, because the game has metamorphosed so far into the ridiculous that the sublime is no longer in sight - However, that's just the way I feel, and I am more than happy to recognise that people do still play and enjoy the game, and all power to them.

When I first started playing 40K my group used to tailor lists, we would know in advance who we were fighting and turn up with lists to fight that type of army. At the time it was fun, but about halfway through 4th my regular group decided to start entering tourneys..and this meant the local dynamic changed completely. We started building "all comers" lists, and when ever we met up we randomised opponents. I never had as much fun in game as during that time - trying to build and hone the perfect list capable of dealing and reacting too multiple threats, never knowing what you were going to face and always knowing that your opponent was going to bring the nastiest list he could put together with the same aim in mind as you. Nothing was off limits, there were no house rules or alterations to the codices, you just played straight 40K out of the rulebook choosing the units available to you in your codex. You went to Tourneys, and you played under the same criteria. You went somewhere else and wanted a pick up game? You tended to play straight out of the rulebook 40k with the available units from the codices (the game would probably be less cut throat as it would be impolite to rock up to a pick up game with your full on tourney list), but it was essentially the same game.

Now it seems that's no longer possible, the current rules set is intended to be a gaming framework rather than a straight rules set, it sets out the limits of the rules but its so unwieldy now that it encourages "house ruling", the Codices, data slates and standard game legal forgeworld exasperate this issue, with each new release seeming to be intended to start a new arms race, and adding to the list of units that you would get frowned at for putting on the table and adding to the series of house rules that are required (especially at tourneys) to try and balance the game at a local level. Simply put, I have no idea where I am anymore, I don't know what local rules are going to be played, I don't know whether the units id choose to play would be considered "socially acceptable, allies mean that the you can shore up any inherent weakness in your own core army (in my opinion to the detriment of actual game play) and frequently you end up facing FW/new releases that you have absolutely no idea what the rules are as its now impossible to keep up and they all seem to overwrite the core rules and even the pretence of balance has now been abandoned.

Now, to use Yaba as an example here, looking at his comments in this and other threads, he likes and enjoys the things I hate about the "game" now, And all power to him and anybody else that does because he is not wrong, its his hobby and it works for him. I hate it, and I know that 95% of the people I used to play with have now quit, so I also know I am not alone.

What I do object to is the narrow view, it seems that if you like the game nowdays you are allowed to do so and have a valid opinion, and if you don't that you should just quit and never talk about it again (and you're wrong). The viewpoint seems to be that yes, the game isn't balanced, but any issues can be solved by house rules, banning overpowered units, only taking units from your list that would be considered socially acceptable or by agreeing with your opponent before playing what sort of army you will play (aind not playing against it if you feel it is vintage cheddar). All of those things are 100% right and cannot be argued against, from my point of view however all those things are a major part of the reason I hate the game now and are no longer a GW customer.

Potato/potarto

Speaking for my local area, the gaming club now mostly play X-wing, 95% of the local 40K play GW is normally empty. 40K has never been balanced but they did use to try, now the design is more about applying a rules framework and leaving it up to the players to manage the balance part of the equation - although personally I don't want to manage the game balance, I just wanted to play the game as written. Yaba is right, but so are the people disagreeing with him - and everyone, like it or not, has the right to talk about it whether there involvement in the hobby is current or in the past - because its there (or was their) Hobby.

Losing Command
09-03-2014, 00:38
Centurions with chapter tactics : imperial fists, lascannons and missile launchers should also be able to eat one Knight each round of shooting. And they don't care about the battle cannon, while the Megameltagun doesn't ID them.
So far Imperial Knights haven't caused a shakeup anywhere near as large as the Wraithknight and Riptide did.

In the 25th anniversary issue of the WD they talked about what a mess Rogue Trader became, with several issues of the WD and all kinds of little addons needed to play a game, and how confusing it could be specially to newer players. Right now 40k seems to go back to being that way. There are so many combinations, ways around rules and exceptions with allies, dataslates, formations and all that. It just seems impossible to know all that is possible. "To defeat thy enemy you must know them" is a quote GW likes to print in a lot of things, but right now that seems an impossible task ...

IcedCrow
09-03-2014, 01:23
I love the gaming framework.

It does make it more expensive if one is compelled to own every book(the popular reason why many frowned on forge world for years) and will likely make that type of person angry.

I gave up on needing every book long ago though.

Gonefishing
09-03-2014, 12:47
I love the gaming framework.

It does make it more expensive if one is compelled to own every book(the popular reason why many frowned on forge world for years) and will likely make that type of person angry.

I gave up on needing every book long ago though.


The main issue I have with the gaming framework now (or rather, one of the issues I have lol), Is that in the old days you used to be able to play Codex and Rulebook as written, and if you wanted to you could houserule a few things to make the game more enjoyable to your groups type of play. Nowdays "Houserule" has become the norm, because you can no longer really play the game as written, the rules now are more along the lines of - this is a ruleset framework, you can take anything, ally with anyone (sorry Nids), use whatever book/unit you want, and do what the fudge you like to the rules. In the Tournaments this is increasingly apparent as virtually every tourney has its own interpretation of the rules.

This is one of my main gripes with the game and balance, in the past you could house rule and people did, now you virtually have to house rule and its getting virtually impossible to work out where the hell you are. To some people this is a bonus of the game, to others - like me - its a huge turnoff and we are heading to games that have a defined ruleset. Business wise I can only see this as bad news for GW, because the old approach used to be "optional", whereas the new approach is almost mandatory and that disenfranchises a huge number of people - especially the ones that think of themselves as Gamers rather than "hobbyists".

It seems crazy to me, because if they produced a balanced game (well not even balanced, just a tighter ruleset) in the first place, they could keep both customer types happy - more customers ='s mo money for GW. By disenfranchising a big part of their market they have to sell more to less.

Don't get me wrong, its great that people like you and Yaba love the framework as it is Iced, but if you look from someone else's perspective you must be able to see why what works for you and your gaming groups annoys the hell out of others? There is no right or wrong answer but from a pure business perspective - I don't get it.

Grocklock
09-03-2014, 14:09
Also of note is how with very few exceptions they refer to their customers as "hobbyists". Not gamers, not players, but hobbyists.

J K Rowling wrote a book for children and if you ask her she will call it a kids book. Buy yet adults read it. They where not the target demographic. Should they start complaining there are no adult content within the book.

Most business have a target demographic which they are trying to keep happy if other people take pleasure from it that great but it's not there goal.

GW has always been hobbyists. If you not a hobbyist then this game is not targeted at you.

Scammel
09-03-2014, 14:16
A games designer advocating a design paradigm that results in match-ups that are won before the game has started and minimises in-game player involvement?

I think everyone knows there's a colossal issue here. 'Just don't play those armies' has become the first line of defence for unadulterated crap like this and it is a clear indication that this game is hurtling down the toilet.

It's quite mind-blowing how anyone can defend this at all, this is just so utterly, utterly detrimental to the game and it's all by design.

duffybear1988
09-03-2014, 14:22
J K Rowling wrote a book for children and if you ask her she will call it a kids book. Buy yet adults read it. They where not the target demographic. Should they start complaining there are no adult content within the book.

Most business have a target demographic which they are trying to keep happy if other people take pleasure from it that great but it's not there goal.

GW has always been hobbyists. If you not a hobbyist then this game is not targeted at you.

And yet they chose to call themselves Games Workshop, suggesting that the game was more important. If they were called Hobby Workshop I could see the sense in that argument. Anyway they tend to refer to people as collectors these days and armies as collections, which is pretty stupid.

Spiney Norman
09-03-2014, 15:32
J K Rowling wrote a book for children and if you ask her she will call it a kids book. Buy yet adults read it. They where not the target demographic. Should they start complaining there are no adult content within the book.

Most business have a target demographic which they are trying to keep happy if other people take pleasure from it that great but it's not there goal.

GW has always been hobbyists. If you not a hobbyist then this game is not targeted at you.

I count myself a hobbyist, I paint my models, I even make my own terrain, I'm by no means just a gamer but that doesn't mean I'm not annoyed that the game is utter crap.

Either GW need to stop producing rules altogether and anyone who wants to play a game with their toys will have to work out their rules between themselves (which seems to be essentially what happens anyway in some places), or they need to write some rules that actually work. They are charging premium rate for books full of rules that just don't work very well, personally I don't want to go to the trouble of redesigning the rules with my opponent before every game.

IcedCrow
09-03-2014, 15:34
The main issue I have with the gaming framework now (or rather, one of the issues I have lol), Is that in the old days you used to be able to play Codex and Rulebook as written, and if you wanted to you could houserule a few things to make the game more enjoyable to your groups type of play. Nowdays "Houserule" has become the norm, because you can no longer really play the game as written, the rules now are more along the lines of - this is a ruleset framework, you can take anything, ally with anyone (sorry Nids), use whatever book/unit you want, and do what the fudge you like to the rules. In the Tournaments this is increasingly apparent as virtually every tourney has its own interpretation of the rules.

This is one of my main gripes with the game and balance, in the past you could house rule and people did, now you virtually have to house rule and its getting virtually impossible to work out where the hell you are. To some people this is a bonus of the game, to others - like me - its a huge turnoff and we are heading to games that have a defined ruleset. Business wise I can only see this as bad news for GW, because the old approach used to be "optional", whereas the new approach is almost mandatory and that disenfranchises a huge number of people - especially the ones that think of themselves as Gamers rather than "hobbyists".

It seems crazy to me, because if they produced a balanced game (well not even balanced, just a tighter ruleset) in the first place, they could keep both customer types happy - more customers ='s mo money for GW. By disenfranchising a big part of their market they have to sell more to less.

Don't get me wrong, its great that people like you and Yaba love the framework as it is Iced, but if you look from someone else's perspective you must be able to see why what works for you and your gaming groups annoys the hell out of others? There is no right or wrong answer but from a pure business perspective - I don't get it.

I used to be in your perspective so i totally understand your view.

Why i love it is purely from an organizer standpoint.

Before it was a titanic effort to get people to deviate from core scenarios and use things like planetstrike, cityfight, forgeworld, etc because people have an aversion for whatever reason to options.

Today its much easier for me to create all kinds of events that could never have happened before (which contributed to me dropping the hobby for three years out of burn out and boredom)

yabbadabba
09-03-2014, 16:07
I love the way that people on here take marketing spiel at face value. One off salesmen must love it.

Grocklock
09-03-2014, 16:45
And yet they chose to call themselves Games Workshop, suggesting that the game was more important. If they were called Hobby Workshop I could see the sense in that argument. Anyway they tend to refer to people as collectors these days and armies as collections, which is pretty stupid.

They where called citadel minitures first then games workshop as they made a lot of games and I mean a lot. Then they cut back on them and focused there production. But kept the name. I mean it would be silly to change it as it has built up a large customer base.

Scammel
09-03-2014, 16:56
They where called citadel minitures first then games workshop as they made a lot of games and I mean a lot. Then they cut back on them and focused there production. But kept the name. I mean it would be silly to change it as it has built up a large customer base.

I'm not sure how this makes the design team's comments in the OP anything other than a blazingly bright indicator of how low they intend this promising game to sink.

Horus38
09-03-2014, 16:57
I'm not sure that a story about the most overpowered codex in the game being able to destroy three knights in the same game (its unclear whether that was a tailored list or not) is really good evidence that multiple knights are not game breaking. I still think even a tailored list from most armies is going to really struggle with a knight army of 5-6 of those things.

I'm hardly presenting it as definitive evidence but an example to contrast all the "Omg-knights-OP" lamenting going on. It was not a tailored list and was more of a social mini-tournament.

And saying some armies are going to struggle against some kinds of spam isn't anything new - one trick pony armies are by definition just that.

Baaltor
09-03-2014, 17:29
I used to be in your perspective so i totally understand your view.

Before it was a titanic effort to get people to deviate from core scenarios and use things like planetstrike, cityfight, forgeworld, etc because people have an aversion for whatever reason to options.


By all things holy: This.

Seriously, I don't know why, but for some reason it was true. GW through all sense of balance out the window, which is good because they had none. Big whoop, now even the most Core Book thumper sees you need to houserule, and that 's great in my mind. Is it so bad that GW's not telling you guys what to do? It's not rocket science to play a game with someone and say:

"Hey, Frank, let's just stick to basic rules, 'kay"
"Sure thing, Welshy, mind if I take some fliers?"
"Sounds good!"

If you play with everything at once, it's garbage, sure, but you can say the same thing about listening to every song on an album at once.

Scammel
09-03-2014, 17:36
'40k is good because we get to patch up the lousy work of the designers' is not an argument - or at least, not a good/credible/sensible one.

Spiney Norman
09-03-2014, 17:44
By all things holy: This.

Seriously, I don't know why, but for some reason it was true. GW through all sense of balance out the window, which is good because they had none. Big whoop, now even the most Core Book thumper sees you need to houserule, and that 's great in my mind. Is it so bad that GW's not telling you guys what to do?

Yes it is, that is what game rules are FOR, they are there to tell you how to play the game from a perspective that is unbiased. Instead you end up with a head-butting exercise between two people who want to try and give themselves an advantage over their opponent, or at the very least make sure they are not disadvantaged.

And another thing, what makes you think that if a group of guys, who are paid to write rules for this game and play it all the time, cannot balance it properly that somehow you (or me), as an amateur will do a better job?

Trying to agree rules for a game with someone who wants to beat you is too political for me to be bothered with. I'm not into complex negotiations where everyone is trying to grab an advantage over one another, I just want a set of rules I can play a game with on roughly equal terms with my opponent, that is what a game is supposed to be. You don't expect to break out chess or scrabble and have to make up the rules with your opponent before you start.

duffybear1988
09-03-2014, 17:46
'40k is good because we get to patch up the lousy work of the designers' is not an argument - or at least, not a good/credible/sensible one.

This. Why play 40k at all? Going by some of the crazy talk on here I half expect the 7th edition rulebook to have no text other than chapter headings and a note to say that you create whatever game and rules you like.

40k 6th edition is like buying a brand new Ferrari and finding out it has an engine that's 30 years old, no seatbelts and breaks that were never tested.

IcedCrow
09-03-2014, 17:52
This. Why play 40k at all? Going by some of the crazy talk on here I half expect the 7th edition rulebook to have no text other than chapter headings and a note to say that you create whatever game and rules you like.

40k 6th edition is like buying a brand new Ferrari and finding out it has an engine that's 30 years old, no seatbelts and breaks that were never tested.

Not really no.

Scammel
09-03-2014, 18:01
Not really no.

Excellent rebuttal. My own take that it's like a broken Ferrari, but it's your choice how to fix it! You might not be able to turn right, but all you have to do is plan your journeys more effectively!

IcedCrow
09-03-2014, 18:06
My take is its not meant for racing like a performance vehicle but people want it to and then create similes about how its not a racing car.

Kind of like if i go to a bbq joint and get angry that they dont serve pancakes.

duffybear1988
09-03-2014, 18:08
My take is its not meant for racing like a performance vehicle but people want it to and then create similes about how its not a racing car.

Kind of like if i go to a bbq joint and get angry that they dont serve pancakes.

Was the BBQ joint called Pancakes R Us?

IcedCrow
09-03-2014, 18:14
Ah but Games Workshop does not infer a sports performance game.

Scammel
09-03-2014, 18:22
Ah but Games Workshop does not infer a sports performance game.

No, their literature infers a game with a certain degree of balance that ensures that the greatest determining factor in the outcome of any particular game is player input. Apparently, this is no longer the order of the day and the game is instead transforming into rock-paper-scissors with models (and an expensive one at that), which is the deliberate vision of the design team. You'll forgive me if I go play something which requires more than half a brain cell to play - Fantasy, for example.

IcedCrow
09-03-2014, 18:24
None of games workshop games have ever required serious thought to play.

This is nothing new.

dangerboyjim
09-03-2014, 18:25
It does infer some 'workshop' related activities with regards to games.

Like making new ones and tuning up old ones.

Doesn't it?

IcedCrow
09-03-2014, 18:39
To me its just a name. I dont correlate the name Games Workshop with a company that produces tournament style competitions.

I infer that as a company that produces games.

Scammel
09-03-2014, 18:41
None of games workshop games have ever required serious thought to play.

This is nothing new.

This old, old chestnut - 'GW games have always been mindless so it's ok for them to be mindless now'. This excuse would be pants if it were true, it's useless in reality because GW can, does and is capable of producing balanced, evocative games where victory goes to the brightest thinker. I'm pretty sure members such as Lord Inquisitor and Spiney would back me up on this (IIRC Spiney's done well in a few LotR tourneys back in the days of the Last Alliance forums) and it's one of the most damning indictments of 40k and the direction in which it's headed.

Since we're fond of analogies, we'll take another casual game. Monopoly is a casual multiplayer game - it's also a fairly bad one as the players get little to no input as to who actually wins. It most certainly does not need a rule stating that the player using the dog piece can automatically claim, for free, any property that the top hat lands on.

IcedCrow
09-03-2014, 18:43
That old chestnut is as pants as the whining that its not balanced is. Both are timeless.

yabbadabba
09-03-2014, 18:46
That old chestnut is as pants as the whining that its not balanced is. Both are timeless. Both are pointless. This thread is as classic an example of GW Syndrome as any I have seen on here.

Scammel
09-03-2014, 18:47
That old chestnut is as pants as the whining that its not balanced is. Both are timeless.

Every single level of play in 40k would absolutely benefit from greater balance. The tourney players would enjoy their evenly-matched battle of wits, the painters can rock up with their lavishly detailed forces and not feel penalised for having taken any one of a myriad of objectively bad units. To not want a balanced game is truly unfathomable.

Kingly
09-03-2014, 18:48
This is like watching a fight between one chap with a level head and three hillbillies armed with an over abundance of self rightousness.

Again this thread like the others cropping up recently in 40k has actually nothing to do with 40k, keep it to GW general discussion ffs, youll find all your lovely bashy friends over there as well, as for the rest of the 40k crowd whod like to keep actual topics on 40k active here on the 40k general discussion section going instead of being swamped over by the same 3-4 hate mongers.

IcedCrow
09-03-2014, 18:50
This thread has existed for over 20 years. If someone thinks they can do better, i look forward to seeing the result.

Currently no one has.

Grocklock
09-03-2014, 18:51
It does infer some 'workshop' related activities with regards to games.

Like making new ones and tuning up old ones.

Doesn't it?

You know amazon doesn't offer any safari tours, apple doesn't sell any grosories, rooster teeth doesn't sell eggs or clattering teeth.

Do we have a problem with there names

Scammel
09-03-2014, 18:53
You know amazon doesn't offer any safari tours, apple doesn't sell any grosories, rooster teeth doesn't sell eggs or clattering teeth.

Do we have a problem with there names

Games Workshop produces fun, (broadly) balanced, evocative games. Why can't we expect this one to be the same?

Surgency
09-03-2014, 19:02
Games Workshop produces fun, (broadly) balanced, evocative games. Why can't we expect this one to be the same?

Nearly every time i play a GW product i have a fun, (broadly) balanced, evocative game. I was once challenged to a game by one of our local "tourney pros" (in his own mind), and it sucked because he spammed op SW units, but I stopped playing him. Except for one other time when i just sat everything in my corner and shot 2 lascannons a turn at him. He complained that the game wasn't fun...

Anyways, after i stopped playing him the world didn't end, the sky didn't fall, and i started having fun again.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Scammel
09-03-2014, 19:07
Nearly every time i play a GW product i have a fun, (broadly) balanced, evocative game. I was once challenged to a game by one of our local "tourney pros" (in his own mind), and it sucked because he spammed op SW units, but I stopped playing him. Except for one other time when i just sat everything in my corner and shot 2 lascannons a turn at him. He complained that the game wasn't fun...

Anyways, after i stopped playing him the world didn't end, the sky didn't fall, and i started having fun again.

Alternatively, you could have played Fantasy or LotR, forgone most of the spam, have a broadly balanced game with a decent shot of winning and not have to be in the position where it's a waste of time playing him. You know this game is bad when you have to refuse to play games against people on a non-personal basis.

Surgency
09-03-2014, 19:13
The point being that 40k is what you make of it. If you play the kind of jackholes who spam op units because that's their uber-ultra-epic tournament list, you can expect to have an unfun game, unless you do the same.

If you want a fun, relatively balanced game, then play other people who want the same thing. It's not a difficult concept.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Scammel
09-03-2014, 19:16
The point being that 40k is what you make of it. If you play the kind of jackholes who spam op units because that's their uber-ultra-epic tournament list, you can elect to have an unfun game, unless you do the same.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

At the risk of repeating myself: Or you can play a game solid enough that you don't have to go for 'What you make of it'. You can just play a game that's fun against anyone, almost regardless of the lists you take.

dangerboyjim
09-03-2014, 19:20
Icedcrow - I am interested in your experience as a campaign organiser thoughts on balance.

When you design campaign missions for others are you trying to create a balanced experience?

IcedCrow
09-03-2014, 19:20
You could, but 40k is not that game.

Surgency
09-03-2014, 19:21
At the risk of repeating myself: Or you can play a game solid enough that you don't have to go for 'What you make of it'. You can just play a game that's fun against anyone, almost regardless of the lists you take.

At the risk of repeating myself: 40k is what you make of it. The ruleset is solid enough for fun games.

And your assertion that in other games you can play whoever you like and take whatever you like because the rules are so tightly balanced is completely false. Try taking a warmachine Amon Ad-Raza theme force against a tournament eHaley force and tell me it's balanced. Try taking a FoW Hungarian Armoured force against a tournament US Airborne force and tell me it's balanced. Again, balance is in the hands of the players

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

IcedCrow
09-03-2014, 19:27
Icedcrow - I am interested in your experience as a campaign organiser thoughts on balance.

When you design campaign missions for others are you trying to create a balanced experience?

The first thing in all of my campaign packets is this sentence:

"A narrative campaign is not a balanced tournament set of missions. Often times one side or the other will have an advantage, though the advantage is not a major advantage"

We also have the second rule:

"Please do not create tournament powered lists"

To enforce #2 - we have a rule on spam where you cannot take a non troop choice more than 2x in your army. We also treat things like Inquisition, Knights, etc... as taking up your ally slot. Escalation games are not used in our campaign, though we play APOC scenarios so super heavies are involved.

Our current mission for March is the side that's been losing is launching a counter assault on the side that's winning using a Planetstrike Mission. The side that is winning gets a bonus strategem point for winning. They have an advantage in strategems. The mission itself is not set on the knife's edge for balance either. The defender gets half of his army on the table to start. The attacker needs to make sure at the end of the game that no defenders are touching the main objective. Every unit is scoring.

So short answer: it is acknowledged that there will be no true balance and that one side or the other may have a minor advantage. Part of the fun is figuring out how to overcome that, but keep the lists as narrative as possible and not just go for what powerlists are on the internet (so we have a wider variety of army lists in our events than you would see in a competitive event)

Is this for everyone? Not hardly. Most of my community's tournament / competitive player base are not interested in this, and thats fine.

If you're interested in looking at the campaign packet, whcih is a living document, it can be found here:

http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/IA8/Warhammer40k_2014Campaign.pdf

This is updated as of end of Feb so doesn't have our March rules in but yo ucan get the general idea.

AndrewGPaul
09-03-2014, 19:31
It does infer some 'workshop' related activities with regards to games.

Like making new ones and tuning up old ones.

Doesn't it?

The company is called "Games Workshop" because it was originally founded to manufacture boards for chess, backgammon and the like. It's no more relevant to the company's continued operation than 3M's name is to theirs.

dangerboyjim
09-03-2014, 19:50
See that's interesting.

All the things you've listed look like common sense limitations and rules, I will borrow some (i.e. a lot!) for my campaign when it's my turn to organise.

I can see that playing in one of your campaigns creates an environment where there are some restrictions, and an explicit recognition that the balance may favour another player and compensations to make every game worth playing. Kudos.

I think what most people on my side of the argument is saying, is that the game shouldn't need an IcedCrow to make sense of the rules, and indeed in most cases there isn't one. So GW should be in that space, and stop creating the most excessive imbalances that people like yourself step in to take out.


I also think this has always been there, well done everyone that pointed that out, but in the last few months we've seen a dramatic turn for the worse (in terms of 'things that need to be houseruled', in terms of choice, we're spoiled). Most of your comments are related to stuff released in the last 6 months which seems to support this hypothesis. (I'm guessing the campaign rules used to be a lot lighter, but I'm that may be an assumption too far on my part). Which in a weird roundabout way means you sort of agree...

The difference is, you are quite happy to take those lemons and make lemonade, kudos again. I prefer to rattle off some badly worded 'whines' about it and see who agrees.

Spiney Norman
09-03-2014, 20:27
The point being that 40k is what you make of it.

No, 40k is what its rules make it, you are free to redesign the rules as you wish, but don't pretend that your still playing 40k and don't pretend that the whole world plays the same way you do.

If you want to play a board game like chess or scrabble or settlers of catan you know and accept the rules of the game, and so does your opponent, you don't negotiate over which rules you are going to drop or ignore or add in before the game starts you just play the game. 40k is, or should be exactly the same, its a game, not an exercise in trying to outwit your opponent in this mythical 'rules-negotiation-phase'.

AndrewGPaul
09-03-2014, 20:30
Plenty of people house-rule board games - Settlers included. Monopoly is infamous for it.

Your use of the word "outwit" shows you're either missing other peoples' point or deliberately twisting their words.

yabbadabba
09-03-2014, 20:36
No, 40k is what its rules make it, you are free to redesign the rules as you wish, but don't pretend that your still playing 40k and don't pretend that the whole world plays the same way you do.

If you want to play a board game like chess or scrabble or settlers of catan you know and accept the rules of the game, and so does your opponent, you don't negotiate over which rules you are going to drop or ignore or add in before the game starts you just play the game. 40k is, or should be exactly the same, its a game, not an exercise in trying to outwit your opponent in this mythical 'rules-negotiation-phase'. You are not negotiating rules, you are negotiating playing conditions aka missions, forces etc.

Big difference.

Spiney Norman
09-03-2014, 20:37
Plenty of people house-rule board games - Settlers included. Monopoly is infamous for it.

Your use of the word "outwit" shows you're either missing other peoples' point or deliberately twisting their words.

However other 'people' dress up their pregame negotiations, it is still an exercise in trying to tone down your opponents army, or limit the options he can bring so it makes the game easier for you to win. If he is gullible enough to let you write his list for him and limit some of his army's more efficient options then bigger fool him and more power to you, but I wouldn't fall for it.

I've actually never played a board game that needed house ruling (settlers of catan certainly doesn't), but then I've never played a board game that was as badly designed or as openly abusable as 40k.

Surgency
09-03-2014, 20:45
I've actually never played a board game that needed house ruling (settlers of catan certainly doesn't), but then I've never played a board game that was as badly designed or as openly abusable as 40k.

Free Parking in monopoly? Cataan certainly benefits from house rules. Scrabble does as well regarding what is considered a word.

But then, I've never needed house rules for 40k either.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

IcedCrow
09-03-2014, 20:51
Considering the core 40k rules say to houserule as you need, houseruled 40k is as much 40k as non house ruled 40k :-)

Surgency
09-03-2014, 20:53
Considering the core 40k rules say to houserule as you need, houseruled 40k is as much 40k as non house ruled 40k :-)

Nonsense! We're supposed to be puppets who can't think for ourselves and only do what the evil overlords say!

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Baaltor
09-03-2014, 20:59
You are not negotiating rules, you are negotiating playing conditions aka missions, forces etc.

Big difference.

I can appreciate this advice.


However other 'people' dress up their pregame negotiations, it is still an exercise in trying to tone down your opponents army, or limit the options he can bring so it makes the game easier for you to win. If he is gullible enough to let you write his list for him and limit some of his army's more efficient options then bigger fool him and more power to you, but I wouldn't fall for it.


Well, ideally you should toning down BOTH of your armies. Jockeying for advantage by getting a handicap is different to agreeing on limitations. The limitations you make should allow both of you to plays without having to consider dealing with every kind of "shock" type list that relies on your opponent being unable to handle it.

Surgency
09-03-2014, 21:14
Jockeying for advantage by getting a handicap is different to agreeing on limitations.

Indeed, if someone were to try to jockey for position in that manner they would be as much a part of the problem as their opponent

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

IcedCrow
09-03-2014, 21:27
See that's interesting.

All the things you've listed look like common sense limitations and rules, I will borrow some (i.e. a lot!) for my campaign when it's my turn to organise.

I can see that playing in one of your campaigns creates an environment where there are some restrictions, and an explicit recognition that the balance may favour another player and compensations to make every game worth playing. Kudos.

I think what most people on my side of the argument is saying, is that the game shouldn't need an IcedCrow to make sense of the rules, and indeed in most cases there isn't one. So GW should be in that space, and stop creating the most excessive imbalances that people like yourself step in to take out.


I also think this has always been there, well done everyone that pointed that out, but in the last few months we've seen a dramatic turn for the worse (in terms of 'things that need to be houseruled', in terms of choice, we're spoiled). Most of your comments are related to stuff released in the last 6 months which seems to support this hypothesis. (I'm guessing the campaign rules used to be a lot lighter, but I'm that may be an assumption too far on my part). Which in a weird roundabout way means you sort of agree...

The difference is, you are quite happy to take those lemons and make lemonade, kudos again. I prefer to rattle off some badly worded 'whines' about it and see who agrees.

I absolutely agree the game is not balanced out of the box and that if you play the game either as a competitive sport or where you take the strongest lists possible that people are going to have a bad time.

I'd wager that it would be very hard to find people that would disagree with that (though they exist).

AngryAngel
09-03-2014, 21:49
GW and balance, are not even in the same country. Their attempts at such, are tragic. If that is even what they intend to get. That said, I live and let play, and somehow still win games without pre games peace talks. Which inevitably comes down to trying to mold someone elses army to what you wish it to be, which just doesn't feel good for myself. To each their one, the rules are poor but I still enjoy my game and as long as I can, I'll keep playing it.

I think really playing warhammer, is most like fishing, it isn't about what happens but about who you spend the time with and the experience.

Edit: The rules as well are very poorly written and could only improve with actual, real attempts at seeking that balance. As narrative players who love to house rule, still can to make it less balanced if it became more so, and people who wanted competitive could do so then without worry. Seems like a win win then.

IcedCrow
09-03-2014, 21:49
Yes to me it is exactly that.

Spiney Norman
09-03-2014, 22:05
Well, ideally you should toning down BOTH of your armies. Jockeying for advantage by getting a handicap is different to agreeing on limitations. The limitations you make should allow both of you to plays without having to consider dealing with every kind of "shock" type list that relies on your opponent being unable to handle it.

Unless you are both playing the same army the limitations you set will always affect each army differently, if I am playing sisters of battle and you are playing tau, I might ask you to limit to 1 riptide, what will you ask me to limit when everything in my list is average at best? Sisters have 1 heavy support, 1 fast attack and 0 elite units that are even average, its hard to actually write an army list for them without spamming something just to reach a required points level unless you are going crazy on dataslates or allies.


You are not negotiating rules, you are negotiating playing conditions aka missions, forces etc.

Big difference.

Well yes and no, missions is something different (we usually roll for our mission as per he rules in the brb) but any attempt to limit force selection is changing the rules that are printed in the brb or various codexes, it is the very definition of a house rule if the rules say I can take three riptides and you tell me I can only take 1.

At the end of the day the group I play in considers it bad manners at the very least to try and impose your preferences on your opponent's list building, that's just how it is. We consider it preferable to the kind of arguments that break out when two players try to negotiate the other person's list down a level they think they can win against.

IcedCrow
09-03-2014, 22:13
Every group is different for sure.

duffybear1988
09-03-2014, 23:20
Ah but Games Workshop does not infer a sports performance game.

I'm sorry but how does "the ultimate test of strategy and skill" not infer a performance related game? That's exactly what it says on the GW website right now this minute.

IcedCrow
09-03-2014, 23:21
That was in response to the name "Games Workshop"

Surgency
09-03-2014, 23:33
I'm sorry but how does "the ultimate test of strategy and skill" not infer a performance related game? That's exactly what it says on the GW website right now this minute.

So you expect every single product to live up to its marketing hype? You must really rage at McDonald's.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

duffybear1988
09-03-2014, 23:35
This is like watching a fight between one chap with a level head and three hillbillies armed with an over abundance of self rightousness.

Again this thread like the others cropping up recently in 40k has actually nothing to do with 40k, keep it to GW general discussion ffs, youll find all your lovely bashy friends over there as well, as for the rest of the 40k crowd whod like to keep actual topics on 40k active here on the 40k general discussion section going instead of being swamped over by the same 3-4 hate mongers.

Actually the fact that threads like this are popping up all over the net speaks volumes. Personally I only limit my forumspeak to Warseer so it's possible that the disgruntled groups are growing. To deny this has nothing to do with 40k is naive at best.

As for calling people who would argue balance is a bad thing, or that we should blow a fortune on a half baked game and then patch it up ourselves level headed. Well that has to be one of the funniest things I've read on here in a long time.

Go back to fiddling, Nero.

yabbadabba
09-03-2014, 23:45
Well yes and no, missions is something different (we usually roll for our mission as per he rules in the brb) but any attempt to limit force selection is changing the rules that are printed in the brb or various codexes, it is the very definition of a house rule if the rules say I can take three riptides and you tell me I can only take 1.

At the end of the day the group I play in considers it bad manners at the very least to try and impose your preferences on your opponent's list building, that's just how it is. We consider it preferable to the kind of arguments that break out when two players try to negotiate the other person's list down a level they think they can win against. Almost everyone house rules, tournaments are the worst/best at it. Just by seeting a points limit you are dictating to a certain degree what your opponent will take - as well as they imposing on you. What you and your group are doing, deliberately or unconsciously, is to assume the worst of everyone. That is why you cannot see that the Knights bear no threat to your game, because your only crutch is the rules, and not how you want to enjoy the game.

I strongly suggest that if you want to play a game for the rules, and not for the fun, then you need to get out of GW as fast as possible.

AngryAngel
10-03-2014, 00:21
Have people house ruled to play certain scenarios or run perhaps one off games or a small campaign here or there. I believe so. However, I don't believe most people house rule the game all the time. Most play the game by its rules, from the games and people I've seen. House rules may happen but it is a now and then affair for narrative sake. As well if you go around to different stores or game areas, it is a much better idea to not get too focused on house rules when the core rules are the only real uniting factor. House rules being easier to press on when your only in a close gaming group Unless you consider what group thoughts form to faq rules questions they never answer house rules. So while saying almost everyone does it, is true enough, to the extent people always feel the need to do such is another matter.

IcedCrow
10-03-2014, 00:24
That is impossible to gauge unfortunately.

Ssilmath
10-03-2014, 00:25
I've never played in a group that didn't have at least some houserules, though they are not always spoken. For that matter, I've never played a tabletop game without some form of houserules, though once again some are unspoken.

AngryAngel
10-03-2014, 00:31
Well then I'm the yin to your yang if you will. As I've never played in a group that house ruled aside from one off situations or campaigns. As well I've never exclusively played other table top games that only house rule. I've only done such if it was a varying play style and only now and then. As I think pretty much everyone does.

Ssilmath
10-03-2014, 00:35
As I think pretty much everyone does.

And that is where you and I differ. While I might try to convince people to try things my way (As I am having a good time and, if the incessant complaints are anything to go by, they are not), I do not consider my experiences to be universal nor do I assume that the majority are doing things my way.

IcedCrow
10-03-2014, 00:46
I too have never played in a group that was strictly raw though those groups exist here as well.

ntw3001
10-03-2014, 03:09
Games that rely on self-regulation to work are all ultimately doomed to failure if the objective is to win because you rely on your opponent damaging their chance at victory to help you out.

While I don't think GW run their games particularly well, I don't think this criticism is accurate at all. Magic: the Gathering requires an enormous amount of natural self-regulation within casual groups, and a player being out of step with the group can be a huge problem. In that community, that fact is just an accepted thing, and that single game makes more money than GW.

Now, Magic is a differently-run game. There's a lot of theory going on in design, and it's carefully developed. The top level of play is a highly-curated official tournament scene. essentially, Wizards take care to make the top level of play diverse (not balanced, but diverse; not every card is made for tournaments, but they are intended to satisfy some portion of their player base), and let the casual players sort themselves out. For GW, there's the problem that an army costs the same for any level of play. No budget decks here.

Magic does face some similar problems to 40k. The difference seems to be that wizards place importance on design and development, whereas for GW it's an afterthought to add value to the physical product. While that product certainly has more intrinsic value than Magic cards, I suspect GW are grossly overestimating that value.

AngryAngel
10-03-2014, 03:22
Magic has a lot of things that go in its favor. Though comparing magic to 40k is a bit difficult, very different games. Highest levels of tournament play can be costly, as well to maintain standard play is equally so. Which can lead to magic being as expensive as 40k in that way. It is also a much cheaper start up, for casual play and learning, as goodness does equate to cost in magic. That said, wizards takes an active role in letting their tournaments be diverse, though that works out better or worse at times, at least they put the work into it and it usually shows. It is correct in that they put out cards for both casuals and competitive, I think a big difference is the game is designed competitive, realizing that drives sales and exposure. With a bent towards casual formats and card designs as well, showing the two can co exist if you do your job properly.

ntw3001
10-03-2014, 04:15
I think GW just doesn't design for as wide an audience. Wizards make a point of including elements to appeal to players seeking a range of different things. It's clear that people seek different things from GW games as well, but only a slim portion of the audience is actually addressed. In Magic design parlance (which is publicly known because Wizards communicate with their audience, explaining exactly why certain elements of their game may not appeal to some players), GW is made by Timmies, for Timmies. From what's been said before about their corporate culture, it seems like that lack of diversity is exactly what they look for. I don't think there's a reason for it.

The current situation for 40k actually seems similar (for me) to the original intent of Magic: a small-time game where a crazy power level was fine because nobody would have that many cards, let alone build an optimal deck. They changed to accommodate what the audience was doing, and the game got huge, fast, and kept growing. But GW are faced with people playing their game differently to the designers, and the company response is to keep on telling those players how they're supposed to be doing it. Sales volumes have been falling for some time. It seems like there's a lesson there for anyone who wants to grasp it.

Commissar Merces
10-03-2014, 04:58
No, its not, TAC is just the absence of list-tailoring. Designing a take all comers list is just designing your army to work against a variety of threats so you will stand a chance whatever your opponent brings to the game (which typically you will not know in advance), whereas List-tailoring is knowing what your opponent will bring in advance and loading up on the counters to his specific build.

Deliberately trying to make TAC lists impossible (and thereby encouraging list tailoring as the only viable strategy) means that if you write your list before you see your opponent's, then nine times out of ten you will show up at a game and have no answer to sections of your opponents list. Flyers are possibly still the most extreme example of this because they can't be touched by anything that doesn't have Skyfire.

Ultimately this kind of model drives sales but makes for a very poor game



Again I totally disagree, I think every army should potentially have a way to deal with everything. You shouldn't turn for a game and auto lose because you have brought sisters of battle (with no access to skyfire) and your opponent has turned up with 9 night scythes.

I can remember a time when the game was decided primarily by the decisions you made during the game, by your target priority or when you chose to launch an assault, suitably modified by a bit of dice randomness. Now the game is almost always decided by the models you show up with, and for me that's not a good thing.

100% agree. Nothing more really to say.

Scribe of Khorne
10-03-2014, 05:06
Indeed, fully agree. When I read those comments initially at BnC I laughed and laughed.

xerxeshavelock
10-03-2014, 11:03
I think GW just doesn't design for as wide an audience. Wizards make a point of including elements to appeal to players seeking a range of different things. It's clear that people seek different things from GW games as well, but only a slim portion of the audience is actually addressed. In Magic design parlance (which is publicly known because Wizards communicate with their audience, explaining exactly why certain elements of their game may not appeal to some players), GW is made by Timmies, for Timmies. From what's been said before about their corporate culture, it seems like that lack of diversity is exactly what they look for. I don't think there's a reason for it.

The current situation for 40k actually seems similar (for me) to the original intent of Magic: a small-time game where a crazy power level was fine because nobody would have that many cards, let alone build an optimal deck. They changed to accommodate what the audience was doing, and the game got huge, fast, and kept growing. But GW are faced with people playing their game differently to the designers, and the company response is to keep on telling those players how they're supposed to be doing it. Sales volumes have been falling for some time. It seems like there's a lesson there for anyone who wants to grasp it.

I agree that is the difference between the two approaches, and agree with your conclusion. I would like to add in GWs favour however. Their approach has led to the creation of a vibrant multifaceted setting that has held my interest for a great many years. Magic has a setting to support the game, whereas 40k is a game to support the setting. Now both companies have made efforts to have both, but for me the setting is the more important of the two. 40k is just about good enough to allow me to keep playing/modelling/buying. Magic's setting never was.

The second difference I would note is Magic is a game that doesn't hold up well without constant expenditure (from a player pov), there's only so much fun you can have without buying more cards. 40k has the advantage that you can potentially stop buying figures and still enjoy the game. From a gamer pov this is a good thing, from a company pov not so much.

Spiney Norman
10-03-2014, 11:25
While I don't think GW run their games particularly well, I don't think this criticism is accurate at all. Magic: the Gathering requires an enormous amount of natural self-regulation within casual groups, and a player being out of step with the group can be a huge problem. In that community, that fact is just an accepted thing, and that single game makes more money than GW.


Magic is one of the most heavily restricted games I have ever played, I've never found the need to introduce any kind of house rules or level of self regulation at all. Their rules are clear and well written, any potential misunderstandings are caught and FAQ'd before the product becomes available. The variety of formats that wizards has created caters for all levels of gaming and every format has its own 'ban-list' of cards that are deemed too powerful for that format.

I'm not advocating GW putting out a 'ban-list', but more regular FAQs would be extremely helpful, and stricter limits on taking multiples of the most overpowered units would be helpful.

williamsond
10-03-2014, 11:50
I recentley heard about a tourney using a novel system to balance their event, evry game is played twice first you use your own army then at half time you swap armies and replay the game. I think this is a really novel way of ensuring that you think long and hard about bringing cheese to a game. has anyone else beeen to an event where they tried this before?

Spiney Norman
10-03-2014, 12:08
I recentley heard about a tourney using a novel system to balance their event, evry game is played twice first you use your own army then at half time you swap armies and replay the game. I think this is a really novel way of ensuring that you think long and hard about bringing cheese to a game. has anyone else beeen to an event where they tried this before?

Personally I'd be a little uncomfortable about handing my models over to a stranger I've never met, I'd probably find it a bit weird to play with someone else's models too, but its an interesting idea.

T10
10-03-2014, 12:31
Personally I'd be a little uncomfortable about handing my models over to a stranger I've never met, I'd probably find it a bit weird to play with someone else's models too, but its an interesting idea.

While that might be cause for some people not to attend, it's a given that the people taking part in this event are using models they are fine with having other people use.

And regardless: Even players that are careless with their own models are quite careful when handling other's. Or at least I have not had the misfortune of meeting anyone who would act carelessly with another player's models.

-T10

Sotek
10-03-2014, 12:40
Not intended for anyone personally, but:

Does anyone ever TALK to their opponent before the game starts to see what kind of game BOTH participants would like to have, and then try to work towards that gaming goal? If so, armies of Knights and Baneblades should be no issue - you'll have sufficient counters.

And if you don't, you talk to your opponent, and cut things down, so that you will.

If that doesn't happen, then DON'T PLAY AGAINST THAT ARMY. You won't have fun, your opponent probably won't have fun. That kills the point of the game to begin with!

A quote I haven't seen around here for a while, but it bears mentioning: The OBJECT of the game is to win. The POINT of the game is to have fun. Do NOT confuse the two.

And if you play in a tournament, the organizers have had your pre-game talk in advance, on your behalf. If you don't like the results of that talk, don't play in that tourney.

None of the above is GW's fault, strictly speaking. Yes, they make OP stuff. I play Eldar. I should know. I care enough about the Social Contract, though, to know to make some concessions to my opponent for his/her satisfaction. And she/he likewise. That's on US.

Again, the above is not directed at anyone in particular. Simply my view on the matter.

Then the game ultimately devolves into who feels 'less bad' about out cheesing their opponent. For tournaments it turns into who gets lucky in their match ups (eg it is list hammer, luck/skill have minimal impact) This attitude has been putting me off 40k. If I loose because I've taken a less powerful / fun army then I feel bad for being an idiot if I win due to my opponent doing the same then it's not a fair challenge.

Spiney Norman
10-03-2014, 12:52
Not intended for anyone personally, but:

Does anyone ever TALK to their opponent before the game starts to see what kind of game BOTH participants would like to have, and then try to work towards that gaming goal? If so, armies of Knights and Baneblades should be no issue - you'll have sufficient counters.

No because that always leads to a game against a list which is tailored to beat mine, which is always a rubbish game, ther is no points to playing at all if you know you will just face the hard-counter to whatever you have brought you may as well just not show up.



If that doesn't happen, then DON'T PLAY AGAINST THAT ARMY. You won't have fun, your opponent probably won't have fun. That kills the point of the game to begin with!

A quote I haven't seen around here for a while, but it bears mentioning: The OBJECT of the game is to win. The POINT of the game is to have fun. Do NOT confuse the two.

This is where I'm at too, I've been on a break from playing 40k for a few weeks, and I've been playing fantasy instead which as a game is in a much better place. I'm hopeful that they will eventually sort 40k out from the hideous mess it is currently in, and I won't be playing many games until then because its just not worth my time any more.


And if you play in a tournament, the organizers have had your pre-game talk in advance, on your behalf. If you don't like the results of that talk, don't play in that tourney.

None of the above is GW's fault, strictly speaking. Yes, they make OP stuff. I play Eldar. I should know. I care enough about the Social Contract, though, to know to make some concessions to my opponent for his/her satisfaction. And she/he likewise. That's on US.

Again, the above is not directed at anyone in particular. Simply my view on the matter.

Actually I think GW do need to bear some of blame for this, if they actually are wanting to produce a game rather than just models for people to paint, they should pay some attention to getting the rules right especially when they are charging 30 a time for the rules for a single faction and 50 for the rules of the basic game. Currently the rules do not represent good value for money, though if would argue that the models do.

Mandragola
10-03-2014, 14:09
I think it's a real problem at the moment. It's one thing to play friendly games, but there are definitely situations where it's really hard to design an army at a power level to have a fun game for both players.

This weekend I went to a campaign weekend at warhammer world, where they use an "anything goes" approach to the games. So Forgeworld army lists, any kind of lord of war, datasheets and so on. One army I saw had a warhound with two turbo lasers stood next to a void shield generator, and not a lot else. Other armies had nothing from outside the codex. Pairings for the games were entirely random, but you had to give your lists in at the start so there was no way you could tailor your list to your opponent, for any reason.

I won all my games without much difficulty. I did have some good games but at least two were real walkovers, where the other guy couldn't really do anything to stop my army. The army I brought was nothing like as powerful as I might have made it - I took marines led by a master of the forge but quite a few forgeworld toys, a couple of knights and a Typhon, though using only one superheavy in most games and no ranged destroyer stuff.

But there's no way to design a list that is on a power level that gives good games against everyone. That's what I find worst about the idea that TAC is bad. TAC to me means that everyone can play everyone and have a close, interesting and enjoyable game. If it's a walkover then it's just no fun for either player. This idea that you'd "forge a narrative" by having a bunch of knights and a shadowsword trample the enemy underfoot is just wrong. Who wants totally one-sided games?

To be fair, this problem is fairly unique to warhammer world. Events elsewhere always use either comp rules/scores and try to pair up players of similar ability. Warhammer world wilfully creates bad games with pre-determined results... but apparently they are doing exactly what the design team intends.

ObiWayneKenobi
10-03-2014, 14:13
As I included in my OP, GW thinks that you SHOULD be tailoring lists against your opponent, which is what I can't eve begin to fathom. Couple that with the fact most US games are in a game shop and you really don't know who you will face, and you have a recipe for disaster that's only helped along because the company doesn't realize the issue.

IcedCrow
10-03-2014, 14:17
Most US games are in a game shop? Most games are against people you don't know who you will face? Was there a nationwide poll that I missed and didn't get to take part in?

GW has pushed list tailoring forever. There are specific wargear items in both fantasy and 40k that function better vs certain factions. The fact is that there is no way to gauge where most games are played in the US without polling every warhammer player in the US.

I know in my city many games are played in the game shop, and many games are played in private homes, and many games are played where you know your opponent ahead of time and many games are played with list tailoring just as many games are not.

AndrewGPaul
10-03-2014, 15:41
I recentley heard about a tourney using a novel system to balance their event, evry game is played twice first you use your own army then at half time you swap armies and replay the game. I think this is a really novel way of ensuring that you think long and hard about bringing cheese to a game. has anyone else beeen to an event where they tried this before?

That's quite an old idea, actually (although perhaps moreso in boardgame or card game tournaments). It was the rule for the official 1991 Space Hulk League, due to the massively assymetric victory conditions in that game. Never played in such an event myself, though.


No because that always leads to a game against a list which is tailored to beat mine, which is always a rubbish game, ther is no points to playing at all if you know you will just face the hard-counter to whatever you have brought you may as well just not show up.


It works both ways, though. In any case, if you end up playing the same people regularly, it'll start happening naturally.

rocdocta
10-03-2014, 15:42
its funny i hear alot of talk about talking with an oppo before a game about setting limits and what should/should not be done and ...when did playing a game of 40k involve a mandatory pre game chat?!

At my local club i want to just organise a game and play it. I dont want to rock up and face "that guy" with his escalation list. i want to play 40k vs a single 40k army. I dont want to have to go through defining pregame what i think 40k is. I am glad that i have a large fantasy and LOTR army to fall back on whilst 40k is in its death throes. It will come back after a while when everyone gets nostalgic and laughs about the grimdark present. In the near present there is only cash grabs.

AngryAngel
10-03-2014, 16:24
List tailoring is about the worst part of 40k, so no if that did become common place I wouldn't play the game. As neither would I list tailor or wish it to happen to me. Though I've known some who would claim its a viable and true tactic in warhammer.

AndrewGPaul
10-03-2014, 16:29
I'm all for it, as long as both players get the same opportunity. It makes more narrative sense, for one thing.

RandomThoughts
10-03-2014, 16:55
Having read through this whole thread (yeah, I'm a bit bored right now and catching up with hobbies I've left behind over the last few years), I think I'm sensing what I consider a wide split between what I'd call do-it-yourself-players and out-of-the-box-players. (Honestly, though, does it really matter if we talk about gamers or hobbyists? Isn't that just semantics?)

I've always sided with the out-of-the-box players before in these discussions, but I can't say I don't see where the do-it-yourselfers are coming from. I've played pen & paper role playing games for many, many, many years, a lot more than tabletop games actually, and as a game master I tended to "fix" whatever system we were running at the moment into whatever I felt right for my campaign and group. It's the exactly same thing, I think.

The one difference I see is the format. P&P has traditionally always relied on a game master with final say on all issues, adjusting rules and game balance where necessary seemed a natural outgrowth.

Tabletop games, at least the kind produced in the mold of GW's games, don't really seem to match well with a neutral game master standing above the game. Where P&P is mostly a PvE game (player-versus-environment), tabletop games are mostly PvP (player-versus-player) - the only two people required are the two players fighting each other, a neutral game master wouldn't really have anything to do as the game unfolds except watch and occasionally make rule judgements.

Now, I get what IcedCrow is saying, if you have a campaign with multiple players running, one organizer can easily take over that game master role, determine house rules, match-ups, restrictions on available models, etc.

Truth be told, I do some of that myself. I occasionally invite the new people from my tabletop environment (not 40K, mind you) over to my house for a Saturday of "mediated play", by which I mean I'm taking an active role in making sure the games are as close and fun for everyone as possible. (It's not that I have to do much, mind you, mostly I select missions, set up terrain and intervene when a player stumbles upon one of the few broken pieces in the game we're playing - there are not many, but the few that exist need specific counter-tactics, which is a situation that I don't want to inflict on the players involved.)

The thing is, though, in order to do that I have to stand aside, to take a separate role (at least to a certain degree) that puts me into a different position than everyone else involved. I'm basically taking myself out of the contention, so to speak. That doesn't mean I don't get to play a few games myself, but it's understood that I will not play to win. But that's not all, it also requires authority, by which I mean the trust of the other players that the decisions and judgement calls I make will improve the experience for everyone involved.

I actually enjoy doing all of that, otherwise I wouldn't be doing it. But I don't think one can take the presence of an organizer like that for granted. My personal experience is that most people I've met while playing table top over the years expect a finished product, something that can be played right out of the box. Something that doesn't need one person to set himself aside and say "listen, folks, I'm going to make this game enjoyable for you, now please trust my decisions and the limitations and house rules I'm setting up!" Actually, I've found that many people playing the game were actually adverse to that very idea, for a variety of reasons.

Some because they wanted the game to be WAAC, some because they were convinced anyone setting up house rules or restrictions was only trying to shift the odds in his own favor, yet another group because they questioned the authority/ability of the person offering to make house rules, others had trouble remembering all the official rules in the first place and didn't want to have to remember even more rules, others yet were unwilling to commit to one group with set house-rules, looking for a "universal" game they could play where-ever they went. And so on.

In the end, while I understand the appeal of a do-it-yourself framework for players like IcedCrow and Yabbayabba, I think it's not exactly hard to understand where the out-of-the-box crowd comes from that is looking for a finished product that can be played as is, without a complete overhaul of the rules (that incidentally also requires a certain skill level that can't exactly be taken for granted*).

Now, one can tell them: This is not the game for you. I've been told the same, took the advice, and I'm happier for it. But I can see why that answer will be unsatisfying to a lot or people, that are invested heavily in this game (both in emotions and in money spent) and are really, really unhappy with the state of things.

Does this make any sense?

Regards
RT

IcedCrow
10-03-2014, 17:07
It does make sense and I appreciate your stance. Where i come from I would love it if a game could be run solely out of the box. That is a rare thing for me though. The only game I have ever run out of the box in recent memory is X Wing. A very simple and short set of rules that work.

So if out of the box doesn't work, I have several options that I can do:

1) i can whine about it but play it anyway. This indicates I am unhappy. Not an option I will take.

2) i can accept it and realize it is what it is and play it out of the box. This still indicates that I am unhappy but at least I am not whining. Why is whining bad to me? Because nothing constructive will come out of it unless you're dealing with a company that accepts customer feedback and reacts to it. GW has never done this so to me whining about GW is unconstructive and largely a waste of my time. It also serves as a mechanism to destroy the GW hobby as people who like say Warmachine will descend on a GW forum to start stirring the coop up to recruit for their own interests (i personally know a couple of guys that do this) and are intentionally creating a toxic environment, which is why when I see outlandish comments I reply with a counter equally outlandish comment.

For those that will only play games by the rules as written - I understand your stance - I just don't sympathize with it because that's a conscious choice you make and this is the last game on the planet I'd choose to play by the rules out of the box. We can talk about how it COULD do this and COULD do that, and that's great, but the reality is it WONT do those things out of the box.

3) I can accept that its not working out of the box and fix it so that it does for myself. This is the route I take.

4) I can accept that its not working out of the box and find another game that works better for me. This is also a route I have taken, and have taken with both warhammer fantasy and 40k in the past.

Latro_
10-03-2014, 17:34
40k is now either a non-shower or in the minority of games played at our wargames club. It started out being the focus / reason for starting it up...

Most people in the 'real world' can just about afford to buy a 40k army and just about have the time to paint it fully. More often than not two of these factors are lacking however. For things to become as unbalanced as they have simply alienates players not interested in buying 3 or everything or the latest army because its powerful.

Our gamers stopped playing 40k over time as they realised as they played each other that close matchups were only against certain people so they played those people over and over and got bored...

Other people they minced or had no chance against and the futility of the 'arms race' was just frustration so they started playing board games and war machine instead.

So really we have two forces going in different directions here. GW want you to constantly 'one-up' your friends with new models to your collection but our gamers just wanted 'an army' and a simple quick and easy way to game before maybe getting another army (maybe)... 10 years ago they would of muddled through as it wasent so bad / no other choice... now there are so many other options out there they just jump ship.

This all started way before dataslates and esclation madness... thats probably put the nail in the coffin in 40k at our club which is sad... cus i'v been into it for 20 years now and i love the models and fluff (enough to keep me keen but obv not other people).

How can you really blame people though when games liek warmachine, dreadball, deadzone etc are:
- Cheaper owing to the low model count and these other companies are generally cheaper model-for-model
- Easier to get hobby time in owing to the low model count
- More balanced so not so much arms race or frustration and again low model count so its manageable arms race
- Just as fun (subjective but you can look at people playing (i have) and they appear to be having just as mcuh fun as 40k)

Having to have a high number of expensive models (or a low number of reallly really expensive models) in a game that is now geared towards buying more models via frustration... i'm sad to say it but it does look like 40k is becoming a little doomed.

There was a reason Necromunda was so popular and also a reason GW canned it... you dont make much money off someone with an orlock gang.

RandomThoughts
10-03-2014, 17:41
It also serves as a mechanism to destroy the GW hobby as people who like say Warmachine will descend on a GW forum to start stirring the coop up to recruit for their own interests (i personally know a couple of guys that do this) and are intentionally creating a toxic environment, which is why when I see outlandish comments I reply with a counter equally outlandish comment.

Please let me apologize if what I've done in the past came across as this. It may have had the effect, even if it was not intentional.

Intentional as in stirring the pot and creating a toxic environment. If that is what I did in the past, I think it was part of the process of accepting 40K is not for me and getting past the disappointment of having invested in the game so heavily. Letting go is never easy.

That being said, would you say it makes a difference if someone currently enjoying 40K is telling people looking for a balanced game out-of-the-box that this is the wrong game for them or if someone who dropped 40K himself for that exact reason did the same thing?

Or, more specifically, what is the difference between yaddayadda posting "40K was never a balanced game and if that's what you want you're wrong here" and me posting "I was terribly let down by the lack of game balance in 40K and enjoy life a lot more now that I play [other game]"? This is a serious question, by the way.

But yeah, as I said before, I was out of place with the posts I made last time I posted, and I'm doing my best to correct that behavior.

Best regards
RT

IcedCrow
10-03-2014, 17:45
Please let me apologize if what I've done in the past came across as this. It may have had the effect, even if it was not intentional.

Intentional as in stirring the pot and creating a toxic environment. If that is what I did in the past, I think it was part of the process of accepting 40K is not for me and getting past the disappointment of having invested in the game so heavily. Letting go is never easy.

I've never attributed you to doing so. It is possible to be a fan of another game and not come off as intentionally trying to showcase why people should quit 40k for that game and I acknowledge and accept that there are many games out there that people are fans of.


That being said, would you say it makes a difference if someone currently enjoying 40K is telling people looking for a balanced game out-of-the-box that this is the wrong game for them or if someone who dropped 40K himself for that exact reason did the same thing?

If they are being honest and up front and not hyperbolic then no I have no issues with this because I agree with them. If you are looking for a balanced out of the box game, then 40k is definitely the last game I'd recommend.


Or, more specifically, what is the difference between yaddayadda posting "40K was never a balanced game and if that's what you want you're wrong here" and me posting "I was terribly let down by the lack of game balance in 40K and enjoy life a lot more now that I play [other game]"? This is a serious question, by the way.

I have no issue with you saying what you said at all. I would tell you that I'm glad you found something that you enjoy. Your comment I'm quoting is level-headed.



But yeah, as I said before, I was out of place with the posts I made last time I posted, and I'm doing my best to correct that behavior.

Best regards
RT


No worries - happy gaming and spend your time doing what you enjoy :)

ntw3001
10-03-2014, 18:20
Magic is one of the most heavily restricted games I have ever played, I've never found the need to introduce any kind of house rules or level of self regulation at all. Their rules are clear and well written, any potential misunderstandings are caught and FAQ'd before the product becomes available. The variety of formats that wizards has created caters for all levels of gaming and every format has its own 'ban-list' of cards that are deemed too powerful for that format.

I'm not advocating GW putting out a 'ban-list', but more regular FAQs would be extremely helpful, and stricter limits on taking multiples of the most overpowered units would be helpful.

I agree that Magic is a well-defined ruleset, but casual groups absolutely do regulate themselves. A group doesn't need to write up a constitution to be doing so; they just have to be invested on making sure their decks are fun for the group, which is something I find people naturally do.

Not many players rock up to casual games with Stasis or Turbofog, although they could. Or they could play a turn-two combo to blow their friends out of the water. Opponents who don't want to spend big money, or just aren't interested in racing combo decks against each other, will be alienated and soon enough everyone will be playing Settlers of Catan instead (the eternal recommendation 'don't play with that guy', also called 'abandon your friends over a hobby game', continues to be asinine. In this situation, it's Catan all the way). The whole casual market relies on people not wanting to destroy their playgroups, and differences in power level and skill development are thought to be one of the top two threats to casual groups (along with 'everyone moving away').

Spiney Norman
10-03-2014, 18:22
3) I can accept that its not working out of the box and fix it so that it does for myself. This is the route I take.

All good in theory, but warhammer is typically a two-person game and what works for you doesn't necessarily work for your opponent. In that situation playing by out-of-the-box rules is the only workable solution.


4) I can accept that its not working out of the box and find another game that works better for me. This is also a route I have taken, and have taken with both warhammer fantasy and 40k in the past.

This is where I am at with it now, I've just dropped off playing 40k altogether at the moment, we've just started on a Warhammer Fantasy narrative campaign and I've got a few guys who are interested in playing through the LotR Fellowship journey scenarios from the journey books, which is a bit of a blast from the past for me.

IcedCrow
10-03-2014, 18:24
All good in theory, but warhammer is typically a two-person game and what works for you doesn't necessarily work for your opponent. In that situation playing by out-of-the-box rules is the only workable solution.

Except that in 20 years of playing this is how I've played, so my theory has had 20 years of testing and has proven to be quite sound.

Wolf Lord Balrog
10-03-2014, 18:39
Except that in 20 years of playing this is how I've played, so my theory has had 20 years of testing and has proven to be quite sound.

So because it worked for you, one person (or one gaming group) that is solid evidence that it will work for everybody, everywhere, all the time? You can't really think that.

IcedCrow
10-03-2014, 18:42
So because it worked for you, one person (or one gaming group) that is solid evidence that it will work for everybody, everywhere, all the time? You can't really think that.

Well its solid evidence that its more than some theory that can never work because of some alleged reality where everyone needs to play raw out of the box or not play at all.

Poseidal
10-03-2014, 18:42
Except that in 20 years of playing this is how I've played, so my theory has had 20 years of testing and has proven to be quite sound.

You get tribalised groups of players if this gets widespread (which I imagine will happen more and more now anyway).

What's likely is more and more players are pushed to category 4, which will thin the number of players around and if it hits the breaking point, kill off the game in an area. That basically happened to WHFB here, not long after 8th edition was released.

IcedCrow
10-03-2014, 18:43
You get tribalised groups of players if this gets widespread (which I imagine will happen more and more now anyway).

What's likely is more and more players are pushed to category 4, which will thin the number of players around and if it hits the breaking point, kill off the game in an area. That basically happened to WHFB here, not long after 8th edition was released.

Yes you do get tribalised groups of players. I haven't seen it thin anything, typically the players here find one of the groups that best fits them and then they go off and play together nicely. We do have a couple of "only by the raw" groups as well.

Reinholt
10-03-2014, 18:46
My quick thoughts:

1 - Options vs. Balance is a false dichotomy. Why should we have to choose? A skilled games developer will provide both, not one or the other.

2 - Games without options are not necessarily boring (take Chess); games with options are not necessarily boring (Twilight Imperium).

3 - In the context of modeling and the sandbox world of 40k, I am for additional variety. I think it genuinely does add something to the game.

4 - However, I am not for unbalanced implementation of rules.

So what is really going on? Poor rules design. Options are good. Badly designed options are not as good. The issue is not that the Imperial Knight exists (I think it's awesome that it does), it's that GW didn't playtest the rules enough or balance things properly.

This situation creates a large divide between club / arranged game players vs. pick-up game / tournament players. That is playing out in this very thread. If you only play with people you know and discuss things beforehand, the way things are now is probably a net improvement (or, at least, neutral). If you don't, it's probably a very large negative.

The sad part, for me, is that all of this was avoidable. Better rules design would allow for more AND balanced options. How is that not the thing to aspire to? Do you want a car with an engine or brakes, instead of both?

AngryAngel
10-03-2014, 18:48
It does make sense and I appreciate your stance. Where i come from I would love it if a game could be run solely out of the box. That is a rare thing for me though. The only game I have ever run out of the box in recent memory is X Wing. A very simple and short set of rules that work.

So if out of the box doesn't work, I have several options that I can do:

1) i can whine about it but play it anyway. This indicates I am unhappy. Not an option I will take.

2) i can accept it and realize it is what it is and play it out of the box. This still indicates that I am unhappy but at least I am not whining. Why is whining bad to me? Because nothing constructive will come out of it unless you're dealing with a company that accepts customer feedback and reacts to it. GW has never done this so to me whining about GW is unconstructive and largely a waste of my time. It also serves as a mechanism to destroy the GW hobby as people who like say Warmachine will descend on a GW forum to start stirring the coop up to recruit for their own interests (i personally know a couple of guys that do this) and are intentionally creating a toxic environment, which is why when I see outlandish comments I reply with a counter equally outlandish comment.

For those that will only play games by the rules as written - I understand your stance - I just don't sympathize with it because that's a conscious choice you make and this is the last game on the planet I'd choose to play by the rules out of the box. We can talk about how it COULD do this and COULD do that, and that's great, but the reality is it WONT do those things out of the box.

3) I can accept that its not working out of the box and fix it so that it does for myself. This is the route I take.

4) I can accept that its not working out of the box and find another game that works better for me. This is also a route I have taken, and have taken with both warhammer fantasy and 40k in the past.


1) The idea of what constitutes a whine is purely an opinion. People tend to place any differing opinion that goes against GW as a whine. Which is false. A lot of people who have issues with their rules have legitimate complaint and voice it as counter point to the it is all good stance. Telling them to love it or leave it is really a poor stance in and of itself.

2) This is the state I'm in. Though yet again, blanket statement, I still love 40k and I hope for the future. Yet again, speaking out on the company is as valid an opinion as always standing up for it. Though I have not seen any real detractors hold fault with GW for everything they do. Nor do those who disagree with their choices want the game to die, most all want the game to change to thrive, for the better. A lot of toxic I see comes from both sides of the issues and how to view them, no one is exempt from that.

3) That is fine, if you can do that with your local group or area but it is not for everyone.

4) A poor choice and goes into the love it or leave it, some people still love the game, the back story all the time they've put in, but still wish a change. Yet again, speaking out your opinion, if that is for, or against what GW chooses to do is all valid. So where some see toxic, others see a valid point and vice versa.

Bottom line, we wouldn't have topics like this, if no one cared of balance, or if the in game balance was viable. However this can be fixed and should be from the rules writers first, then allow players if they wish, to season to flavor with their own house rules. The house rules shouldn't feel mandatory.

IcedCrow
10-03-2014, 18:48
Yes yes. Games workshop is a horrible rules creator that produces badly designed rules. This has been firmly established.

Gradek
10-03-2014, 18:50
We don't need balance, we need maturity. Showing up with a taudar force complete with titan to a random game environment is no different than showing up to open basketball night at the rec center with a team of 6'10" former college basketball players. In the end no one will have fun and you probably won't be welcomed back with open arms. Just because you are allowed to take 3 riptides doesn't mean you have to as part of your pick up game list. If you have a need to play a game that wasn't designed for competition competitively, then find other like minded players for those games and have a more balanced list to bring for open/random game nights.

AngryAngel
10-03-2014, 18:55
With that balance that isn't needed apparently, there wouldn't be the taudar issue.

Spiney Norman
10-03-2014, 18:56
Well its solid evidence that its more than some theory that can never work because of some alleged reality where everyone needs to play raw out of the box or not play at all.

Errr, so your experience is 'solid evidence' but my experience is 'some alleged reality', attitudes like that just aren't helpful for promoting serious discussion.

And there might be 5 different gaming clubs in your locality, but there is only one in my town, so I really don't have much of a choice if I want to play games against real people.

IcedCrow
10-03-2014, 18:59
No your experience is not alleged reality. Your experience is your experience much like mine is mine. You imply though that your experience is global and how everyone else is, which moves your experience from being just your experience, to you presuming to speak for the global warhammer community, which is the difference.

Your situation with only one group in town therefore is your experience. If I only had one group to choose from and it was all RAW OR NOTHING then I wouldn't be playing 40k :)

yabbadabba
10-03-2014, 19:06
We don't need balance, we need maturity. Showing up with a taudar force complete with titan to a random game environment is no different than showing up to open basketball night at the rec center with a team of 6'10" former college basketball players. In the end no one will have fun and you probably won't be welcomed back with open arms. Just because you are allowed to take 3 riptides doesn't mean you have to as part of your pick up game list. If you have a need to play a game that wasn't designed for competition competitively, then find other like minded players for those games and have a more balanced list to bring for open/random game nights.
Some degree of balance is always needed, but it should not be used as a method for deciding people's maturity when playing a game. The key point is that for some the wider context of the game has become unbalanced mostly due to unit choice options but these are not a core rule of the game, compulsory, but optional and negotiable. And that doesn't mean negotiable = I can't beat you so I will have to cripple your army. Negotiable means meeting a happy medium in terms of scenario, time, time limit, armies etc where both participants feel they can enjoy the game. That is why the social contract and, bizarrely for a hobby infested with geeks and nerds, social interactions are a vital part of the game. If you think that asking someone not to play with there Knight or anything else is unfair, then consider them forcing you to face their knight is also unfair - and this extends to all parts of the game.

GW has given 40K loads of options - no where does it say that you have to take them or face them.

duffybear1988
10-03-2014, 19:16
It turns out that most of the older mature gamers who play at my club gave up on 40k last week to play Warmahordes instead. So even the sensible mature gamers who could and in the past would have modded the rules are getting out of 40k. I don't tend to play with them because I do other things on their game night - looks like I'll be rejigging my hobby time.

IcedCrow
10-03-2014, 19:17
If only warmachine appealed to me. I gave it a shot for three years. I can't stand the game or setting though.

duffybear1988
10-03-2014, 19:22
If only warmachine appealed to me. I gave it a shot for three years. I can't stand the game or setting though.

The fluff isn't always great but I always find the games challenging and fun. I play mercs so most of the time I'm handicapping myself by playing with pMagnus. I just love his character and his model. I tend to lose a lot but I never really mind as I always feel like I'm learning from my mistakes (something I miss in 40k).

Spiney Norman
10-03-2014, 19:24
Some degree of balance is always needed, but it should not be used as a method for deciding people's maturity when playing a game. The key point is that for some the wider context of the game has become unbalanced mostly due to unit choice options but these are not a core rule of the game, compulsory, but optional and negotiable. And that doesn't mean negotiable = I can't beat you so I will have to cripple your army. Negotiable means meeting a happy medium in terms of scenario, time, time limit, armies etc where both participants feel they can enjoy the game. That is why the social contract and, bizarrely for a hobby infested with geeks and nerds, social interactions are a vital part of the game. If you think that asking someone not to play with there Knight or anything else is unfair, then consider them forcing you to face their knight is also unfair - and this extends to all parts of the game.

GW has given 40K loads of options - no where does it say that you have to take them or face them.

The problem is that if I tell you in advance that I want to bring an imperial knight, you know that if you load up on drop pod melta-vets then you can probably wipe out 400pts of my army on T1, that doesn't make a good game for me. On the other hand if I drop an army of knights on you with no warning and you have nothing that can deal with it, its a bad game for you. There is no good answer, whether you have the pre-game discussion or not someone is having a bad game.

What you need is a commonly accepted set of rules that everyone in your club/group/meta knows, agrees to and follows that is not game specific. Ideally that would be the rules of the game, but if not a set of house rules that are accepted by the entire group. That way specifics of a force to be brought in any given game are not revealed and your remove the risk of players directly building their armies to counter their opponent.


If only warmachine appealed to me. I gave it a shot for three years. I can't stand the game or setting though.

Its not often we agree, but I think at last we have found some common ground, I can't stand warmachine either, the models are awful and the background makes Mat Ward's fluff look like classical literature.

yabbadabba
10-03-2014, 19:31
Or you just dont play.

Ozendorph
10-03-2014, 19:36
The WM/H setting doesn't do a ton for me, I much prefer 40K (having grown up with it). I do like a lot of things about the warmahordes rules and the minis I've bought look great. It's a fun skirmish game and I expect I'll continue to play for a long time (it's become the default mini battles game in my group), but I cringe at the thought of playing large (50+ point) games...and I do love me some Apoc so that's a jones WM/H doesn't fix.

Spiney Norman
10-03-2014, 19:43
Or you just dont play.

Right, because a good rage-quit always brightens everyone's day, if I book a table at the club, its generally because I want a game.

Wolf Lord Balrog
10-03-2014, 19:45
My quick thoughts:

1 - Options vs. Balance is a false dichotomy. Why should we have to choose? A skilled games developer will provide both, not one or the other.

2 - Games without options are not necessarily boring (take Chess); games with options are not necessarily boring (Twilight Imperium).

3 - In the context of modeling and the sandbox world of 40k, I am for additional variety. I think it genuinely does add something to the game.

4 - However, I am not for unbalanced implementation of rules.

So what is really going on? Poor rules design. Options are good. Badly designed options are not as good. The issue is not that the Imperial Knight exists (I think it's awesome that it does), it's that GW didn't playtest the rules enough or balance things properly.

This situation creates a large divide between club / arranged game players vs. pick-up game / tournament players. That is playing out in this very thread. If you only play with people you know and discuss things beforehand, the way things are now is probably a net improvement (or, at least, neutral). If you don't, it's probably a very large negative.

The sad part, for me, is that all of this was avoidable. Better rules design would allow for more AND balanced options. How is that not the thing to aspire to? Do you want a car with an engine or brakes, instead of both?

Reinholt once again with the wisdom.

yabbadabba
10-03-2014, 19:49
Right, because a good rage-quit always brightens everyone's day, if I book a table at the club, its generally because I want a game. Right, beause totally misrepresenting the comment really help develops the debate.

You seem to not want to be responsible for your own hobby. Fair enough.

Ssilmath
10-03-2014, 20:17
Let me ask you this, Spiney.

Why do you play 40k?

Commissar Merces
10-03-2014, 20:21
Let me give you a real life example of the issue I am seeing here. Our gaming group in town is hosting an event this month with the following rules

500 points weeks have the following rules

No models with a 2 plus save

No models with more than two wounds

No models with a 33 or greater Armour total (Exception is if you are going to run a knight army you get 1 knight at 500 its)

Force Org is one troop do not have to take a HQ

As the escalation league continues, there are no restrictions and things like escalation and stronghold assault are allowed.

For me, I won't participate in this. Why? Because I don't play super heavies in normal 40k games, and certainly not under 3000 points. It tilts the game too far in one direction for me. It's unbalanced especially while some armies have access to plastic "cheap" kits while others only have an option of expensive forge world ones.

as I understand it, this escalation league is also randomly determined, so it isn't like I can prep a list before my game to deal with a knight.

duffybear1988
10-03-2014, 20:21
For fun I'm guessing.

Commissar Merces
10-03-2014, 20:24
My quick thoughts:

1 - Options vs. Balance is a false dichotomy. Why should we have to choose? A skilled games developer will provide both, not one or the other.

2 - Games without options are not necessarily boring (take Chess); games with options are not necessarily boring (Twilight Imperium).

3 - In the context of modeling and the sandbox world of 40k, I am for additional variety. I think it genuinely does add something to the game.

4 - However, I am not for unbalanced implementation of rules.

So what is really going on? Poor rules design. Options are good. Badly designed options are not as good. The issue is not that the Imperial Knight exists (I think it's awesome that it does), it's that GW didn't playtest the rules enough or balance things properly.

This situation creates a large divide between club / arranged game players vs. pick-up game / tournament players. That is playing out in this very thread. If you only play with people you know and discuss things beforehand, the way things are now is probably a net improvement (or, at least, neutral). If you don't, it's probably a very large negative.

The sad part, for me, is that all of this was avoidable. Better rules design would allow for more AND balanced options. How is that not the thing to aspire to? Do you want a car with an engine or brakes, instead of both?

As always Reinholt wins the internets.

Surgency
10-03-2014, 20:39
As always Reinholt wins the internets.

Just because you agree with his opinion doesn't make him correct.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

ntw3001
10-03-2014, 20:51
Right, beause totally misrepresenting the comment really help develops the debate.

You seem to not want to be responsible for your own hobby. Fair enough.

Ugh I'm not interested in makig some pithy remark or wading into thia debate, but he didn't misrepresent your comment. If you wanted your comment to mean a different thing, a different comment would have been in order.

Reinholt
10-03-2014, 21:06
Just because you agree with his opinion doesn't make him correct.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

So are you advocating for less options or less balanced rules? Or both?

;)

AngryAngel
10-03-2014, 21:11
Didn't you hear ? Balance is so last gaming season, GW is just ahead of the trend for decades.

NagashLover
10-03-2014, 21:20
GW has given 40K loads of options - no where does it say that you have to take them or face them.

Well said. It is very similar to many RPG purists I have ran into over the years where I was running a game but I change background material, or completely remove many parts of it. VtM towards the end became a mess. For WtF I incorporate a lot from WtA into my stories with some tweaks.

It isn't a new thing. Older game systems always had a golden rule of changing it until it was right for you/yours.


Warhammer is no different. Warmahordes is no different (that game has quite a solid amount of imbalances that rivals GW easily, but covers it up using the word "counters" as justification). My preferred PP game has it, Monsterpocalypse. So on and so forth (I can keep listing every game that has issues and we will then find they all do). This doesn't imply balance should be abandoned (though I'm sure some of you will spin it as such), it means that players need to stop completely relying on other people you will never know to dictate how you play or how you have fun.

Think for yourselves. Stop being sheep (not directed at any one person, more a general statement directed at everyone, including myself). Who cares if GW/PP/Game Studio X writes terrible rules. They laid down a foundation (and trust me that is the grunt work of the creation process), just tweak them from there, enjoy the models and play. Tweak them to make it more competitive or for fun narrative games. We have a nasty tendency as people to take what is written down, repeated on television or posted on the internet as how things must be, or what constitutes "truth".

Break that mold, at the very least for your hobby and I guarantee you will find yourself enjoying it more than you have in years.

Now some may be purists and feel that when these people create a game system it should be like a board game and be ready to play right out of the box and played exactly like that every game forward. That's completely acceptable and I'm not demonizing you for it, but you just be aware you do have a way to make any game system better just by putting a little more into the hobby. You have the option. Another option is always quitting or another is using an older edition (whichever one the nostalgia bug prefers).




If only warmachine appealed to me. I gave it a shot for three years. I can't stand the game or setting though.

I can agree.

I definitely don't play the game for the setting, mostly terrible characters (Moshar and pretty much the entire range of Skorne being exceptions) and the highly imbalanced gameplay based on hard counters. I enjoy the game mechanics and some of the models they have are really great. If only they would shower Monsterpocalypse with some of that love...

=(

Reinholt
10-03-2014, 21:31
NagashLover - speaking for myself, I agree with much of your sentiment, actually. I'm fine chopping things up, houseruling, etc. I don't think there should be a bright line against it.

However, I do see two issues this situation creates (not your viewpoint, but the initial product):

1 - How do you make this work in a situation where the games are not pre-arranged? It's easier with RPGs (I don't do pickup RPGing), but for a 40k game if I walk into a random store, this is much more difficult. Often you may have no meeting of the minds and just don't play. I think in this situation, a coherent system from the original producer in the first place is superior (as you can still modify it), yes?

2 - If I have to do this much work, should I pay a premium price for it, which GW charges?

That's really the knock-on issues here. I think it's not surprising the loudest objections come from people on the tournament side or those who play a decent amount of pick up games. Again, the sad part for me is this: this is a case where you should be able to have your cake and eat it too; good rules and many options are possible.

RandomThoughts
10-03-2014, 21:36
I've never attributed you to doing so.

But you could have, and it would not entirely have been unjustified. So why not set the record straight and admit I was in the wrong?

On that account, I've read up on Warmachine's first edition over the last few days, and I think I understand now what you mean with your comments about "magic with miniatures". Some of those combos sound so ridiculous! Honestly, I'd probably have considered that game beyond redemption and quit outright...

Now, back on topic: I think for 40K players looking for a balanced game, there are really just 3 options:

1) balance the game yourself with house rules, point adjustments, league play, whatever
2) reach out to a community or group, offline or online that had some success balancing the game with house rules, point adjustments, league play, whatever and ask them to share their
3) accept that you're in the wrong game and quit

That may sound harsh, I know, but it's the same advice given to people unhappy at their job, unhappy in their relationship, unhappy in just about any part of your life. If something is making you unhappy, take a break, cut it out of your life, see if you're happier without it.

Ssilmath
10-03-2014, 21:43
1 - How do you make this work in a situation where the games are not pre-arranged?

Two questions to answer this one, Reiholt.

How do you deal with that situation with anything else? Not just in terms of gaming, but anything else in life. When you walk into an unfamiliar setting and decide to involve yourself, how do you deal with it?

How many people get the majority of their games from random stores against strangers? Is it the norm for people, over the course of their gaming lives, to spend the majority of their time playing pickup games against strangers?

AngryAngel
10-03-2014, 21:51
NagashLover - speaking for myself, I agree with much of your sentiment, actually. I'm fine chopping things up, houseruling, etc. I don't think there should be a bright line against it.

However, I do see two issues this situation creates (not your viewpoint, but the initial product):

1 - How do you make this work in a situation where the games are not pre-arranged? It's easier with RPGs (I don't do pickup RPGing), but for a 40k game if I walk into a random store, this is much more difficult. Often you may have no meeting of the minds and just don't play. I think in this situation, a coherent system from the original producer in the first place is superior (as you can still modify it), yes?

2 - If I have to do this much work, should I pay a premium price for it, which GW charges?

That's really the knock-on issues here. I think it's not surprising the loudest objections come from people on the tournament side or those who play a decent amount of pick up games. Again, the sad part for me is this: this is a case where you should be able to have your cake and eat it too; good rules and many options are possible.

Couldn't agree more with these points. Though none of them will be really addressed as all that will be said is, do the game designers work for them, again. As for the RPG analogy, RPGs and Warhammer are different beasts, with different aspects to them. Saying what is good in one is equally good for another just isn't the case. They share a facet in both have back story, and both are games, be it very different games. The closest they come, is in a narrative campaign, and even in that it is player vs player not player vs environment. Though there are many levels of role player, just like different reasons we all play this game.

Reinholt
10-03-2014, 22:02
Two questions to answer this one, Reiholt.

How do you deal with that situation with anything else? Not just in terms of gaming, but anything else in life. When you walk into an unfamiliar setting and decide to involve yourself, how do you deal with it?

How many people get the majority of their games from random stores against strangers? Is it the norm for people, over the course of their gaming lives, to spend the majority of their time playing pickup games against strangers?

The answer is context dependent - am I being paid to do this? Is this some kind of obligation? Or am I doing this for fun?

If I constantly have to deal with pick-up games with people bringing insane lists or just not being able to reliably have a fun game because I accidentally brought a counter-list to someone else or vice-versa, given how rock-paper-scissors things can be, the answer might well be this: I don't. I'd go play a different game with better odds of a balanced matchup. It's not a coincidence that none of the tournaments I've played in during the last two years are for 40k.

This situation would lead to no longer playing 40k for many people (I've seen several of my friends quit over the past three years).

Can you not see why that would produce complaints where a balanced rules system would have solved that problem? There are definitely some places (hell, the GW store in NYC here is one of them) where a lot of pick up or "who wants to play" games happen. If you then have to spend a half hour negotiating first, every single time, it's a real pain and sand in the gears that simply did not need to be there.

The reason people get salty about this, I suspect, is because it's a fixable error. 40k doesn't have to be imbalanced or unclear in the rules, but it is. This is why competitors continue to have ever-increasing sales while GW has been failing to grow (and as of last half-year, has started shrinking). People are voting, in decent numbers, with their wallets.

Or, to turn this around: who, exactly, would more balanced rules and less rock-paper-scissors match-ups hurt? Who is harmed by that state of affairs?

Ssilmath
10-03-2014, 22:17
Can you not see why that would produce complaints where a balanced rules system would have solved that problem? There are definitely some places (hell, the GW store in NYC here is one of them) where a lot of pick up or "who wants to play" games happen. If you then have to spend a half hour negotiating first, every single time, it's a real pain and sand in the gears that simply did not need to be there.
Two counters here. First is that no matter the balance of the rules (Which I find to not be too bad, but that is subjective), it is the mentality of the players. Those who are going to exploit the system will do so no matter what and ruin it for everybody. A more balanced rules set will do nothing to change that. Second, it should not take a half hour of negotiation, that is an incredible exaggeration. Just a couple minutes to exchange army lists, point out what will make it more/less enjoyable, modify lists slightly/take different list/choose not to play and you're done.

And no Spiney, that does not mean one person is trying to force a win. Some people actually care about the fun of the game and not who wins.

The reason people get salty about this, I suspect, is because it's a fixable error. 40k doesn't have to be imbalanced or unclear in the rules, but it is. This is why competitors continue to have ever-increasing sales while GW has been failing to grow (and as of last half-year, has started shrinking). People are voting, in decent numbers, with their wallets.

Or, to turn this around: who, exactly, would more balanced rules and less rock-paper-scissors match-ups hurt? Who is harmed by that state of affairs?

The idea that they're losing money is debatable, especially considering that the lower profits can be attributable to the upfront costs of this large explosion of content that has recently begun. But that's a different debate. And I'm still baffled by people claiming that the rules need more balanced. Other than a couple of outliers, things are relatively balanced. Everything I see on here, all of the complaints I see on the forums, can be attributed squarely on the players. Either they choose not to implement obvious fixes (Which aren't even needing to be houseruled) like including better terrain or is caused by people abusing the much more open variety of rules and options. It is the latter that causes the most consternation, as it is caused by people motivated solely by winning what amounts to a glorified and more complex version of games we played as children.

Edit: On a completely unrelated note, your orange color is very tedious to multiquote.

ColShaw
10-03-2014, 22:22
I used to do pickup games of 40K every week.

Not since very early 6th Ed anymore, unfortunately. For many of the reasons Reinholt says, it is just too much like work. And I get paid to go to work.

It's also because the 40K community in my area basically died away to nothing. Possibly for the aforementioned reasons. So even if I were inclined, I'd be unlikely to actually find a pickup game.

Poseidal
10-03-2014, 22:30
The idea that they're losing money is debatable,

They are a PLC, so you can view their annual report.

NagashLover
10-03-2014, 22:32
NagashLover - speaking for myself, I agree with much of your sentiment, actually. I'm fine chopping things up, houseruling, etc. I don't think there should be a bright line against it.

However, I do see two issues this situation creates (not your viewpoint, but the initial product):

1 - How do you make this work in a situation where the games are not pre-arranged? It's easier with RPGs (I don't do pickup RPGing), but for a 40k game if I walk into a random store, this is much more difficult. Often you may have no meeting of the minds and just don't play. I think in this situation, a coherent system from the original producer in the first place is superior (as you can still modify it), yes?

2 - If I have to do this much work, should I pay a premium price for it, which GW charges?

That's really the knock-on issues here. I think it's not surprising the loudest objections come from people on the tournament side or those who play a decent amount of pick up games. Again, the sad part for me is this: this is a case where you should be able to have your cake and eat it too; good rules and many options are possible.


NagashLover - speaking for myself, I agree with much of your sentiment, actually. I'm fine chopping things up, houseruling, etc. I don't think there should be a bright line against it.

However, I do see two issues this situation creates (not your viewpoint, but the initial product):

1 - How do you make this work in a situation where the games are not pre-arranged? It's easier with RPGs (I don't do pickup RPGing), but for a 40k game if I walk into a random store, this is much more difficult. Often you may have no meeting of the minds and just don't play. I think in this situation, a coherent system from the original producer in the first place is superior (as you can still modify it), yes?

2 - If I have to do this much work, should I pay a premium price for it, which GW charges?

That's really the knock-on issues here. I think it's not surprising the loudest objections come from people on the tournament side or those who play a decent amount of pick up games. Again, the sad part for me is this: this is a case where you should be able to have your cake and eat it too; good rules and many options are possible.

You are correct. Those are issues that need to be handled but I can't give you, or anyone else, a universal answer to that.

1.) The way I handle it is a quick chat with my opponent before hand. I don't go through a checklist of yay/nay I just ask what they plan on playing (point wise), ask for supers/forts (or whatever, sometimes I forget to ask things) and from there we hit a middle ground. The RPG statement I made was more an example of how you shouldn't be bogged down by what is written down. Now it does require both players to be aware of the rules and how they might play out ahead of time but even with pickup games I have very rarely ran into someone that refused to play me if I wanted to give my Ghoul King an extra point of regen to try out in a game or changing fear to lowering the amount of attacks a unit (we normally do it by half now with my group) can receive as well as the WS drop.

For pickup games the first step is actually talking with people though. If you don't do that then you will never be able to play a game outside of the way the book(s) have it set out and you will suffer like Bill Murray did in Groundhog's Day. Playing a system you find to be miserable. Your situation will be different, which is why I can't give you a universal response, as you are unhappy with certain aspects of a game that I'm fine with and vice versa.

I also have lists coming out my ears to prepare for a multitude of pickup games. Not list tailoring in the sense of being against another specific army, but if we dictate changes to certain mechanics, denying certain unit options, doing away with the FOC entirely, etc...

2.) When I organize free to play soft ball leagues, all night video game parties, hosting RPG events, movie nights with just my movies, BBQ get togethers, or flex my muscles after a workout in the mirriorI don't ask for premium prices or charge for my other hobbies. So why would you for that? Are you sure you are actually any better than they are at it? If so then you should make your own system and go forth with it, always room in the market for another miniature game but be aware that you will be competing with the internet which allows people to do the same thing you would be doing but for free, as not everyone feels they should charge others to play in the same hobby.

If not, it is as I said they already laid down the foundation which is the hardest part of creating a game system. But back to your with one of my own, should I charge my family, friends or guests at a block party premium prices for eating my burgers, hotdogs and ribs? Should I charge the guest of a friends husband for showing up at a movie night where we watch movies that I own? I mean I went through the extra work to organize an open movie night for anyone that shows up, used my own movies, HDTV and Blu-Ray player...

The obvious answer to your question is, no and as my other examples show it can be seen as a bit of a tongue in cheek at best question to even ask.

The difference between how you see it and I, you state it as work. I see it was trying to enjoy my hobby to the fullest which includes being an active part of creating and changing things that are cumbersome, poorly supported, weak, strong or downright terrible. To me it is a part of the hobby, but like the painting or even the playing, it isn't one that everyone takes part in (you suggest this with question on being paid). That said it would be great if I had gotten paid to lift weights and flex my muscles back in my heyday, but a torn rotator cuff ended that aspect of my hobby before I could get into it.

Let me state I in no means think Fantasy or 40K are perfect or even solid systems. They work, but you have the ability to make it a better system if you choose to take a bit more effort into the hobby rather than just feeling like a powerless victim (again not directed at anyone in particular) against the terrible decisions by GW.

I do appreciate your first question and I'm open to hearing more on how other people work with pickup games outside of what I have said, which is just talking before with the opponent. Your second question was a bit unreasonable though to ask as I felt it was an over dramatization in how difficult it really is to change rules especially when it is just talking with an opponent before hand to find a reasonable middle ground. Then again people in your area are different from mine, which are still different from our friends 700 miles from here and so on.

You know what the problem is though, in this thread we have one group you feels GW makes bad rules and thus the game is terrible and can't be played and another group that is providing a solution to the problem that is up to the individual players to use.


Now, back on topic: I think for 40K players looking for a balanced game, there are really just 3 options:

1) balance the game yourself with house rules, point adjustments, league play, whatever
2) reach out to a community or group, offline or online that had some success balancing the game with house rules, point adjustments, league play, whatever and ask them to share their
3) accept that you're in the wrong game and quit

That may sound harsh, I know, but it's the same advice given to people unhappy at their job, unhappy in their relationship, unhappy in just about any part of your life. If something is making you unhappy, take a break, cut it out of your life, see if you're happier without it.

Well stated points and you pretty much said what I tried to get across in far less words.

I'm noticing an issue in this thread though. We have one group who feels 40K/Fantasy are bad because GW can't write "balanced" or solid rules from the start and the other group who...is providing them with solutions to the "problem" (it's in quotes because it's subjective from group to group, player to player, not to be snarky).

Honestly, I feel that the group unhappy with GW have been informed enough how they can make the game better, even for pickup games. It just requires people to participate in an aspect of the hobby that I assume many never tried (though Rogue Trader and all RPGs, sorry Angry but a game system is a game system is a game system regardless of models, paper or LARP so the comparison still stands).

Anyways I'm beginning to see this discussion has hit bedrock so for those who disagree with me. Well we will just have to agree to disagree.

Ssilmath
10-03-2014, 22:34
They are a PLC, so you can view their annual report.

You are correct. I meant due to diminished sales, unless that is available as well?

Poseidal
10-03-2014, 22:39
You are correct. I meant due to diminished sales, unless that is available as well?

Have their prices gone down?

AngryAngel
10-03-2014, 22:40
Two counters here. First is that no matter the balance of the rules (Which I find to not be too bad, but that is subjective), it is the mentality of the players. Those who are going to exploit the system will do so no matter what and ruin it for everybody. A more balanced rules set will do nothing to change that. Second, it should not take a half hour of negotiation, that is an incredible exaggeration. Just a couple minutes to exchange army lists, point out what will make it more/less enjoyable, modify lists slightly/take different list/choose not to play and you're done.

And no Spiney, that does not mean one person is trying to force a win. Some people actually care about the fun of the game and not who wins.


The idea that they're losing money is debatable, especially considering that the lower profits can be attributable to the upfront costs of this large explosion of content that has recently begun. But that's a different debate. And I'm still baffled by people claiming that the rules need more balanced. Other than a couple of outliers, things are relatively balanced. Everything I see on here, all of the complaints I see on the forums, can be attributed squarely on the players. Either they choose not to implement obvious fixes (Which aren't even needing to be houseruled) like including better terrain or is caused by people abusing the much more open variety of rules and options. It is the latter that causes the most consternation, as it is caused by people motivated solely by winning what amounts to a glorified and more complex version of games we played as children.

Edit: On a completely unrelated note, your orange color is very tedious to multiquote.

A more balanced ruleset will curb the effect of that one guy wanting to just show up and power game everyone. So yes, balancing will have a positive effect. There will always be that guy exploiting the rules, but when you nail it down, it doesn't mean as much. As opposed to currently, where that imbalance is huge left as it is. It takes longer then a minute to have this pre game UN peace summits and the more that is released, the longer it will take. Even now going into what core rules people will follow and what each person considers to be exploitive in allowable set ups, as that can vary.

Reinholt
10-03-2014, 22:44
NagashLover - agree with much of what you say, again. I think we are 90% similar in views.

For me, the issue is basically down to practicality: all of the things you say can be done, I just don't want to (especially as I can't bring multiple lists worth of stuff on weekdays, as it has to fit in a bag I can comfortably have at work). So to that end, even though it's possible in theory, in practical terms it's not something I will do. This leads to no 40k. I will say the crowd around here is genuinely decent about allies and exploits (though not always, and there's always "that guy" camping a table that can lead to problems); the bigger issue is just how rock-paper-scissorsy some things are.

My thought on rules is that GW makes rules that are often good in a vacuum, but don't play well with their other rules. It's rare I find a rule that I think is straight up bad (D weapons and the Pyrovore wording are two examples); it's much more that they don't fit well together in terms of balance (did people playing the same game really assign points values to Tyranid Warriors, the Riptide, Conscript Guardsmen, and the Helldrake?) or interactions at times. These are fixable errors. The rules are not terrible, merely bad, and I think they could be fixed to be very good.

Ssilmath - this is not the thread for it, but if you haven't read the investor reports, I'd start there. They are available on GW's site under the Investor Relations link at the bottom.

Ssilmath
10-03-2014, 22:44
Have their prices gone down?

No, but a lower profit can also come from a larger investment of money into expensive molds, packaging, printing, etc. Maybe not the entire lowered profit margin, but it's got to account for a decent chunk of it.


A more balanced ruleset will curb the effect of that one guy wanting to just show up and power game everyone. So yes, balancing will have a positive effect. There will always be that guy exploiting the rules, but when you nail it down, it doesn't mean as much. As opposed to currently, where that imbalance is huge left as it is. It takes longer then a minute to have this pre game UN peace summits and the more that is released, the longer it will take. Even now going into what core rules people will follow and what each person considers to be exploitive in allowable set ups, as that can vary.

Yeah, UN peace summit. And I'm expected to respect anything else you have to say?

Reinholt
10-03-2014, 22:46
No, but a lower profit can also come from a larger investment of money into expensive molds, packaging, printing, etc. Maybe not the entire lowered profit margin, but it's got to account for a decent chunk of it.

It can. But it didn't.

Ssilmath
10-03-2014, 22:47
It can. But it didn't.

Well sir, I will take you at your word then, and apologize.

Now, to clarify, I do think they should release FAQ's and Errata to fix points problems and clean up wording. But I find that a minor issue, personally.

Spiney Norman
10-03-2014, 23:40
Let me ask you this, Spiney.

Why do you play 40k?


For fun I'm guessing.

Pretty much this, in truth I'm not playing much 40k at the moment because the game just isn't fun as things currently stand, instead I'm playing wfb and even some lotr narrative scenarios, which is a bit of a treat because lotr players are a pretty rare breed where I'm from.


You seem to not want to be responsible for your own hobby. Fair enough.

I am happy being responsible for my own hobby, but I don't presume that automatically gives me the right to control my opponent's hobby. I retain full rights to buy my own models and design my own army list, but I do not retain the right to tell my opponent what he can bring to a game. You can't have two people both controlling their own army list and their opponents, I'm not sue why you're not getting this.

Ssilmath
10-03-2014, 23:48
That's not what I mean, Spiney. What is your purpose for setting models on the table? What do you consider to be fun.



I am happy being responsible for my own hobby, but I don't presume that automatically gives me the right to control my opponent's hobby. I retain full rights to buy my own models and design my own army list, but I do not retain the right to tell my opponent what he can bring to a game. You can't have two people both controlling their own army list and their opponents, I'm not sue why you're not getting this.

And nobody is saying that. What they are saying is that if both people control their own aspect, usually from deciding together what will be the most fun for both people, then both players can have a good time. Both players are controlling themselves in the interest of mutual enjoyment.

Kingly
10-03-2014, 23:52
Reinholt I'm confused, how can you compare 40k to Twilight Imperium? And then get others to agree in comparison...I'm baffled.

The two couldn't be more dissimilar, one is a linear self contained unevolving board game with predefined rules, the other an ever evolving 3D based tabletop game.
To compare those two smacks of desperation.

Through the ages vs Twilight Imperium, yes.

Whoremachines vs 40k, yes.

Spiney Norman
11-03-2014, 00:02
That's not what I mean, Spiney. What is your purpose for setting models on the table? What do you consider to be fun.

Ok, I want to feel that when I put my models opposite my opponents that I have a roughly even chance of winning, and that by using my forces well I could improve my chances of winning, what I don't think of as fun is going into a game where I am either hugely disadvantaged, or don't stand a chance from the word go.

I don't want to be thinking, 'oh, my sisters of battle have no access to Skyfire and my opponent is unpacking his 6th Nightscythe', or 'I have an average amount of anti-vehicle shooting, but my opponent is digging out 5 Imperial Knights as his primary detachment' or 'here is my space marine bike army facing off against 3 Helldrakes with bale flamers'.

Reinholt
11-03-2014, 00:05
Reinholt I'm confused, how can you compare 40k to Twilight Imperium? And then get others to agree in comparison...I'm baffled.

The two couldn't be more dissimilar, one is a linear self contained unevolving board game with predefined rules, the other an ever evolving 3D based tabletop game.
To compare those two smacks of desperation.

Through the ages vs Twilight Imperium, yes.

Whoremachines vs 40k, yes.

I didn't intend compare them. I used TI as a counter-example to the rules complexity of chess, as I wanted two self-contained games (if I did chess vs. 40k someone would invariably make the point you just did).

My point is that complexity neither makes a game good nor bad. It's a thing. Used well, it's good. Used poorly, it's bad. The same is true of simplicity in design.

Ssilmath
11-03-2014, 00:08
Ok, I want to feel that when I put my models opposite my opponents that I have a roughly even chance of winning, and that by using my forces well I could improve my chances of winning, what I don't think of as fun is going into a game where I am either hugely disadvantaged, or don't stand a chance from the word go.

Once again, that's not what I asked. Why do you want to win? What drives you to put your models on the table and play? What is your purpose for showing up and playing a game?

Spiney Norman
11-03-2014, 00:15
Once again, that's not what I asked. Why do you want to win? What drives you to put your models on the table and play? What is your purpose for showing up and playing a game?

Then what actually are you asking, I play games to have fun and fun = a close game that rewards good tactical play. If you want to know why I play 40k as opposed to say warmahordes then its mostly about the setting and the models which I vastly prefer GW's offerings to the PP stuff.

Ssilmath
11-03-2014, 00:20
Nope, I want to know what motivates you to play. What is important to you in your game, what you find enjoyable. Why winning is so important to you that you cannot conceive of people who tailor their lists not for winning but for mutual enjoyment.

Spiney Norman
11-03-2014, 00:31
Nope, I want to know what motivates you to play. What is important to you in your game, what you find enjoyable. Why winning is so important to you that you cannot conceive of people who tailor their lists not for winning but for mutual enjoyment.

I'm sorry you don't like my answers, but I'm not sure what others I can give you.

Ssilmath
11-03-2014, 00:36
I'm sorry Spiney, just trying to understand you. I've told you why I play. I like the time spent with other people, the laughs and tenseness and even frustrations of games with people. Win or lose, those are enjoyable. In contrast, win or lose, I hate tournament games because there is none of that for me.

So what I am asking you is, what about the game is fun to you? And what makes a win so important to you?

AngryAngel
11-03-2014, 00:38
Nope, I want to know what motivates you to play. What is important to you in your game, what you find enjoyable. Why winning is so important to you that you cannot conceive of people who tailor their lists not for winning but for mutual enjoyment.

He can't really say it any clearer. Game = fun, he wants it, the fun. Fun for him, in the game, is feeling using the rules and armies in the game as the rules are, would lead to an enjoyable, close game that benefits from player skill and not just what units you bring = win. Unless playing a game in search of fun is not a motivation.

Spiney Norman
11-03-2014, 00:53
I'm sorry Spiney, just trying to understand you. I've told you why I play. I like the time spent with other people, the laughs and tenseness and even frustrations of games with people. Win or lose, those are enjoyable. In contrast, win or lose, I hate tournament games because there is none of that for me.

So what I am asking you is, what about the game is fun to you? And what makes a win so important to you?

So I guess your probably going to keep on asking that question until I say something like 'yeah, gee winning my weekly game of 40k is the most important thing in my life, if I don't win my weekly game I go home and flagellate myself, crawl into my man cave and sulk for five days straight'. I'm afraid that's just not the case.

I don't see the win as being important necessarily, its more important that both players are trying to win and have a roughly even chance of winning. I like the social aspect of the hobby, but for me that happens as much around the painting table or in the post-game chat at the bar as it does during the game itself. Heck we have spent hours just discussing the background of the game, I don't need to be pushing little plastic men around a table to enjoy spending time with my friends.

I've just found most of my games lately are just helplessly rolling dice until I get tabled or my opponent does (which in 95% of games could have been predicted at the start anyway). I used to get some really close games of 40k, where the whole thing could have gone either way, now its just a question of whether I brought rock or scissors to my opponents paper. Theres no sense of achievement when you win, and only a feeling of frustration when you lose, either way it feels like I've wasted my time, but that is just where the game is at the moment. Even the post game chat is pretty meaningless when it just goes along the lines of 'you showed up with a bunch of units I couldn't touch and burned me off the table'.

Getting half your army blown off the table before you have moved doesn't make for an enjoyable game, so I looked for a different game, I don't really have the money to start a brand new game, so warhammer fantasy and lotr it is.

Ssilmath
11-03-2014, 01:04
Alright, that's more understandable. However, I do think that your problem is more the players than the game rules. It sounds to me like your primary opponents aren't willing to throttle back and not play the overpowered combos and whatnot, hence the difference in experience and outlook.

Spiney Norman
11-03-2014, 01:10
Alright, that's more understandable. However, I do think that your problem is more the players than the game rules. It sounds to me like your primary opponents aren't willing to throttle back and not play the overpowered combos and whatnot, hence the difference in experience and outlook.

Part of me thinks 'yeah they should cut back on the power combos', but the other part thinks 'why should they', its not like they're breaking any rules. I want to win on my own merits, not because someone else has brought a charitable, or soft list. If you're playing chess and you've taken your opponents queen you don't take yours off the board to even up the odds, and if you're playing a football (or soccer for you US types) and your opponent is down to 10 men you don't take one of your guys off the pitch for the sake of fair play, you press your advantage.

There is a major disconnect in 40k for me at the moment, on the one hand the game rules are currently geared towards the spam-style lists, everything about 40k pushes you towards maxing out on the best unit in your army list, but the painter/hobbyist in me hates that, if I'm honest I don't like painting more than 2 of the same unit, if I could build a good army where every unit was totally different then I would do it, and as a result my armies tend to be quite a way behind the curve.

Ssilmath
11-03-2014, 01:21
Well, football actually has a lot riding on a win, doesn't it? But if two groups of friends are playing, and one sprains an ankle, the other side will drop a player (Or at least, they have in the past when I used to play). To counter your chess example, your starting lists are identical. But if chess had different options (Which would quickly be figured out) and somebody brought a queen heavy list while you brought Knights...it'd be an easy win for them due to theme. The sporting thing to do would be to drop a couple of queens for a couple of bishops, or something like that (I dunno, such analogies are hard).

Why should your opponent limit themselves? So that both players can get the most out of the game. I'd never take my Valkyrie Vets against a Sisters army unless they told me to, though I'd take Carapace Vets and Stormtroopers in Chimeras. Neither of us would have fun in the former, but the latter would be a much closer game and much more enjoyable. And it's not even a very soft list (Does okay in the tournies I have taken it to), it's just not a bleeding edge, 5 Knight/Riptide/whatever list.

dangerboyjim
11-03-2014, 01:58
I'll just chip in and say that if I asked my mates not to play certain units that they've bought and painted, so that 'we can get the most out of the game' it would not end well. Over the last 15 years or so we've been playing the various codex power levels have changed a bit, but it's generally been evenly contested. The design of the game has succeeded in keeping our battles reasonably balanced regardless of our attempts to build list to catch each other out, going tank/monstrous/cc/shooting heavy or whatever. The devising of fiendish lists and experimenting with 'going heavy' (or spamming) with one part of the codex was all part of the fun. As our model collections grew the variety of lists and tactics has been very broad and has been one of the things driving us to buy more models.

But now... that is starting to unravel.

We could start negotiating restrictions and agree not to field certain units and leave some parts of the codex unexploited. But that's a complete shift from what we have been doing and enjoying for pretty much the entire time we've been in the hobby. I'm not going to rage-quit or anything daft, I do still really enjoy the game. But I don't think is unreasonable to wish that the games designers, thought more about the game, and less about shifting plastic.

RandomThoughts
11-03-2014, 02:18
Spiney, Angel, I think I completely understand what you're driving at. I felt the exact same way, back in 2011-ish.

You're looking for a challenging game that was built with competition in mind, a game you can enjoy both as a hobby (models, fluff) and as an actual competitive playing experience. All the imbalances drove me crazy, not just the different army tiers, but also that in many armies 70% of the available models sucked.
I managed to get along for a while, turning the old Eldar codex over bottom to top to find hidden gems. It always felt like I had to work harder for my wins then my friends playing IG and Blood Angels, but I was putting the necessary extra work in and got my fair share of wins. But at some point they caught up enough that I just ran out of tricks and I spent even more time sifting through the codex for even more hidden gems, but that well had dried up.

The other thing that bothered me like hell were flukes in the core rules, like the way jetbikes and vyper jetbikes behaved completely differently in so many ways (being shot at by small arms fire / big guns, being charged, escaping / not escaping from melee, etc.), to name just one.

I also turned to the forums to complain about these things in loud, sometimes desperate terms. But at some point yaddayadda got through to me with a simple but powerful message:

The way I wanted the game to be was not the way the game was, nor ever would be, and arguing for what it should be on warseer accomplishes nothing but wasting energy.

I took the advice, moved on to another game and while I still missed the original 40K fluff and models, I was rewarded with the kind of gameplay I was looking for.

Now, perhaps we're all lucky and some fans or third party companies will in the foreseeable future release a ruleset that is consistent and precise and comes with balanced army lists for all our favorite 40K models. But in the meantime, what do you do? Stick to a game you're not enjoying because you're invested in the fandom, making loud demands for changes nobody at the company is listening to?

Would it be possible for the company to release more balanced rules? Absolutely! Would it help people like you and me to enjoy the game? Absolutely! Would it be good for the hobby and the company? I believe so! Will it happen? As far as we can tell, no!

Does that make any sense to you?

You're not going to get more concise, balanced rules from GW the same way you're not going to get different model designs or fluff from Privateer Press.

Wolf Lord Balrog
11-03-2014, 02:46
You're not going to get more concise, balanced rules from GW the same way you're not going to get different model designs or fluff from Privateer Press.

This is what I (and Spiney I think) are deeply afraid of.

But I've shelved my 40K models for years at a time in the past, hoping against hope for an improvement while I do something else, I suppose it wouldn't hurt to do it again.

AngryAngel
11-03-2014, 03:11
Random Thoughts, I can tell your coming from the right direction, and in fact, view the same flaws, we're pointing out. In fact, they filled you with much the same annoyance. I can only speak for myself in that, I'm not going to just cut and run. Saying it will never change, is a sweeping statement. They can eventually decide to change direction, or that the path their on is one that will lead to bad. For my casual gaming, even in pick ups, balance used to be better. I know it, as I feel it, lived and played through it.

I have moved towards other game systems and play them. I still play 40k and just hope for that more balanced tomorrow. As I've said, I wish for warhammer to go on, for the direction to be one, people like us can enjoy, as well as those who don't wish or need any balance.

I do thank you for your thoughts, random thoughts. Your a good guy.

Ssilmath
11-03-2014, 03:35
I guess that means that the people who are enjoying 40k, and sharing what they do to make it enjoyable, must be the bad guys.

AngryAngel
11-03-2014, 03:40
If that is what you want to take out of what I said, I can't stop you. That is not the intention of my post to Random Thoughts however. People can be on opposite sides of a debate and not really be bad guys.

Ssilmath
11-03-2014, 03:43
If that is what you want to take out of what I said, I can't stop you. That is not the intention of my post to Random Thoughts however. People can be on opposite sides of a debate and not really be bad guys.

Guess I'm just a bit frustrated.

"I have a problem!"
"Here is the solution that has worked for me every time."
"No, I won't do that!"
"Sigh"

AngryAngel
11-03-2014, 03:48
Which is it, seeing both sides is really the key to things. So let us all just bask in the calm peace and love of a community united for at least one evening before we're at each others throats again.

Reinholt
11-03-2014, 04:19
Which is it, seeing both sides is really the key to things. So let us all just bask in the calm peace and love of a community united for at least one evening before we're at each others throats again.

I have reviewed your request and can offer you only this:

188950