Why do people want to make this a different game?

[Chapters Unwritten]

I haven't said that they're inadequate. Their issue is that they are not fun when they're not balanced, and I'm sad that is the case. If they were then there wouldn't be a problem.

This is a good example of something I see a lot: entirely subjective statements writ to fact as though etched in stone. Who, exactly, are you to decide what is fun for one person or another? Not being facetious or confrontational, but literal: how much of the thoughts we see slagging the game are objective in any way shape or form? Virtually none, most of the time. People just make ignorant blanket statements with no real base in reality, or at least not one that can be quantified.

As a club leader I supervise a group of 60+ players and I make several rounds throughout the day to ensure everyone is playing properly and fairly. So while I do not play every week, I closely observe at least a dozen games a week if not more (our space has a total of 9 tables and most get used twice in a club day). Encompassing codices from all over the game and builds of numerous variation, I do not see the many things that the naysayers all seem to report. I see lots of silly Grey Knight examples of these "the game is broke!!1!" cries, but no one seems to acknowledge that there are many more armies in the game than just purifier spam GK versus daemons. That is literally choosing one of the grossest discrepancies in the game and using it as a case study to make your point that the whole game is riddled with comparable issues. It simply is not. You just cannot objectively say the game is completely imbalanced because one army has a power build.

Now there are plenty of folks in this thread who've made legitimate points. The closest one to hit home to me is the fellow who said he doesn't complain about WM because he just doesn't give a damn about it. People care about this game. What I don't understand is why the loudest voices, those saying it's a hunk of crap and a waste of time to play because it doesn't have Chess-like balance and uber-competitive play, are those who do not care about it.

People seem to hate everything about this game but want it to amalgamate their other favorite games into it. I just do not understand all the hate. Honestly more than any balance issue or design decision, the constant endless bickering about the direction of the game and its potential fairness/unfairness drive me from the hobby more and more.

I started my club for people who were sick and tired of having to feel like we are somehow fools for liking this game and just wanting to play it in peace. What makes me sad is that this is necessary, and even moreso, that it requires someone like me to basically be eternally vigilant against these sorts of people.

[yabbadabba]

I haven't said that they're inadequate. Their issue is that they are not fun when they're not balanced, and I'm sad that is the case. If they were then there wouldn't be a problem.

They are not fun for you.

Could the rules be written more precisely? Of course, that's why I applaud GWs positive move with their FAQs. Do the rules need to be written with the competitive player in mind? Not at all. So for GW to improve and keep its distinct approach clarity is important, balance is not. I have played plenty of wargames where the only sense of balance comes in the scenario objectives, certainly not the rules or army lists. GWs games walk a difficult line by providing something for everyone, but not everything to one. We as gamers and customers have to decide whether we can live with that. If you can't, you have to stop playing like I did over 6e and 7e WFB, or you move on.

The question then becomes what does GW gain and/or lose by writing a rule set that is competitive? I can't think of any game that is currently as varied as GWs stable and yet 100% competitive water tight without massive generalisations such as DBA/M or WRG. We have no idea what the competitive market is like, what %age of that is active GW gamers, how many customers GW would gain or lose following that dynamic, whether the majority of those people want a more competitive rule set etc etc. It goes on and on. I am not saying that competitive games are of no value, or that GW should not do/never do a competitive ruleset. Anyone who has seen my my posts on this will know that I think GW need to modularise their games on the basis of usage; but to change the entire dynamic of a successful product to satisfy the wants (note not needs) of an unknown number of people in a niche business that is not showing any indication of the dominating and overwhelming popularity of that new dynamic is foolish to say the least.

I am also curious about those not following the principle of not throwing good money after bad; what matters the £300 investment if that investment then has to go to £370 just to use the £300, and you are still not getting what you want out of it? Surely that is just reinforcing the failure of that investment?

[Iron Puritan]

At the risk of sounding a little harsh, I sometimes interpret "I want competitive rules" as "I want fancy rock, paper, scissors"... Some rules can be almost elegant in their simplicity. If all that is desired is clarity, just say that.

[Iron Puritan]

I am also curious about those not following the principle of not throwing good money after bad; what matters the £300 investment if that investment then has to go to £370 just to use the £300, and you are still not getting what you want out of it? Surely that is just reinforcing the failure of that investment?

The term you are looking for is escalation of commitment.

[Haravikk]

Do the rules need to be written with the competitive player in mind?

clarity is important, balance is not.

I don't agree with this; while I don't think 40k or any GW game should be heavily designed for tournaments, balance is very important as without it we get armies that people are reluctant to play because it's more difficult to just enjoy pick-up games when your army is riddled with disadvantages. Even in a friendly/casual environment this can be a problem, particularly if you're not planning a game in advance and decide to take you 1,500 points of Tyranids to play in store and end up against 1,500 points of Grey Knights, for example. GW have been showing in 8th edition fantasy that they're capable of producing army books with good internal balance, that are also balanced well against other 8th edition books. 8th edition is still far from perfect, but when it came out it levelled the playing field and the books have only supported this.

40k's current set of codices are pretty disgraceful in balance terms, and it makes it difficult to hype up an army that's difficult to play because it's underpowered. For players that care more about the modelling and painting that's not such a big deal, but most people want to play the game at some point, and even playing casually a lack of balance in the rules or codices does hurt enjoyment of a game.

You could have the clearest possible rules in the world, but they won't be fun if there isn't at least some competitive balance. Take this as a rules example "Space Marines always win"; couldn't be simpler, but I don't think it'd make for fun games

[yabbadabba]

Yet wargames do not require balance Haravikk, so it is not essential. It is only essential for those who wish to play balanced games. Clarity, however, is essential for anyone to play any game.

[DragonArmy]

You also must consider we are on a forum. Forums are places people post gripes.


On the otherhand, if there was not controversy and everyone was satisfied on the forum, then i would be a boring place.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Iron Puritan]

I don't agree with this; while I don't think 40k or any GW game should be heavily designed for tournaments, balance is very important as without it we get armies that people are reluctant to play because it's more difficult to just enjoy pick-up games when your army is riddled with disadvantages. Even in a friendly/casual environment this can be a problem, particularly if you're not planning a game in advance and decide to take you 1,500 points of Tyranids to play in store and end up against 1,500 points of Grey Knights, for example. GW have been showing in 8th edition fantasy that they're capable of producing army books with good internal balance, that are also balanced well against other 8th edition books. 8th edition is still far from perfect, but when it came out it levelled the playing field and the books have only supported this.

40k's current set of codices are pretty disgraceful in balance terms, and it makes it difficult to hype up an army that's difficult to play because it's underpowered. For players that care more about the modelling and painting that's not such a big deal, but most people want to play the game at some point, and even playing casually a lack of balance in the rules or codices does hurt enjoyment of a game.

You could have the clearest possible rules in the world, but they won't be fun if there isn't at least some competitive balance. Take this as a rules example "Space Marines always win"; couldn't be simpler, but I don't think it'd make for fun games

It sounds like what you are after is consistent design philosophy.

[sakura_ninja]

Yet wargames do not require balance Haravikk, so it is not essential. It is only essential for those who wish to play balanced games. Clarity, however, is essential for anyone to play any game.

This is true, players can create balance from clearer rules, in ways you can't have one without another, at least not with any gw created rules.

I say that because even black powder has some unclear rules, but players can still create balance.

[Chapters Unwritten]

I agree. I do not find the rules to be terribly unclear, but inconsistent. In the rulebook a section that explains what the different verbage means explicitly would go a long way.

[ChaplainCharlie]

It's a combination of things.
1st comes the fact that GW has a HUGE range of codexes and several other things to rotate all at once. Hence, the release frequency of codexes isn't that quick. If it were faster, more changes could be done to accommodate the armies to the core rules and make the pieces fit. Case in point, there are still 4th Ed codexes that never got updated to 5th and we're about to move over to 6th...

2nd is the issue with the current edition's true LOS, wound allocation shenanigans and perhaps some other "abuse"-friendly rules. At least one other game uses strict hights for determining sight range and in general, the rules are stricter than in 40k. (Might be warmachine?) As it stands, modelling all your infantry kneeling, moving your Typhoons so only one gun is visible or parking a Falcon so only the turret pops over terrain are all ways to either hide your models completely or make them able to fire without retaliation being possible. Things like these are merely catalysts for sparking a hateful competitive environment. During my starting days of 3rd Ed, there was a competitive environment and list-tweaking, but the focus was still on being a better general, not abusing the rules for maximum advantage. Say what you will, but I don't think it's in any way fair or in the spirit of the game to have units take less damage than is actually caused because one model is wearing different color underpants than his comrade or that one unit can shoot at another, but not get shot back in return. (Jetbikes excempt)

3rd is the imbalance of Codexes caused by point 1 and further eschewed by bad penmanship in games design. When DE came out, I was first horrified by the "cheese" of a Melta Lance and massed FNP infantry with cheap BS 4 Lances thrown in for good measure. Yet, GW balanced out such things that would have been over the top game-breaking by adding real vulnerabilities and making the Dark Eldar codex balanced and very characterful. It plays like a Dark Eldar army probably would operate and is hence believable. And on the opposite end of things is the GK list that features huge boons and very few drawbacks. What's the biggest disadvantage of GKs? Size of the army! The normal strike squad marine is only what, 4 points more expensive than a Tac marine. For those 4 points, less than a Flamer upgrade, the model gets a boon for both close combat and shooting, making it at least twice as effective in both areas. This is just plain horrible.

I said earlier that players are to blame and I stand by that, because I have had perfectly good games of 40k when we agreed NOT to use cheese lists. We have played cheese and OP and decided that it blows. There is no fun to be had. At least not for us. When we wound back a bit and made a gentleman's agreement not to use OP lists, because we all agreed that there is little generalship left with such lists, the quality of games improved, number of mid-game laughters increased, absurd moments increased and generally the game felt more like what 40k is supposed to be. Fun...

Point 1 was merely the catalyst. Bad rules, thought not perhaps BAD, but poorly tested for abuse, caused a shift to more "underhand" tactics and attempts to beat the game rather than the opposite player. How much could you bend/hug the rules to get you the advantage on the battlefield over your opponent? That isn't what 40k is about. It's about beating your opponent because you're a better PLAYER than he is. Because you have a TACTICAL mindset and that even if the enemy has an advantage, you can still turn the game and win. Not because you are capable of finding a list that exploits strengths of a few key units and nothing else.
I doubt Fire Dragons are such a popular aspect that every Eldar task force has three squads and no Banshees or Scorpions. I also doubt that the venerated dead-but-alive GK Drednaughts would be flattered to be equipped with autocannons and fielded on all Demon hunting missions in triplets. Or that all Space Wolf armies are exclusively equipped with the relatively rare Razorback with the super-rare Lascannon Plasmagun combo to boot, not to speak of the surprisingly large number of devastators for an army of rabid dogs famous for tearing things to pieces even with their bare hands...

The players make the game. Tournaments are one thing and there the bitching is called for. It's dull to fight the same armies all the time, but in the normal gaming community, I can not see any obstacle beyond lack of communication between players why the current set couldn't be made to work. Some chap a few milennia ago allegedly said: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." He was probably the Emperor in disguise, so heed his words.
If you are on a rickety bridge, you can either jump up and down and then cry that it broke and you hurt yourself, or you can walk gently and cross without incident. The choice has been yours all the while!

P.S. Don't take this as "everything is dandy, shut up" -post, because the rules could definately use improvement, but more so could the attitudes of players and the balancing of codexes.

[Bergen Beerbelly]

I personally want GW to make it a different game because my first GW experience was Epic Space Marine, followed by Rogue Trader and 2nd edition 40k. When 3rd edition came out I was expecting GW to just fix the glaring problems with 2nd edition 40k to make it a much better game (like getting rid of the Wargear card for Virus Outbreak) and leaving all of the very cool things in the game while sculpting better models.

Instead, they totally re wrote the game and stopped producing the 2nd edition version (thus forcing all of the new players to purchase the newer crappier version of 40k).

I still want them to go back and do what they should have done in the first place...FIX the 2nd edition game...not re write it into a different game altogether that was worse than 2nd edition and claim it is better.

[PANZERBUNNY]

Because the game is crap compared to various systems that have become available over the years and those who want to "change it" feel passionately about the brand and would like it to appeal to people beyond the age bracket of "just left the womb" and keep them generally engaged with an aging product.

It's exceptionally basic and needs certain aspects of gaming to make it a truly strategic game and not a dice fest ping pong activity where people haphazardly maul their unpainted minis across the board, tossing them all over the place because half your army died before you even got a chance to do anything.

I mean, they are JUST introducing charge reactions, giving certain weapons bonuses and abilities under certain circumstances. HUGE step for 40k, but still only a few steps up from plastic army men in the sandbox.

Sorry if anyone finds this post a bit harsh. If so...it's probably because it's true. I think I started Rogue Trade when I was 8, getting lured in by the lore etc, but as the editions went on, I, like many others wanted a more engaging and rewarding game system.

It's like comparing Sims online, Hello Kitty online, WOW, LOTRO and EVE. Certain games act as an introduction to gaming.

Sometimes people prefer to stick to one game system for whatever reason and are afraid to learn new systems that challenge the familiar and known aspect of 40k.

each to their own I guess....I would get used to 40k changing over the years as the large numbers of "young gamers" they have brainwashed over the years start to get older and may seek out more rewarding systems. They can't keep up the pace of discarding veteran gamers in place of young bloods at the rate they have been doing over these past years.

It's no shocker to anyone that GW simply CAN'T make new and intriguing games anymore. They have lost their edge and are simply rehashing old ideas or dragging out new editions that improve their game slowly so their customers have something to look forward too, appealing to the "average" gamer like T-Ball and training wheels.

They used to be an amazing bookshelf game company, but have decided that they would rather be box pushers instead of innovators, pimping out their IP to other companies who have more vision with their product than they do.

Rant over.

[yabbadabba]

(thus forcing all of the new players to purchase the newer crappier version of 40k).

GW never forced you to do anything.

[PANZERBUNNY]

People can always play other games if they don't like the new Rule set or play with people that will play the previous version of the game.

I suppose many people that play 40k are stuck in a competitive tournament mindset instead of trying to have simply fun with no drama.

[yabbadabba]

People can always play other games if they don't like the new Rule set or play with people that will play the previous version of the game.

I suppose many people that play 40k are stuck in a competitive tournament mindset instead of trying to have simply fun with no drama.

True enough, we have comrades on here still developing and playing with 2nd Ed 40K.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Yet wargames do not require balance Haravikk, so it is not essential. It is only essential for those who wish to play balanced games. Clarity, however, is essential for anyone to play any game.

True enough, but let's be clear what we're talking about here. I've had some very enjoyable games with unequal points values for one reason or another (often campaigns). But these are deliberately unbalanced games. Most games are designed to be fair fights. When GW writes army lists down the the individual point and tells us that two equal point armies are fairly matched, the expectation is that this is true, regardless of competitive setting or not. The choice to play unbalanced games should be up to the player. Merely not balancing the lists properly is just sloppy game design.

[Panzeh]

I imagine 40k would not be so successful without its points system, which is the source of balance discussion. All the players lament the competitive orientation of some players, but when you put in a points system, you're basically saying "you can play a pick up game of this and have it be a decent test of skill". You can play without points, of course, just putting models on the table like you prefer, setting up scenarios but those kinds of rulesets don't sell like Warhammer does.

It's a real statement when 40k's rulebook starts with a disclaimer saying "roll a die and don't use the rules if you don't want to, we know they have holes" while its biggest competitor's rulebook basically says "look, use the rules and quit whining, our ruleset works" I think that says a lot about the confidence in each team's rule design.

[Bergen Beerbelly]

GW never forced you to do anything.

No offense to you yabbadabba but yes they did in a very crappy way. Now I'm not talking about them coming to my house and pointing a gun at my head and telling me I have to do something or they will kill me. While that is a way to force people (and it seems this is what basis you made your comment on) there are other methods of forcing people to do it.

Here is what I mean.

If a person wanted to play Warhammer 40,000 because they heard it has cool looking models of troopers and tanks, they would not be able to pick up the 2nd edition of the 40k game and do so unless they know someone with a copy of the game. Therefore they cannot play it. This means in order to play it they must either try to find a copy on ebay and pay tons of money for it...or break the law by getting pirated copies from the internet (not the best choice)... or buy some other crappy edition of the game like 3rd or 4th.

Also, since they stopped producing the game, the editions of 40k that people do have and have been playing for years will eventually wear out and be hard to use anymore. This has happened with my 2nd edition Wargear cards. They are very hard to read in some instances and I would like new ones without paying outrageous prices on Ebay or copying them off.

Also, trying to find people that play 2nd edition 40k is much harder because it is not as widely available. Therefore, finding people to play it with you can be a real chore if not impossible at times.

So saying they didn't force me or anyone else to purchase the newer crappier version of 40k is just not true. They most certainly did in a round about way.

I would also like to point out that GW did force me to stop playing my Squat army as a Squat army by writing them out of the game and then writing an article saying all of the Squat players should use their armies as counts as Imperial Guard or Orks.

[slaanghoul]

I've made this comparison before:

Why is it acceptable in computer war games such as Warcraft2 (example) when you play orcs but all your troops are ogres. Nobody make orcs troops because Ogres are just way better.

But... in 40K.... some players tries to stick to fluff and play their army "handicap" to fit the fluff.

Online war games.... I always see players (good ones) pick the best list or built the best troops and go with out.