|
|
Post by commandersasha on Mar 30, 2014 21:16:00 GMT
I just read the Jervis Johnson article in this week's White Dwarf, where he says that he is a big fan of gaming groups (such as my 40-member Facebook group), where like-minded players agree on how to use the huge range of models available in 40K to create balanced games. His emphasis was on how GW have done the best they can for their fans by creating a hugely diverse power spectrum, and the onus is now entirely on the fans to make the game playable, balanced and fun.
I must concede that from the point of view as a shareholder company in a capitalist market, his point is valid, and that whereas before, GW provided us with a game that was ready to play, now they provide a kit for you to build a game system yourself, and requires customisation.
I am one of the keenest critics of the past year's power creep and breaks from FOC, but I guess this is the way forward with 40K: we have to specify our own game parameters now. GW have declared that game balance is no longer their responsibility, much as D&D won't stop your level 3 Halfling cleric joining a group exploring a level 80 dungeon!
The ragequitter in me is angry for how they have ruined my game and I am going to stamp my feet and set my hair on fire...and I think that Johnson and his co-designers have taken a lazy, cop-out approach to the responsibilities to the fan base that has paid their wages for 30 years, but this article has in fact made me feel better about my game: I no longer feel any compulsion to try to keep up with new developments.
From now on, when I want a game, with my good friends, with new acquaintances, or even pick-up games, I now feel entirely justified in specifying what I will and won't play against.
It still feels petty, but that is where the game is now, so at least I don't feel like such a freak for asking!
|
|
|
|
Post by Squire on Mar 30, 2014 22:22:51 GMT
I'd support this if a big tournament organiser took the initiative and suggested a set of rules and limitations. People who know the game inside out and aim for balanced games, and are willing to argue their case and present detailed explanations for all to see.
What would these rules look like? What sort of things are/aren't allowed in tournaments these days?
|
|
|
|
Post by ZergLord on Mar 31, 2014 0:47:57 GMT
Nope. This is just an excuse for most people of their dev team being bad at their jobs and generally not caring enough for the game. Frankly I think it's impossible for this game to have a perfect balance but it could've been in a much better state if the devs tried a little bit harder.
If you want give the players the responsibility of balancing their own games then fine, but make the system flexible enough to be easily moddable. 40K rules aren't designed to be heavily moddable, they're designed to be played as is. There are no templates or other methods for balance provided in the books. So basically this is like having a guy telling us that we can mod a video game for which we don't have a source code or tools.
|
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Mar 31, 2014 0:52:13 GMT
and if i'm going to have to create house rules because GW is too lazy/poor/inept/whatever, i don't mind, but, stop charging $50 for codexes, ESPECIALLY codexes with two pages of rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by werewalrus on Mar 31, 2014 1:52:48 GMT
OP, I totally concur. After all, if you play with the same guys over and over...then establishing a protocol is the best way to go.
You know what...I wonder if GW just basically gave up in the pursuit of an impossible task. True balance, in a game like this one, isn't possible in my opinion. Granted, I believe that there can be more balance than we currently have, but absolute balance isn't going to happen. Something...is always going to be slightly better than its counterparts. In turn, that thing will be abused by the tournament scene in the pursuit of victory. Internal balance within an each army is even worse, in that competitive armies tend to spam the (please do not swear) out of the most efficient units that their book proffers. Eventually, GW is going to get their teeth kicked in by forum members no matter what they do. If there is a constant in tabletop gaming, its that you can't make everyone happy, and the disgruntled are always more than willing to stand on their own soap box.
But alas...I think that GW could have done a better job. In regard the the minis, they're doing fantastic. I love everything that they put out. I love the story that they continue to expand. However, I find it hard to believe that they can't dedicate more resources to making the game better than it currently is. While I would never say that 40k is terrible to play, especially since I believe the opposite to be true, I can understand why some people would be frustrated. It sucks when the models that you invested so much into...both financially and emotionally...are simply sub par to your opponent's latest tourney list.
In the end, this is a game. Its designed to be fun. Now, having fun means different things to different people. Thus, its really up to you to surround yourself with like minded individuals, and actually do something besides complain.
In conclusion, kudos to you OP. I hope that you enjoy your new perspective in regard to GW and their policies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Space is pretty big on Mar 31, 2014 6:43:44 GMT
As others here have mentioned, balance is a matter of degree. Think of it like a car. You can't have a car that never crashes, but you can do your best to insure safety, which is why a generic toyota hatch back has much less chance of randomly catching on fire as a ford pinto.
This approach feels to me like ford saying "here's a pinto, all ya gotta do is just put some more work into it and then it won't be a death trap".
|
|
|
|
Post by bredkooler on Mar 31, 2014 8:33:11 GMT
My main problem is why should I pay money for rulebooks and codexes when I still gotta decide what rules are good and what ones aren't. Now, my gaming group is totally "anything goes". In other words, if you bought it, built it or whatever, use it. Even though I used an F14 and an F/A18 as my harpies to playtest skyblight I had no shortage of volunteers. That's just how we play. But, at the same time that same group is totally "Book only". If you can't point out the rule you can't do that. It causes chaos. We are up for anything as long as the rules are clear. That's all we ask. It's not to much to ask from a company that makes a game. As to GW's argument they make minis first and rules second I say "lies!". Citadel makes the minis. Why have 2 different companies doing the same thing? If citadel makes the minis GW should be making the rules right?
|
|
|
|
Post by maeloke on Mar 31, 2014 15:31:12 GMT
I don't buy for a moment that the game is intentionally meant to be modded and "made my own". With the level of complexity and rigidity in the core 40k rules, saying that players are intended to customize the system is pure hogwash, rather like a director going back and calling his drama a "parody" after it gets panned by critics. If we're supposed to be telling a story, why is the "winner" of any game determined by the sum of a bunch of arbitrarily assigned victory points? "I killed all your guys but you have one survivor on a poker chip, so you win". That's a game, not a narrative. They could certainly push to a more freestyle configuration, but if they ever do the rulebook will need to look and read a lot more like an RPG manual than a competitive PVP game. They also really need to open up their units and points systems so that people can adjust things to forge the narrative (hur hur hur) they want to play. If citadel makes the minis GW should be making the rules right? GW owns Citadel. Citadel only produces miniatures at GW's direction; for all practical purposes, they are the same company. |
|
|
|
Post by bredkooler on Mar 31, 2014 16:54:04 GMT
GW may own citadel but coke owns 7up, sprite,dr pepper. Not the best example I know, but they are all seperate companies making seperate products. GW doesn't really make anything but rules. Aside from that, what kind of company doesn't stand behind their products? Their attitude is "it is what it is, don't like it? Fix it yourself"
|
|
|
|
Post by maeloke on Mar 31, 2014 17:21:06 GMT
GW may own citadel but coke owns 7up, sprite,dr pepper. Not the best example I know, but they are all seperate companies making seperate products. GW doesn't really make anything but rules. Aside from that, what kind of company doesn't stand behind their products? Their attitude is "it is what it is, don't like it? Fix it yourself" Difference here being that Citadel has no brand identity outside of GW products. Have you ever heard someone saying they wanted to go shopping for Citadel miniatures independent of the GW connection? Definitely a good point about not standing behind the product, though. I mean sure, OP does get at some company lines about providing the tools for players to do their own thing. But that feels like a cop-out, a flimsy excuse to not be accountable for the quality and balance of their own releases. |
|
|
|
Post by Inquisitor Stingray on Mar 31, 2014 18:35:52 GMT
I agree. If this article has rekindled your faith in 40K, then that is pretty dang great. But at the same time I feel it's a pretty lame way of eschewing the problems of this game. I'm tlaking about Jervis here, not OP. If the rules really just are frameworks, then why do they charge $60 for them. Why don't we have access to free pdf's with experimental rules, statlines, suggestions on how to play the game? I cannot help but think that the constant 'Forging a Narrative' boxes of the Rulebook contradict the purpose of the very same rulebook. There's a very real difference between making a game play out fluffy and rewarding, and patching the many holes caused by poor wording and lack of FAQ clarification. Not so much 'Forging a Narrative' as 'Compensating for Incompetence'. There are a lot of creative people in this hobby, but some simply don't have the time or energy or actual desire to try and fill out the gaps, especially not after paying a premium price for poor product (alliteration, hey!)
|
|
|
|
Post by commandersasha on Mar 31, 2014 19:13:38 GMT
I posted the above article on TheDarkCity (Dark Eldar forum), and the two Facebook groups I belong to: I am very pleased to discover that I am not alone, and that other people are feeling betrayed, but don't want to lose their hobby.
It IS a huge cop-out on GW's part: If they solely traded as Minis and Fluff (as some Manga toy companies do), I would have no problem.
The problem is that in a wave of greed and carelessness, they broke their game.
I think that 6th has been the best system I have played, and before my friends started using fliers, it was a fun, balanced game.
Fliers were the first problem, but Allies was the biggest. Inter-codex balance used to be maintained by the strengths and weaknesses of each army. Tau can't punch. Orks can't shoot. Eldar die easily. Guard can't move much.
There were inevitably imbalances, but they didn't ruin games.
Allies, and subsequently all the other FOC-breakers, have removed that balance.
My hope is that the next Rulebook has a core ruleset, based on infantry-rich pure codex armies; it then has many appendices, each offering an optional bolt-on expansion concept, such as fliers, fortifications, D-weapons or Allies. Formations are best left as £10 PDFs, but should be sold as complete army concepts, mini-codices that stand up in their own right.
An incomplete rulebook is a con. Tyranids were the worst insulted here, with a poor codex anyway, but some of their standard units unusable, and extra cost Dataslates released within months. That was disgusting. Genestealers are as iconic as Terminators, you should not have to pay extra for them to be viable in your codex.
Back to positivity, based on my post in my Facebook groups, I have been inundated with offers of games at 1,500, pure single codex, no fliers. It's been a good day for my game!
Sasha
|
|
|
|
Post by Hunger on Apr 4, 2014 2:23:49 GMT
Difference here being that Citadel has no brand identity outside of GW products. Have you ever heard someone saying they wanted to go shopping for Citadel miniatures independent of the GW connection? This is total fallacy - Citadel Miniatures have produced a vast number of different ranges independent of GW. Dungeons & & Dragons miniatures, Ral Partha ranges, Marauder and Iron Claw ranges, stuff for Doctor Who, Judge Dredd, Star Trek, Traveller, Runequest and historical ranges. It was GW's success that made Citadel what it is today, but Citadel's brand identity is powerfully strong. Collectors and painters know this, but gamers may not necessarily realise it. |
|
|
|
Post by beeva on Apr 4, 2014 9:16:52 GMT
^That was true 20 years ago. It's not true now.
|
|
|
|
Post by maeloke on Apr 4, 2014 14:28:56 GMT
This is total fallacy - Citadel Miniatures have produced a vast number of different ranges independent of GW. Dungeons & & Dragons miniatures, Ral Partha ranges, Marauder and Iron Claw ranges, stuff for Doctor Who, Judge Dredd, Star Trek, Traveller, Runequest and historical ranges. It was GW's success that made Citadel what it is today, but Citadel's brand identity is powerfully strong. Collectors and painters know this, but gamers may not necessarily realise it. Beeva has my point. I know I phrased it "have you ever heard...", but the fact is Citadel hasn't produced a non-GW-property miniature in at least a decade, probably closer to two --and many of these examples you're listing went belly-up in the 80s. 30 years since Citadel and Ral Parta parted ways, for instance. Sure, there might be a couple of collectors out there with kludgy Citadel miniatures from the mid-90s, but the idea that modern buyers would feel loyalty to Citadel on that basis seems farfetched, especially given the development of miniatures sculpting since that time. |
|
