Time to Embrace the Horror II

[Defenestratus]

I wouldn't put it past them. How many times in the past have we said - "no, GW couldn't POSSIBLY be that stupid," only to be proven wrong?

As player and customers we might think that GW'd decisions are stupid on a day to day basis. All of them originate from a centralized motivation though... making money.

40k is what is making GW money. More than anything else they've ever sold. It's how they pay their bills and 40k sales would really need to drop into the sewer for them to do something drastic like they did with WFB. While GW sales have been terrible for a few years, 40k is the only bright spot. AoS was a recognition that the Fantasy was in the sewer, and they basically are throwing a hail mary to see if it works.

[Alaric]

[QUOTE=daboarder;510173]well, Mystery, allow me to brush of one off your favourite chestnuts, given I've shown your logic hoops and historical re

If you aren't gonna be civil, why post here? Seriously you got a major chip on your shoulder. Pathetic. Condescending prick ftw right?

[Kazzigum]

Except the scoring for those tournaments included more than just 'how badly did you thump your opponent'.

Were they intended for competitive play, or a way to get fellow hobbyists together, giving them an excuse to show off and most importantly, buy more stuff.

Ford produces cars with Rally modifications. Does that make all Ford cars suitable for Rally Driving?

I think they were for All the Above. To me, the old GTs were a celebration of all those aspects of the hobby and much more. I still remember fondly participating in team GW Trivia events held by GW staffers after hours at some of them. A lot of fun.

[Kazzigum]

Oh I enjoy the odd tournament. Most of the opponent's I've encountered have been fun to play against, and were absolutely no different to the spods I usually play in my area. That there always seems to be the odd one out who is the room's fun extractor is neither here nor there.

But I go into those Tournaments and gaming meets knowing the game I've chosen to play isn't perfectly balanced, and that as a result some of my games may be an uphill struggle - but I enjoy them all the same. Again, the minority who ruin the experience will ruin it regardless of what they're actually fielding just through being a poor sport.

And it's the 'but....I know, and have always known the game isn't perfectly balanced' that I'm driving at. This is the game GW have chosen to produce. They've never been especially bothered about achieving perfect balance, preferring to go with a plethora of options for their customers to pick and choose from. So a criticism the game isn't perfectly balanced just seems kind of pointless to me. I don't see how it can be a failing if it wasn't their objective?

They may not have ever been too concerned with balance, but they have made various half-hearted attempts. Aside from updating the odd codex, as has already been mentioned, consider the fact that they've released numerous FAQs in the past. And if no one is, or should be, embracing of this fact, then why did this site (and others) get in such a tizzy every time such a FAQ was released? Looking on, it always seemed that the fan base, at least those rabid enough to be here, always anticipated, debated, appreciated and were overall excited when they came out. Many believed they never went far enough or were simply asinine. Honestly, and you'll have to forgive me here as I'm apparently slow, I've realized that this is ultimately what I'm really advocating. Not fixing 7th edition so much as FAQing it. Since I believe that 7th will be the end of the road for those of us who like the game in the roughly complex format it is, I'm saying that I think it might be a good idea for those of us still here after the End to come together and agree on a FAQ. And the primary difference I see between this effort and most of those in the past, is that I think it is wasted effort as long as the game itself keeps evolving in its roughly similar format by adding new editions. I'm saying here that I think it's about to be burned down and replaced and I firmly believe that will not be pleasing to most of the current 40k fans. Time will tell if I'm right, but I don't think this is really being a Chicken Little given the signs and recent events.

[Kazzigum]

...because you'll never perfectly balance this game. Ever.

If you feel 40k is going to be AoS'd (which is a ridiculous idea on its face - GW would be goring it's sacred cow) then you can always keep playing RT/2nd/3rd/4th/5th/6th/7th edition. Heck, if it weren't for the fact hat I was dealing with moving across the country earlier this month, I would have been playing at the Oldhammer event in PA where it was a giant RT and 2nd edition festival.

I have said we cannot truly balance the game. I am certain we can make it exponentially MORE balanced than it currently is however. As for GW AoSing 40k being "ridiculous," well, that's what plenty of guys like you said last year about Warhammer when the original rumors started to roll out. As for the rest ... ??? That's what I'm saying. I DO intend to keep playing 7th edition. I DO believe many others will also. That is the whole point of what I've been saying from the beginning.

Why do I get the feeling you read nothing of what I've said beyond the thread title?

[Caitsidhe]

Of course they are going to do it. I'm not even sure why there is a debate about it. An AOS success will allow them to justify it. A failure in AOS will just cause them to refuse to admit the mistake and double down again as they have done time and time before. The entire point is to invalidate older materials.

[Mr Mystery]

I think they were for All the Above. To me, the old GTs were a celebration of all those aspects of the hobby and much more. I still remember fondly participating in team GW Trivia events held by GW staffers after hours at some of them. A lot of fun.

Exactly.

A well run tournament, where the majority, if not all participants are there to just indulge in the Hobby, do their best in each area and generally have a good time is a thing of beauty, and a ridiculous amount of fun.

It just so happens that that spirit is what GW have aimed for with their rules.

But once a tournament becomes about winning the thing by hook or by crook? GW's approach of rule of cool approach to rules becomes a liability to those who draw their own arbitrary line as to where the challenge should end (for me, it's a challenge just to get my army painted to a basic board ready standard. Doesn't help I accidentally knacked my brushes about a year ago....)

To demand a high level of competition and balance a game is fine and dandy. But to complain when such a game and experience wasn't the focus of those who designed the game, I just don't see the point. Hence my (crude) comparison to Rally Cars.

For your following post, I think they observed that no matter what tweaks they make to the rules, including tournament specific restrictions, other TO's will come up with their own. Again - that's all part of the hobby, and something GW themselves have said - their rules are but a framework. The intention has ever been 'but season to taste' to use yet another shonky analogy.

So if the wider community is going to tweak and modify and restrict to its own taste (and other than 'we all play 40k, the wider community isn't all that cohesive), it seems GW have just gone back to their earlier principle of 'do what you fancy'. For those like myself who just enjoy playing the game, and aren't massively fussed about the outcome as long as getting there was a laugh, this is great. The reduced restrictions (from Unbound in 40k, to 'whatevs' in AoS) mean I can put together a army out of pretty much anything. To those wanting a better balanced affair, well keep on keeping on as you've ever done.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course they are going to do it. I'm not even sure why there is a debate about it. An AOS success will allow them to justify it. A failure in AOS will just cause them to refuse to admit the mistake and double down again as they have done time and time before. The entire point is to invalidate older materials.

AoS - something released because its predecessor apparently wasn't selling all that well. Oddly enough, I saw a friend of mine say on FB today it accounted for just 7% of GW's sales, though his source is unknown.

40k. The biggest selling table top hobby war game ever. EVER.

Now, if we take Big Si's 7% figure as accurate.....that means 40k and its odds and sods makes GW millions upon millions of pounds of profit each and every year.

And as it remains the biggest Tabletop Hobby Wargame the world has ever seen.....well, you just don't **** with that. Nobody would. Big change comes when big change is needed. Like evolution. You don't shoot the Golden Goose just because the Silver Ferret is putting on some weight.

[Erik Setzer]

The tourneys *were* for "all of the above." Though yes, winning games did get you more "glory." And that's okay. You were having to try to win games with lists that wouldn't sabotage your other scores, less likely to bring a death star list or something like that at that point.

But I still don't think balance is just something needed in tournaments, and certainly not something the beatstick players are wanting more than others. Beatstick players would prefer a system where they can choose the nastiest army at the time and win with less effort.

Those of us who prefer pickup games, who love to meet and play against new players, want balance so that we can meet, say, "Hey, wanna do 1500 points?", and then have a match that should be enjoyable for both players, without having to spend an hour figuring out what limitations we want to throw on ourselves or anything. Balance is nice so a new player doesn't grab an army and then find out it's a ROFLstomp army that's boring to play and might end up with him having no one playing him until he drops a load of money on new models.

[Mr Mystery]

See, with that.....it's all in the player.

Player A may field an 'optimum' army because that's what appealed to them.

Player B may field an 'optimum' because Teh Intaewebz insists its ded 'ard and win and ace and nothing could possibly go wrong.

The difference is in their approach. Player A will be fun to play against, and a good sport. Should they crush your force, they'll offer compliments and feedback on what went well for you, possibly issuing (potentially patronising) advice on what you might do differently next time

Player B? Well. They'll just chalk all up to TACTICAL GENIUSES rather than a clearly beardy list.

Now, the examples a of course grossly simplified for the purposes of demonstration, and are intended purely as best and worst case scenarios. Any potential variation between can and will exist.

But it all boils down to (again possibly patronising) the player being the biggest issue. Yes the system is wonky - but it takes a special someone to knowingly abuse it, and it's my experience that you can spot such a person fairly easily.

[spiralingcadaver]

Those of us who prefer pickup games, who love to meet and play against new players, want balance so that we can meet, say, "Hey, wanna do 1500 points?", and then have a match that should be enjoyable for both players, without having to spend an hour figuring out what limitations we want to throw on ourselves or anything. Balance is nice so a new player doesn't grab an army and then find out it's a ROFLstomp army that's boring to play and might end up with him having no one playing him until he drops a load of money on new models.

+1.

Unfortunately, GW doesn't do well with points balancing, so the ROFLstomp comment wouldn't be fixed in their case, but there are a lot of systems where there's a standard points system, and I'll tend to bring two lists: one that's a throw down no-holds-barred competitive list (if that's the point and they're ready for a harder game) and one that's a softer and/or trying something new list (still bring my a-game once it's started, but starting at something that probably won't stomp someone's lighter list), and just ask my opponent which he wants. That's it. Takes maybe a couple minutes of talking if we're both indecisive, but there's no debate on how to limit ourselves.