Very good thread on Warseer

[Iron Warrior]

Check it out:
www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30882

Its titled "Its not them, its Us"
Talks about who is to blame and why for the current rules/powergaming/faq/forum problems.
I read through most of it and found it to be an intersting read. Its long, so people with add like Norton shouldnt try to read it.

And if you have any feed back post it here...

Is it Us or is it them?

[Ranger Dude]

Don't have the patience to read the whole thread, but I read the first page of posts at least.

I have to agree with him somewhat. There is a definate issue with "us". I do think GW has to do some more quality control. But in general, it is more the players who cause the troubles. Not all players obviously. But I've noticed that many well themed and balanced armies get hosed by opponents who pull out every loop-hole they can think of. And it hurts those of us who don't use the loop holes. When the Craftworld Codex came out, many players started min maxing Alaitoc armies to get as much out of the Ranger disruption tables as possible. We've all heard stories of the Alaitoc armys with 8 3-man units and three wraithlords/falcons/whatever. In the mean time, players like Jay and myself show up with an alaitoc army and everyone cries cheese, even though we use well balanced lists. Personally, I squeeze as many rangers in without completely taosting the army. I only have three non-ranger units in the entire army, not counting the farseers.

I'm looking forward to the DaBoyz GT because of the idea for new scenarios. I'm hoping that the missions we create will put an emphasis on storyline rather than win-at-all-cost. I'm tired of playing cleanse or Kill-em-all all the time. Most of the standard missions are essentially variations on a theme. I'd like to see us get away from this and move towards playing the story, not the game. After all, half the reason many of us are in this hobby is the storyline behind it all.

[Iron Warrior]

There is alot of points on that post that I agree with and yes I think it is partially The Players fault. Ultimately they are the ones who decide what they going to bring in an army list.

But at the same time I cant help but think there are several flaws in the game, hence the mulitude of FAQ's, the NEED for comp scores (which are dissapearing in GT's and RTTs) and the few trump armies out there that constantly win and people whine about. There is really a line drawn between competitve armies and non-competitive ones. You can no long make an army up for fun and expect it to be competitve. This is especially true of Fluffy vs WAAC (Win At All Costs)

YOu can see it in the trend of New Codex power (with the exception of the Black Templars)

If this is all upon the players shoulders then why are players still taking these uber armies and still keep winning with them. There comes a point when its no longer fun to play the underdog and keep losing. Its that players that have these armies dont care. The only solution to this would be to adapt. Which means adjusting to meet the requirements of playing a competivie game and bringing up to speed your army. A la play a WAAC army. In competitve situations this is the only real and feasable solution.

And please dont speak to me about "superior tactics". There are no fragging tactics in this game. The game has litteraly become Sit back and shoot, counter assualt or "Factor X" (where X is some special rule that puts your army in an advatage over your opponents to the point where its unblanacing and/or not fun for your opponent) This factor X could include the 20+ farseer council or the Sirened Deamon prince, Deamon Bombz...ect...

From My experinces, I played the Shooty army when Assualt armies were in thier prime during the last edition and things were fine. I lost and won my fair share. Ive played the shooty army in the new edtion and things only got better for them. Im now playing an assualt army in this new edtion and its is so much harder to play this type of army than the shooing one. In fact the diffaculty factor is almost infurating compared to the easy time the shooting armys have. I guess what im trying to say is that the game has gotten less balanced since the last edition.

[thatguyjames]

The game master created the world, and it was good.
Then the players showed up...

It's a constantly recurring theme that no matter what, when you make something, inevitably someone will come along and break it. I remember the first major program I wrote in flash, a database visualizer. I wanted it to be flexible as possible, and left a lot of options open to the user. Then user testing came and I watched in silent agony as person after person broke my system. I was so angry I simply imposed a large number of functionality restrictions and magically all the problems disappeared. I'm sure GW writers wish they could do the same thing.

GW could easily balance the game by imposing the same restrictions I did. "You are playing army X, here is your list. You may not change anything on the list, and your tactical flexibility is nil. As a matter of fact you can't move. You know what? Just roll dice, whoever rolls higher wins."

It used to be the same with many of the games we played. I'm sure we can all remember a video game with a room that you just were not allowed to go into because the developers didn't want you to go there. Or even better, playing d&d with a DM who was obsessed with binding you to his carefully constructed plot, to the point of using falling rocks and fireballs to steer you in the right direction.

But here we have a game that is not unlike the current generation of video games. In many ways, I'm reminded of the newest Elder Scrolls game. "Here's the keys to the world, here's the rules we play by, the plot is over there if you give a $hit, have fun."

Such an undertaking is difficult enough, but then to continually add to that system while also refining it, it boggles the mind. And just to make things especially hard, they rely on print as their sole method of "officially" reaching the audience, a ridiculously archaic means of distribution.

I don't think it can be solely distributed to one side or another when players are not having fun. To me, GW has dropped the ball a couple of times in big ways when it could have really cleaned things up. At the same time, just because you can abuse the rules doesn't mean you should. This sort of self policing is certainly a mature and admirable thing to do, but ideally should be unnecessary.

I think so long as we the players are allowed semi-free reign, someone is gonna find a way to screw with it. I just hope that things don't get so bad that it essentially turns into my sarcastic fix wherein we just roll a bunch of dice and the guy who rolls better wins... oh wait.

[Catachan Colonel]

There is really a line drawn between competitve armies and non-competitive ones. You can no long make an army up for fun and expect it to be competitve. This is especially true of Fluffy vs WAAC (Win At All Costs)

YOu can see it in the trend of New Codex power (with the exception of the Black Templars)

i gotta disagree that you cant make up a fun army and expect it to be competative. I have a storm trooper army that has been quite competative and that is in no way a win at all costs.
I would like to believe that both my ultramarines and my tau have not been WACed out. (I win some i lose some)

Yes there will always be those nasty combinations armies that people hate, and we have always found ways to beat them (even if some ways are not so fun)

I gotta disagree with any implication of GW powering up the codexes. I only see really two codexes that seem to lag behind, (Eldar and Dark Eldar) and none that have taken any seemingly solid lead over all others.
To Ron's credit he plays for top spots in tournaments with Orks which is the oldest codes with out any update. And i dont see Black templars any weaker than any other codex (they have advantages and disadvantages over marines)

There has been an declaration that shooting armies with really competent counterassault are the way to go now. but i say hmm an army that covers all the bases having both shooting and assault wins its almost like they didnt leave a big whole in their strategy.

lastly i ask you this the armies that are doing "to well" or are just "unbalanced or unfun" is it because of the overwelming number of gamma level games we play. how about the lack of anyuse of the specail missions (balltles raids and Other) if all we play is gamma level recon, cleanse, hold at all costs and secure and control armies that do really well in those games will start to show.

the all shooty and counter assault army does not seem as good in alpha level recon. (you get nothing across? than you lose) The best games i have played lately have been alpha or omega level or the specail mission week (thanks to ron's suggestion)

my $0.02