So with the imminent arrival of the new Knight in standard 40K brandishing a big gun and D weapon I think I'm going to throw in the towel.
It's been getting obscene with every codex getting some sort of 1 up more powerful gizmo designed to be better than or a counter for the previous thing (to an extent). From what I've seen the only balanced (I use the term loosely) codexes have been dark angels, and nids.
Chaos got the drake which started the ball rolling. Tau got the riptide that pretty much broke the game, then it all fell into disarray with Eldar getting mega buffs across the board, wraithknights and waveserpents. Space marines couldn't be left out in the cold so they got (I know it's old from previous editions) grav guns to help counter MCs and vehicle spam. Now the titans are making their way into 40k.
It's at this point I just give up. It's just not fun or funny anymore. It's basically geared towards 1 turn victory.
What happened to the days when you would field a small group of guys and try to overcome each other with some mediocum of skill?
You just wouldn't see hordes of Eldar serpents, or titans running a mock on every battlefield.
Does anyone else feel like 40k has just become an arms race?
You're just not forging the narrative enough. You need to break out the beer and pretzels and play more cinematically. I can't keep a straight face saying that.
Yeah, its gone downhill pretty fast of late. Money money money money and all that. Sad really. Granted, the Knight is a great looking kit. Probably get one to decorate my shelf. When I get a shelf, that is.
How about you try talking to your oponent before a game and decide what kind of game and experience you want instead of bringing the baddest cheese net list to your LFGS looking for a "friendly" game.
AnabisXero wrote: How about you try talking to your oponent before a game and decide what kind of game and experience you want instead of bringing the baddest cheese net list to your LFGS looking for a "friendly" game.
What if its his opponent bringing hard units/lists? What if those are the models he has? What is those are the models both people like?
Its all well and good to discuss things before, but its not always a perfect solution. Compromises need to be made, but its gets silly and not a little awkward telling your opponent not to use their favourite models, or vice versa.
*Edit* I guess worse case is they agree they just shouldn't play eachother, but I hardly call that a solution.
Yes, and the kill team option does look appealing.
The cool thing about kill team is you can come back next game with a force that benifitted from the last game much like a campaign too. If you like that sort of thing.
Yes, and the kill team option does look appealing.
The cool thing about kill team is you can come back next game with a force that benifitted from the last game much like a campaign too. If you like that sort of thing.
Isn't that basically Necromunda?
Either way, I would give my left testicle for a re-booted Specialist Games.
AegisGrimm wrote: But..but...you can't bring in your best possible stuff!
Seriously, 500/1000 point games change the tactics of the game quite a bit. Especially 500pts.
Not wanting to sound rude...
But at 500 points theres no weapons of mass destruction, your troops carry a lot of the killing power, you actually have to move most your army, positioning matters, losing models that arent mega killing machines matters and thats what makes the game fun from a gameplay perspective.
You also have the fun of trying to make a good list and it stops being what do I take, and becomes what can I make do without?
Add that with decent terrain and decent players and the games become more balanced, fast, tactical and looks more like a game.
I love lower point games. I love when I can fit entire platoons of Guardsmen against an army of like 20 models. Makes my e-peen hard. Until they get swept by 3 marines because I couldn't make 2 leadership saves with a Commissar.
Boniface wrote: So with the imminent arrival of the new Knight in standard 40K brandishing a big gun and D weapon I think I'm going to throw in the towel.
It's been getting obscene with every codex getting some sort of 1 up more powerful gizmo designed to be better than or a counter for the previous thing (to an extent). From what I've seen the only balanced (I use the term loosely) codexes have been dark angels, and nids.
Chaos got the drake which started the ball rolling. Tau got the riptide that pretty much broke the game, then it all fell into disarray with Eldar getting mega buffs across the board, wraithknights and waveserpents. Space marines couldn't be left out in the cold so they got (I know it's old from previous editions) grav guns to help counter MCs and vehicle spam. Now the titans are making their way into 40k.
It's at this point I just give up. It's just not fun or funny anymore. It's basically geared towards 1 turn victory.
What happened to the days when you would field a small group of guys and try to overcome each other with some mediocum of skill?
You just wouldn't see hordes of Eldar serpents, or titans running a mock on every battlefield.
Does anyone else feel like 40k has just become an arms race?
Mate, this isnt new.
the exact same threads about "broken things ruining the game" were written fifteen years ago when 40k third edition was a thing. you talk about the helldrake? meet the eldar starcannon of third edition. meet the alaitoc disruption table. meet crystal targetting matrices. meet ulthwe seer councils. meet third ed blood angels.
And it continues.
How about fourth edition? ever here of the abomination that was the Siren Prince, or else Iron Warriors?
Fifth edition - blood angels, space wolves and grey knights.
Sixth edition. tau and eldar.
Not being cheeky, but things that broke the game have always been there. you have not stumbled onto some hitherto unknown conspiracy, or failure that somehow slipped by the vigilance of the 40k community this is simply how GW writes games.
And there are solutions.
(1) treat all the new stuff as "options". GW give you the tools. You, the gamer have the choice to use them or not. play with a friend, and chat and decide what you want. Dont look to what GW does as a "how to" guide - dont look to GW to tell you how to play. - look at it as great models that you can do with as you wish. how about you take control? how about you decide? the best way to enjoy 40k is via a casual, co-operative and gentlemanly manner.
(2) play other games.
(3) grow older and bitter, consumed by hatred and rage,like many other 40k vets
AegisGrimm wrote: But..but...you can't bring in your best possible stuff!
Seriously, 500/1000 point games change the tactics of the game quite a bit. Especially 500pts.
Not wanting to sound rude...
But at 500 points theres no weapons of mass destruction, your troops carry a lot of the killing power, you actually have to move most your army, positioning matters, losing models that arent mega killing machines matters and thats what makes the game fun from a gameplay perspective.
You also have the fun of trying to make a good list and it stops being what do I take, and becomes what can I make do without?
Add that with decent terrain and decent players and the games become more balanced, fast, tactical and looks more like a game.
That's what I meant......500-1000pt games are my favorite way to play 40K.
AnabisXero wrote: How about you try talking to your oponent before a game and decide what kind of game and experience you want instead of bringing the baddest cheese net list to your LFGS looking for a "friendly" game.
This. 40k still works as a beer and pretzels game, despite all the nerdrage about GW's use of the term.
Would work better as a B&P game if they fixed the damn rules though.
Small points is best points though. I think 1850 games are awful, too many toyz on the table and not enough vanilla (which you get at low points and double force org)
Kill Team is great too - definitely use the new rules over the old ones, still has a few derpy issues but much much better than before
the exact same threads about "broken things ruining the game" were written fifteen years ago when 40k third edition was a thing. you talk about the helldrake? meet the eldar starcannon of third edition. meet the alaitoc disruption table. meet crystal targetting matrices. meet ulthwe seer councils. meet third ed blood angels.
And it continues.
How about fourth edition? ever here of the abomination that was the Siren Prince, or else Iron Warriors?
Fifth edition - blood angels, space wolves and grey knights.
Sixth edition. tau and eldar.
Not being cheeky, but things that broke the game have always been there. you have not stumbled onto some hitherto unknown conspiracy, or failure that somehow slipped by the vigilance of the 40k community this is simply how GW writes games.
And there are solutions.
(1) treat all the new stuff as "options". GW give you the tools. You, the gamer have the choice to use them or not. play with a friend, and chat and decide what you want. Dont look to what GW does as a "how to" guide - dont look to GW to tell you how to play. - look at it as great models that you can do with as you wish. how about you take control? how about you decide? the best way to enjoy 40k is via a casual, co-operative and gentlemanly manner.
(2) play other games.
(3) grow older and bitter, consumed by hatred and rage,like many other 40k vets
/slowclap
I came here to say this and found myself pleasantly surprised.
Ailaros wrote: This game started a maddening spiral of imbalance because CSM got helldrakes?
Umm...
Remember, this was the start of 6th Ed, when flyers were VERY new, and no one had a good way to deal with a Flyer that could spew out that 360 Baleflammer cannon, regenerate lost HP, had an invulnerable save, vector strike... yeah, that was pretty much the start of the Arms Race right there in 6th. 40K has always been about the latest and greatest codex.
I like the image of big things running rampant on the battlefield. What I don't like is how the rules set them up and how we, the players, unleash them on each other. I think the OP is right, and within a couple months, we'll see a Knight in every list that can take one.
Imagine this- Tau with a couple Riptides and a Knight or two. Oh, and your two units of Firewarriors of course, unless you are playing the Farsight Codex... then it'll be Riptides, Crisis Suits, and Knights. Or maybe you like Eldar? Couple Wraithknights, couple Knights, some Waveserpents with Dire Avengers being "heroically" led by a Farseer... It used to be looking at a table, you would see nothing but 50-100 1" bases, with maybe a couple 1.5" and a tank or two. Next month, it's going to be 10-20 1" bases, and nothing but huge bases.
AegisGrimm wrote: But..but...you can't bring in your best possible stuff!
Seriously, 500/1000 point games change the tactics of the game quite a bit. Especially 500pts.
Not wanting to sound rude...
But at 500 points theres no weapons of mass destruction, your troops carry a lot of the killing power, you actually have to move most your army, positioning matters, losing models that arent mega killing machines matters and thats what makes the game fun from a gameplay perspective.
You also have the fun of trying to make a good list and it stops being what do I take, and becomes what can I make do without?
Add that with decent terrain and decent players and the games become more balanced, fast, tactical and looks more like a game.
That's what I meant......500-1000pt games are my favorite way to play 40K.
I see, sorry... lets pretend I just elaborated your point then haha.
The arms race problem is also solved by becoming friends with your local gamers and all of you agreeing on what's cool and what's not. Like, Revenant Titan...not cool.
Don't know what people problem with knights are , High cost Battle cannon platforms and that is all .They do have D weapons , but those are melee and you need apo or escalation , on top of the high cost of the unit itself to use it . I doubt people will flock to buy it . Now if it shoting weapon had 2 big blast D str shots for less then 400pts , then yeah it would be a problem .
I think the best way to play the game is to stick to armies which are always at least good. Eldar were never bad or unplayable , SW were never bad or unplayable . Sure there are other armies that from edition to edition can be just as good. But those two are never bad . As long as someone sticks to those two , he will have a lot of fun with w40k .
I understand your frustration but you have to realize that some people like the big cool units, to collect and paint them. But this is 40k, you have to have rules for everything. You really expect to see everyone bringing these to random games? If you look through the IG rumors thread you'll see how many people wanted to have Knights. (Maybe GW listened to their fan base? or maybe finally trying to compete with Dream Forge's Leviathan which the knight looks a lot like?)
Not having a gaming group all I ever play are pick up games. I've never had somebody get mad when I say I don't play escalation. They will either say ok and not use their super heavies or look for a game somewhere else. Sides, at that points level you'll be able to kill it fairly easily. Looking at your pictures (which look very awesome btw) you play Tau. With the Knight's shield pointing toward your hammerheads/broadsides/riptides you deepstrike some squads of fusion suits to the side and blow'em up.
Long story short - Just say "No" to super heavies.
Even in Rogue Trader the game was "broken" from a balance point of view. Landraiders and Rhino's had void shields, for heavens sake!
40K is never going to be a balanced "tournament friendly" game. It's designed by Brits, who don't tend to be as competitive when it comes to our hobbies (generally, if we're feeling competitive, we play sports). Even I, a former assistant Tournament Organiser and 40K podcaster, (and presently an occasional competitive player in local tournaments) am considered a "fluffy" player by the standards of much of the rest of the world. Whereas here, I keep getting poked with reminders to turn down the cheese in my lists when I book a friendly game.
Basically, it comes down to this: if you want to play tournament style (or even simply "balanced") wargames, 40K is not the ideal rules system for you. I'd recommend that you try Malifaux, Bushido or Warmahordes instead, all of which are designed with balance and tournament play in mind.
Ultimately, 40K was designed as a game you sit down and play with your mates on a Sunday afternoon. It's never going to become the balanced "tournament" game that a fairly small but very vocal part of the community wants it to be.
Remember, most 40K players don't post on Dakka. Don't comment on other forums and don't play competitively, (or play for fun frequently enough) to care about game balance. Those of us who play tournaments or even just want to play a balanced game a couple of times a week are in the minority. Even more so considering that increasing numbers of competitively minded 40K gamers are moving to other game systems.
Incorporating balance into the rules is entirely against GW design policy and against the corporate mission, vision and values that govern GW.
Granted, it was less of an arms-race when Brian Ansell ran the show and just a case that the design team didn't consciously think about game balance in what was supposed to be a narrative (rather than competitive) war-game. It really was about forging a narrative back then even though those weren't the words used at the time. It's only since the business-minded types took control of the firm that GW has deliberately incorporated "power creep" into it's design philosophy as a marketing tool to make us plastic-addicts go out and buy a new army every now and then.
The design teams remit is not to go out there and tweak every edition to get a more balanced, perfect set of rules. It's job is to tweak every edition to change the emphasis from one type of play to another. Thus we've had the mech edition, the assault edition, the current shooty edition etc. Basically forcing all of us to go out and buy new models for every army we own to adapt it the current edition.
It's something that we, as 40K players, have to accept ( as much as we hate it) unless we want to switch to another game system altogether.
You know it is a Strength D MELEE weapon right? In fact the knights stats given in the rumors have made them seem fairly balanced for their price. Models seem to look pretty good too.
There are some things that have definitely been poorly balanced. However whether you or others abuse them is entirely up to the individuals. Usually when this sort of stuff comes to a heat it is best to run a campaign or alternative missions so that the units that are best at completing the missions have a chance to change. For example the black legion supplement mission where the CSM player surrounds the other player who is in the middle is murder on serpent spam list who will have to expose rear armour and cannot play from the board edge as is their wont. The forgeworld campaigns require specific lists to play and you should sub out similar for similar in them. They breath a lot of fresh air into the game.
Knights are just more escalation stuff (they are super-heavys and have D weapons), and last I checked most people weren't playing escalation. So, I don't think players of "conventional" 40k have any reason to be concerned.
Personally, I can't wait for the inevitable 200mm based chaos titan that births 2d3 chaos riptides/turn. Any army will be able to use it. It will come pre-painted and assembled, of course.
With the exception of the stupid-poor writing of Riptides and Wave Serpents, and the decision to give every Eldar model with a shuriken weapon pseudo-rending and mostly BS4 (ugh why, when can I get my twinlinked lasguns or instant death bolters please) the handling of this edition has been fine.
Knights aren't going to change the meta for squat. 50-75% of the community at least will automatically ignore them, and even if introduced they're not earth-shattering.
I think the fact that the designers have actually considered overall balance and the meta, although possibly inadvertently, is definitely worthy of praise. I'm glad Marines got Grav-Guns and Grav Centurions capable of demolishing Riptides full stop, because otherwise it would have proven far more difficult to fell the things.
The fact that each Codex has a massively powerful unit that stands out massively is nothing new at all.
Take 5th Ed Codexes for instance.
Space Marines: Hammernators
Imperial Guard: Vendettas
Space Wolves: Long Fangs/Grey Hunters/Rune Priests (could be argued it was ANY of those)
Necrons: Lords with MSS (auto-win against characters), Annihilation Barges
Orks: Nob Bikerz
Tyranids: Tervigons
Chaos Space Marines: Lash Prince/Plague Marines
Dark Eldar: Venoms
Grey Knights: Paladin stars.
Seriously. Most competitive/tournament lists for those armies used those units ad nauseam. So this whole stupid shtick about 40k going down hill in unique fashion because of select units is delusional and moronic.
Seriously. Most competitive/tournament lists for those armies used those units ad nauseam. So this whole stupid shtick about 40k going down hill in unique fashion because of select units is delusional and moronic.
But a continued cycle of poorly balanced deathstars and escalating game sizes with S: D weapons available is to be lauded and/or dismissed as par for the course?
Seriously. Most competitive/tournament lists for those armies used those units ad nauseam. So this whole stupid shtick about 40k going down hill in unique fashion because of select units is delusional and moronic.
But a continued cycle of poorly balanced deathstars and escalating game sizes with S: D weapons available is to be lauded and/or dismissed as par for the course?
Draigowing/Raider Vulkan or Dorn-Hammernatorstar/5th Ed Seerstar/IG Platoon Powerblobstar/4th Ed Codex Deathwing Command Squad Star/Nob Bikerstar would very much like to have a word with you.
Escalating game sizes? That's not a universal fact, probably not even statistically true. Strength D is dismissed by most of the community save in exceptional circumstances like Apocalypse and Escalation tournaments where extra rules can come into play, and while trouble is presented by their inclusion its not like you're forced to play those people who field them if you want to be a stubborn bigot.
Draigowing/Raider Vulkan or Dorn-Hammernatorstar/5th Ed Seerstar/IG Platoon Powerblobstar/4th Ed Codex Deathwing Command Squad Star/Nob Bikerstar would very much like to have a word with you.
Escalating game sizes? That's not a universal fact, probably not even statistically true. Strength D is dismissed by most of the community save in exceptional circumstances like Apocalypse and Escalation tournaments where extra rules can come into play, and while trouble is presented by their inclusion its not like you're forced to play those people who field them if you want to be a stubborn bigot.
Erm, that's exactly my point. Why shouldn't people be upset about a constant cycle of crazy powerful deathstars that make a mockery of internal balance, and to a lesser extent, external balance? Just because its been that way for a while doesn't mean it should continue, nor should people stop pointing out that its a flaw.
The game has been designed to be played at increasing point values. Between double force org, reduced cost of models (points wise) and the release of Escalation and Stronghold only point to GW leading the game to higher point values.
The fact that the community has to be relied upon to make certain 'unofficial rulings' or 'assumptions' about how the game should be played speaks volumes for the state of the game. Ignoring it because you think those people are just being delusional and moronic for pointing out that they're flaws in the games design only shows a certain bias in your views.
You can't hand wave away the problems as being a non-issue and claim the game is fine. The problems are there. People saying they're problems are not being delusional and moronic.
the exact same threads about "broken things ruining the game" were written fifteen years ago when 40k third edition was a thing. you talk about the helldrake? meet the eldar starcannon of third edition. meet the alaitoc disruption table. meet crystal targetting matrices. meet ulthwe seer councils. meet third ed blood angels.
Just wanted to say yep, I remember all of those. Especially the Star Cannons and Blood Angels and the rage they induced. Hoo boy. A lot of people thought the former were utterly ridiculous when they came out and Blood Angel armies were near ubiquitous for a time then too.
Hmm... From the sound of this... I should just tall scale a few of my marines for fun, and offload the rest onto ebay while the gettins good I think my painting queue would not mind one whit.
Draigowing/Raider Vulkan or Dorn-Hammernatorstar/5th Ed Seerstar/IG Platoon Powerblobstar/4th Ed Codex Deathwing Command Squad Star/Nob Bikerstar would very much like to have a word with you.
Escalating game sizes? That's not a universal fact, probably not even statistically true. Strength D is dismissed by most of the community save in exceptional circumstances like Apocalypse and Escalation tournaments where extra rules can come into play, and while trouble is presented by their inclusion its not like you're forced to play those people who field them if you want to be a stubborn bigot.
Erm, that's exactly my point. Why shouldn't people be upset about a constant cycle of crazy powerful deathstars that make a mockery of internal balance, and to a lesser extent, external balance? Just because its been that way for a while doesn't mean it should continue, nor should people stop pointing out that its a flaw.
People should stop treating it as though its a new trend, or as though they're special for quitting over it at the current period. Odds are its not going to change because Deathstars are an accepted part of the game and balance can't always be perfect, and the latter is true for any and all games. I'm not saying they shouldn't be upset.
The game has been designed to be played at increasing point values. Between double force org, reduced cost of models (points wise) and the release of Escalation and Stronghold only point to GW leading the game to higher point values.
You've stated cause but there is little to no effect like what you're implying, so this point is kind of moot. This just leads to bigger games overall in model count, which is not the same as the community playing points wise bigger games. And so what if they are, you don't have to cow-tow to their routine like the rest of your attitude implies is mandatory.
The fact that the community has to be relied upon to make certain 'unofficial rulings' or 'assumptions' about how the game should be played speaks volumes for the state of the game.
No, it really doesn't. Unofficial rulings and assumptions are a key part of any hobby group for any wargame. Unless your group is a no limit, super-competitive arena one (even then you'll find them), you're going to have these unofficial rulings and assumptions that ask and make people tone down their lists and/or be fluffy. In some games like Flames of War some books in some periods get excluded for various reasons, and the pretty big and somewhat official (from what I can tell) tournaments held near me have numerous unofficial rules changes like not being able to field artillery if you took naval gun support.
Frankly, the fact that the pitifully short wording in two books has people in tears because they feel forced or pressured to use game-altering supplements, whereas with other GW or FW supplements, particularly with trashy rules (cough cough planetstrike) are already off the table without a word (which with FW is even sillier as every scrap of wording implies they're part of the main game on the same level as Esc./SA yet they're excluded because people bitch about what suits them best) is pretty stupid to me.
Ignoring it because you think those people are just being delusional and moronic for pointing out that they're flaws in the games design only shows a certain bias in your views.
Delusional and moronic for saying that it's anything new as stated previously, you got this the wrong way round.
You can't hand wave away the problems as being a non-issue and claim the game is fine.
Uh, this a fundamental flaw in your logic. They're of exaggerated significance, and cried about when they can just be ignored on a level where maybe you even find other people to play, or convince your group in consensus to ignore them, or just adapt.
The problems are there. People saying they're problems are not being delusional and moronic.
People should stop treating it as though its a new trend, or as though they're special for quitting over it at the current period. Odds are its not going to change because Deathstars are an accepted part of the game and balance can't always be perfect, and the latter is true for any and all games. I'm not saying they shouldn't be upset.
You've stated cause but there is little to no effect like what you're implying, so this point is kind of moot. This just leads to bigger games overall in model count, which is not the same as the community playing points wise bigger games. And so what if they are, you don't have to cow-tow to their routine like the rest of your attitude implies is mandatory.
No, it really doesn't. Unofficial rulings and assumptions are a key part of any hobby group for any wargame. Unless your group is a no limit, super-competitive arena one (even then you'll find them), you're going to have these unofficial rulings and assumptions that ask and make people tone down their lists and/or be fluffy. In some games like Flames of War some books in some periods get excluded for various reasons, and the pretty big and somewhat official (from what I can tell) tournaments held near me have numerous unofficial rules changes like not being able to field artillery if you took naval gun support.
Frankly, the fact that the pitifully short wording in two books has people in tears because they feel forced or pressured to use game-altering supplements, whereas with other GW or FW supplements, particularly with trashy rules (cough cough planetstrike) are already off the table without a word (which with FW is even sillier as every scrap of wording implies they're part of the main game on the same level as Esc./SA yet they're excluded because people bitch about what suits them best) is pretty stupid to me.
Delusional and moronic for saying that it's anything new as stated previously, you got this the wrong way round.
Uh, this a fundamental flaw in your logic. They're of exaggerated significance, and cried about when they can just be ignored on a level where maybe you even find other people to play, or convince your group in consensus to ignore them, or just adapt.
Except if they're wrong.
On an unrelated note, its a little difficult to pick out your stuff when its only bolded. Maybe a different colour would help make it pop a little more.
I'll try to address this in the order its presented.
No one's saying that isn't a new trend, but a lot people are certainly unhappy the trend is continuing. Furthermore, no one's saying the balance should be perfect, but deathstars are a symptom of poor balance, especially internally. Some people would like to see that type of trend go away and are simply disappointed in the trend continuing with even more broken stuff like 2++ re-rollable deathstars.
My point about the game size growing larger was from a mechanical perspective; the costs of the models, the additions like double force org and allies, and things like Escalation all point towards the game rules designed at least in part with these things in mind. When you combine that with the rules change that would be more fitting in a skirmish level game, it makes you scratch your head at the intention of the game designer. And of course I don't have to follow their intention, but that's neither my point nor relevant either. I'm discussing game mechanics. It means 40k is a confused game when it comes to its scale; is it a skirmish game or a company level game better suited for 15mm models?
A game should be able to function on its own without community rulings; where such exist it shows a failure in a certain part of that game's design. Regardless of how other games fare in this department, the degree to which 40k is divided in the community is awful. The divide between 'competitive' and 'non-competitive' is based purely on the lack of balance between codices and the units within them. If the codices were balanced, there wouldn't be a distinction between a 'fluffy' list a 'non-fluffy' list. I think its stupid also the way the community is also divided on matters concerning what is 'normal' 40k, but that only shows how poorly balanced and written the game is.
Maybe we're just having a slight misunderstanding, but I agree that saying its new is incorrect, but disliking it is perfectly acceptable. Much of these problems have existed for some time, a lot of us are just tired of it still being an issue.
Its not a flaw in my logic. You being able to say its a non-issue is fine for you, but it may very much be a big issue for other players. Who are you to say its a minor problem for someone else? Who are you to judge what is an acceptable thing to complain about? Most people who do discuss these problems are also adapting and building better rules. It doesn't preclude from also discussing the flaws in the game.
Its never a good way to end a discussion by claiming people are wrong, just because. Why? Maybe explain a little more at the end. Have some sort of conclusion. Waving people away and calling them delusional and moronic because you think they're wrong is not a good way to convince anyone of your position.
LeadLegion wrote: Ultimately, 40K was designed as a game you sit down and play with your mates on a Sunday afternoon.
But it really isn't. 40k is designed to be a "game" that can be used to show kids how awesome their new space marine models are going to be. The idea of being able to play with them is just bait to put in front of the customers and hope to get more sales, whether or not anyone actually plays the game is a distant secondary concern. So you get a minimal-effort game that's maybe adequate for pushing some space marines around the table occasionally, but not much else. And you have a company that clearly has no interest in improving the game because the additional sales to people who like the improved game would not be enough to justify paying competent game designers to make it. It's much more efficient to hire the incompetents who can't get a job anywhere else and have them do a rush job every time you have a new model to sell. And hey, when tax season comes around you can write off their salaries as a charitable donation!
A casual "mates on a sunday afternoon" version of 40k that was specifically designed for that purpose would have much better balance, much more straightforward rules, and be a lot more fun.
AegisGrimm wrote: Lately I am actually gearing up for some idiotically small games of 2nd edition 40K. Like >500pts. It's essentially Kill Team mixed with Necromunda.
I too am doing exactly this!
I've made an Eldar and a Chaos Marine list, at 600 pts in 6th and at 1200 pts in 2nd, and I'm going to do a matching pair of battle reports. Once I get a mate to join me that is...
Did I fall asleep and now the new Nid and Space Marine codexes are winning every game? I hope not, my Nids liked being the underdogs.
What you've done is noticed that each edition has a handful of "most powerful armies/units", that's wargaming. There's always been an optimum loadout, you can either chase it forever or just play the game with like minded folks and ignore them.
Just to echo what someone said earlier, if it's stopped being fun, stop playing. Otherwise you are just cutting off your nose to spite your face.
People are saying all this has happened before. Yes arms races have. But not with nuclear weapons! The WWI and II arms races still made a strong and large military relevant. The cold war and nuclear weapons changed that (well after korea anyway).
Ranged D weapons are the equivalent. The game becomes small cheap MSU armies supporting a d weapon platform because nobody wants to lose 500pts in one roll of the dice.
Now I have not actually seen this happen, but GW have put the potential there for it to occur. Just gotta cross our fingers that it doesnt.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There have always been unbalanced codecies. But there have not always been nuclear weapons for all.
I think the only ranged D weapon outside of FW is the Revenant and even that's in the God of War slot. Play without the GoW slot and poof, all gone. Well, that's not totally true, I think there's a D weapon in Stronghold?
Just don't play with D weapons, GW have basically said "Here are rules for of you wanted Titans and other crazy stuff in 40k, a halfway between normal 40k and Apocalypse" if you don't want to use them then don't use them in your games, it's a very simple solution.
Also however silly D weapons get they will never outstrip the Virus Outbreak card from 2nd ed so yes, we have had nuclear weapons before, hell, 2nd Ed Eldar could easily be considered the nuclear response all by themselves.
And then there is the shining example of the Tyranid Codex:
1.) No allies of any sort.
2.) No Titans
3.) No D weapons
4.) No anti-aircraft
5.) No good units
6.) Only competitive units nerfed
7.) Several units deleted because they can.
You wanna face my 500 pt list with a Riptide in it?
When the riptide first came out, and we knew nothing about it, someone did use it. I killed it with lascannons. I havent played Tau since but im sure next time I wont be so lucky. So no I dont really want to play it again lol. I also think it looks ugly as a model.
Played as a casual Sunday afternoon game with a narrative structure and maybe even throwing the points system out the window (the way it used to be played in the Rogue Trader or Laserburn days) is still a great way to play 40K. Instead of playing a rulebook scenario, make one up.
How about a convoy ambush? The attacking player picks a number of stealthy or fast moving units with a decent number of heavy weapons. The defender sets up a mechanised column travelling lengthways down the centre of the board. Attacking player gets first turn. Attacker wins by getting 1VP for every enemy vehicle or unit killed or routed from the board. Defender gets 1VP for every unit of vehicle that makes it off the board with a set number of turns. Special rule: terrain is bad so no vehicle can move flat out and fast vehicles are limited to normal vehicle movement. Deployment: Defenders deploy in vehicles in line down middle of the board, no closer than 24" to any board edge. Attackers: Scouts/Infiltrators may deploy within 12" of vehicles, but out of LOS. All other attacking units arrive from reserves (any table edge) or Deepstrike.
We played this very scenario a few weeks ago. The attackers were a SM Captain with Jump-pack, three Scout Squads with Missile Launchers, two assault squads with melta and power fists. The defenders were four IG veteran squads in Chimera's escorted by a pair of Salamander scout vehicles and a Leman Russ.
Great fun game. No FOC. No points values. No where near balanced.
I suggest you try this sort of thing out before giving up on 40K altogether.
LeadLegion wrote: Ultimately, 40K was designed as a game you sit down and play with your mates on a Sunday afternoon.
But it really isn't. 40k is designed to be a "game" that can be used to show kids how awesome their new space marine models are going to be. The idea of being able to play with them is just bait to put in front of the customers and hope to get more sales, whether or not anyone actually plays the game is a distant secondary concern. So you get a minimal-effort game that's maybe adequate for pushing some space marines around the table occasionally, but not much else. And you have a company that clearly has no interest in improving the game because the additional sales to people who like the improved game would not be enough to justify paying competent game designers to make it. It's much more efficient to hire the incompetents who can't get a job anywhere else and have them do a rush job every time you have a new model to sell. And hey, when tax season comes around you can write off their salaries as a charitable donation!
A casual "mates on a sunday afternoon" version of 40k that was specifically designed for that purpose would have much better balance, much more straightforward rules, and be a lot more fun.
I think you've misinterpreted me a little. 40K Rogue Trader was originally built as a narrative game that you can sit down and play with your mates. Just read some of the original random scenario's included in the Rogue Trader rulebook. I agree that since then 40K has evolved to become a game system designed solely to sell more models (I even say so later in the same post) but the game today is still a reflection of it's Rogue Trader roots in that "game balance" has never been a consideration in 40K design philosophy.
Edit: Added deployment rules for the narrative convoy scenario.
It's been an arms race for a long time now; I stopped playing in 3rd edition and there was the same kind of garbage then: Iron Warriors, Mauleed Marines (6-man Las/Plas squads), 3x Wraithlords, Space Wolves having everything regular Marines had but better, etc. That's just how the game is.
I do think part of the solution is to play smaller points; too many people want to play huge 2k+ battles and that's when the game completely breaks down into who can launch nukes faster. I'd say the game is most balanced, inasmuch as it's balanced at all, from 750-1500 points. You could still fit some cheese in at 1500 but not everything you want to and certainly not the real game breaking things without really hurting your army.
@ Wayne: When you say you mean you stopped playing in 3rd ed do you mean that (like me) you left the game for a couple of editions but eventually came back to it?
I'm just asking for reasons of clarity: Plenty of people in Dakka seem to have stopped playing 40K a decade or more ago, haven't played a game since, yet still offer opinions on the current state of the game.
Personally, I think you're spot on with regards to your comments on points levels and (im)balance skew, but I'm just curious about your current "playing status"
LeadLegion wrote: @ Wayne: When you say you mean you stopped playing in 3rd ed do you mean that (like me) you left the game for a couple of editions but eventually came back to it?
I'm just asking for reasons of clarity: Plenty of people in Dakka seem to have stopped playing 40K a decade or more ago, haven't played a game since, yet still offer opinions on the current state of the game.
Personally, I think you're spot on with regards to your comments on points levels and (im)balance skew, but I'm just curious about your current "playing status"
Kinda.. I've wanted to come back to the game, but the prices and shoddy rules turn me off and really make me think it's not worth it. I mostly lurk at my FLGS to watch others play and talk about the game. I was going to buy some things, eager to start again, but then I started to calculate how much it would actually cost me to even get a starting army and with all the problems the rules seem to have... I haven't actually played a game of 6th edition because I feel like GW is just screwing around.
Iranna wrote: Are people forgetting that the new Knight Titan is really bad?
Iranna.
That's not the point. The point is that GW has added more and more things that were beforehand solely the domain of Epic and meant for huge battles and said it's okay to use them in regular 40k games.
That's not the point. The point is that GW has added more and more things that were beforehand solely the domain of Epic and meant for huge battles and said it's okay to use them in regular 40k games.
Such as?
If you mean Riptides and Wraithknights, then I would remind you that MCs with 6 wounds and/or a 2+ save have always existed in the game a la Tyranids.
If you mean Escalation, then I would remind you that it's an expansion. As in, you have to choose to allow it.
All GW has done is added more variety to the game, it's up to you whether you want to use it or not.
That's not the point. The point is that GW has added more and more things that were beforehand solely the domain of Epic and meant for huge battles and said it's okay to use them in regular 40k games.
Such as?
If you mean Riptides and Wraithknights, then I would remind you that MCs with 6 wounds and/or a 2+ save have always existed in the game a la Tyranids.
If you mean Escalation, then I would remind you that it's an expansion. As in, you have to choose to allow it.
All GW has done is added more variety to the game, it's up to you whether you want to use it or not.
Iranna.
For NOW it's an expansion. The rumors of 7th edition state that Escalation will become part of the core game, so not so easily refused as much as you can refuse to play with Flyers today.
I maintain what GW should have done is make a solid set of core rules that are balanced for competitive play, and THEN add everything else as optional rules to help you "forge the narrative" with campaign/story games where you don't care so much about balance. Fortifications, Flyers, Escalation, etc. should have all been "advanced" rules with a disclaimer that states it's meant for adding flavor to themed battles, and not so much meant to be used when you turn up for a game at the local shop. Basically they are doing the opposite: You don't need rules in the game to come up with scenarios for narratives and campaigns, but those rules make competitive play very hard to balance.
Anyways it's a moot point as for me personally it's not even the rules that make me not want to play, it's having to spend a few hundred dollars on even a starting army.
For NOW it's an expansion. The rumors of 7th edition state that Escalation will become part of the core game, so not so easily refused as much as you can refuse to play with Flyers today.
I maintain what GW should have done is make a solid set of core rules that are balanced for competitive play, and THEN add everything else as optional rules to help you "forge the narrative" with campaign/story games where you don't care so much about balance. Fortifications, Flyers, Escalation, etc. should have all been "advanced" rules with a disclaimer that states it's meant for adding flavor to themed battles, and not so much meant to be used when you turn up for a game at the local shop. Basically they are doing the opposite: You don't need rules in the game to come up with scenarios for narratives and campaigns, but those rules make competitive play very hard to balance.
So essentially, you're getting worked up over what could happen, rather than what has happened? Until you've got the book in your hands, I'd reserve judgement such as this. Wait until summer, maybe then your tears will be valid.
With the exception of fliers, that's what they done? They introduced 6th edition, then added all the Escalation expansions a year later. You're complaining about something they didn't do: namely, break the game by forcing you to play with Expansions you do not like. Allies, fortifications and fliers are nowhere near as fundamentally terrible as you're making out. You have the choice to use Escalation and the like.
Essentially, don't hate the game, hate the player who takes advantage of it.
It's interesting to see all the different view points. Make no mistake i think they're all valid points and views.
I was going to put into my original post that i think 2 codexes recently released are a slight exception to the rule: Dark Angels and Tyranids... Anyway.
I think my annoyance is more that push by the owning company to make the points i raised earlier more prominent. Like bigger and better units.
I also understand its just a cause of reality, the company GW needs to make money. Making a balanced game that ticks by wont really do that. So the only thing they can do is introduce new toys, reduce the points so you have to buy more and then go from there.
I think maybe i need to look at kill team and go from there.
I also don't have a local place to play games, so i only get occasional games on vassal where people dont worry about maxing out things because there is no intrinsic cost.
I would still very much like to see a more balanced game with maybe less out right carnage.
I still feel the game largely revolves around i go first and nuke your army then win.
the exact same threads about "broken things ruining the game" were written fifteen years ago when 40k third edition was a thing. you talk about the helldrake? meet the eldar starcannon of third edition. meet the alaitoc disruption table. meet crystal targetting matrices. meet ulthwe seer councils. meet third ed blood angels.
And it continues.
How about fourth edition? ever here of the abomination that was the Siren Prince, or else Iron Warriors?
Fifth edition - blood angels, space wolves and grey knights.
Sixth edition. tau and eldar.
Not being cheeky, but things that broke the game have always been there. you have not stumbled onto some hitherto unknown conspiracy, or failure that somehow slipped by the vigilance of the 40k community this is simply how GW writes games.
And there are solutions.
(1) treat all the new stuff as "options". GW give you the tools. You, the gamer have the choice to use them or not. play with a friend, and chat and decide what you want. Dont look to what GW does as a "how to" guide - dont look to GW to tell you how to play. - look at it as great models that you can do with as you wish. how about you take control? how about you decide? the best way to enjoy 40k is via a casual, co-operative and gentlemanly manner.
(2) play other games.
(3) grow older and bitter, consumed by hatred and rage,like many other 40k vets
/slowclap
I came here to say this and found myself pleasantly surprised.
(4) Actually learn to enjoy the game?
On a separate note can I ask is a slowclap a sign of approbation in the US, as it is just the opposite here, a sign of derision and mockery.
I also understand its just a cause of reality, the company GW needs to make money. Making a balanced game that ticks by wont really do that. So the only thing they can do is introduce new toys, reduce the points so you have to buy more and then go from there.
I don't think this is true at all. Plenty of games have balanced rules in a good ruleset that make plenty of money and are experiencing significant growth.
If GW's latest financial report is a sign of anything, its that their plan of making poorly balanced rules, introducing new toys and reducing points is stagnating their growth.
On a separate note can I ask is a slowclap a sign of approbation in the US, as it is just the opposite here, a sign of derision and mockery.
I don't think so. The "original" (tm) slow clap is more the slow clap of someone breaking the silence, where nobody else dares to clap or expected to be impressed by a given performance. It usually continues with more and more people joining in the clap and, at least in hollywood movies, ending with standing ovations.
The cynical version came later. I could be wrong though.
@Wayne: Thanks for clearing that up. I was curious.
@ Boniface: Try playing a few scenarios where you pick forces based on what it appropriate to the narrative of the scenario, rather than worrying about points. You'll find that this kind of game feels very much like a game of killteam, but on a larger scale.
@Drager: That slow-clap thing used to confuse me for a while too.. Those movies where somebody starts a slow-clap and then everybody else joins in with enthusiastic applause had me scratching my head.
@Zwei: Nah. The derisive slow-clap has been a "thing" in Britain since at least my grand-father's youth and possibly as far back as the Tudor era.
Small games fix a lot of problems... but small games suck. If I wanted to play small games, I wouldn't be playing 40k in the first place.
The problem with 40k is it can't decide what it wants to be. In 3rd ed. it became a slightly-larger-than-skirmish game, and I personally liked that. Then they just started adding units that would never be seen in a game of that size, flyers, superheavies, wraithknights, riptides, I wasn't even a huge fan of the Land Raider when it came out.
I want to play 1500pt-2000pt games, just without the large-model spam (and also with minimal death start units).
IMO, GW should come out with a tiered system of playing, so instead of saying it's free for all and let the gamers sort out the mess (because sorting out the mess yourself is only really practical if you play with the same people regularly), actually tier the units so gamers can pick a tier they want to play at.
You could even base the tiers on the old Epic detachment system. Where you select your army as if it were a detachment for Epic 40k to give severe penalties for wanting to take certain models by limiting what else you can take.
In the UK slow clapping is the traditional way for an audience to show its disapprobation of being kept waiting long beyond the start of a live show at the theatre, etc.
A sort of "Get a move on and start the show, we're bored".
It has also been used as a form of heckling during an event.
A number of games systems use the detachment system at the moment. Flames of War, for example. There was a Weird War II game that did it really well (but the name is escaping me just now).
It would certainly shake up the game a bit. Not sure if it would actually improve game balance. Match-ups between certain types of detachment would be pretty unbalanced. At least without introducing lots of new models to the game to cover the gaps (I'm thinking specifically of a typical infantry detachment versus an airmobile detachment full of fliers, but I expect there will be others).
That being said, it's an interesting notion. I think I like it.
@Zwei: Yeah, that bit at the end of cool runnings is a classic example of culture-clash where a slow-clap is concerned. I remember having an argument at school during an English module on media studies about whether the slow-clappers were mocking the team or not. I remember thinking that the guy who started clapping slowly was being a git and that the folks that started clapping "properly" later were not only showing their support for the team, but also showing their disapproval of the guy who clapped first. The teacher had a very hard time convincing us that the clapping was approbation right from the start.
Boniface wrote: So with the imminent arrival of the new Knight in standard 40K brandishing a big gun and D weapon I think I'm going to throw in the towel.
It's been getting obscene with every codex getting some sort of 1 up more powerful gizmo designed to be better than or a counter for the previous thing (to an extent). From what I've seen the only balanced (I use the term loosely) codexes have been dark angels, and nids.
Chaos got the drake which started the ball rolling. Tau got the riptide that pretty much broke the game, then it all fell into disarray with Eldar getting mega buffs across the board, wraithknights and waveserpents. Space marines couldn't be left out in the cold so they got (I know it's old from previous editions) grav guns to help counter MCs and vehicle spam. Now the titans are making their way into 40k.
It's at this point I just give up. It's just not fun or funny anymore. It's basically geared towards 1 turn victory.
What happened to the days when you would field a small group of guys and try to overcome each other with some mediocum of skill?
You just wouldn't see hordes of Eldar serpents, or titans running a mock on every battlefield.
Does anyone else feel like 40k has just become an arms race?
Do you play because you like the game? Or do you play because you want to win tournaments?
I'm lucky, my son got me into the game. We play at home for fun. Because we like to play. We make up rules like, 1500 points infantry only. If the only reason you play is to show the models at the local shop, or because you have to win every tournament than that's where your problem is. You're turning this hobby into a job.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The problem with 40k is it can't decide what it wants to be. In 3rd ed. it became a slightly-larger-than-skirmish game, and I personally liked that. Then they just started adding units that would never be seen in a game of that size, flyers, superheavies, wraithknights, riptides, I wasn't even a huge fan of the Land Raider when it came out.
I want to play 1500pt-2000pt games, just without the large-model spam (and also with minimal death start units).
I agree, I don't like the direction the models have taken. It used to be that a Leman Russ or a Wraithlord looked big and imposing on the table, but this has been since skewed by superlarge tanks and walkers. What's worse is that their proportions are the same as the old units, so it messes with your sense of scale (the Wraithknight is particularly bad about this, since it is has regular humanoid proportions).
I really dug the look and feel of the game circa the early 2000's, with tons of little troops and tanks, and the occasional giant alien monster. That sort of scale looks really cool on the table.
Did I fall asleep and now the new Nid and Space Marine codexes are winning every game? I hope not, my Nids liked being the underdogs.
Right. Codex creep - the idea that all new codices are slightly more powerful than the last, has always been a lie.
Yes, we have tau and to a lesser extent, eldar, but we also have DA, CSM, SM, and Tyranid, and those are hardly overpowered armies rolling over everyone. It's pretty hard to make the case for some spiraling arms race when only codices by Mat Ward and one by Jeremy Vetock have been participating.
Did I fall asleep and now the new Nid and Space Marine codexes are winning every game? I hope not, my Nids liked being the underdogs.
Right. Codex creep - the idea that all new codices are slightly more powerful than the last, has always been a lie.
Yes, we have tau and to a lesser extent, eldar, but we also have DA, CSM, SM, and Tyranid, and those are hardly overpowered armies rolling over everyone. It's pretty hard to make the case for some spiraling arms race when only codices by Mat Ward and one by Jeremy Vetock have been participating.
..Oh?
Only Mat Ward? Phil Kelly and Eldar excluded? Considering his 4th edition skimmerspam, his Space Wolves (one of the top three dex in 5th)
And then you have Cruddace, and his IG (One of the top ones in 5th).
Ward's worst never compared to Eldar and Tau, who have drastically changed the meta around themselves.
Did I fall asleep and now the new Nid and Space Marine codexes are winning every game? I hope not, my Nids liked being the underdogs.
Right. Codex creep - the idea that all new codices are slightly more powerful than the last, has always been a lie.
Yes, we have tau and to a lesser extent, eldar, but we also have DA, CSM, SM, and Tyranid, and those are hardly overpowered armies rolling over everyone. It's pretty hard to make the case for some spiraling arms race when only codices by Mat Ward and one by Jeremy Vetock have been participating.
You mean, besides that fact that Phil Kelly has broken 3 editions in a row, with his Codexexs?? Are you seriously going to play that stupid?
I'll lay it out for you.
Phil Kelly- Eldar 4th. Dominated the tournament scene when it was released, until 5th toned down skimmers.
Phil Kelly- Space Wolves Dominated the tourney scene with IG, until Grey Knights were released at the end of 5th
Phil Kelly-Eldar 6th. Now dominating the Tourney scene...
Phil Kelly also wrote CSM, and DE, and worked on CSM and tyranid (5th) and Imperial Guard (3.5). I also don't think Space Wolves was that stupid overpowered either. Much more just a few people being pouty about bloodclaws and longfangs.
So once again, it's the codex creep blinders on. You forget all of the good or reasonably balanced codices and focus only on the couple of them that you don't like. It's that kind of disregard for data that makes the idea of codex creep possible.
Plus, in this specific case, the only thing you're showing is that Phil Kelly is a bad eldar writer. Cruddance is bad at writing tyranid, but that doesn't mean all of his other work is overpowered garbage.
Ailaros wrote: Phil Kelly also wrote CSM, and DE, and worked on CSM and tyranid (5th) and Imperial Guard (3.5). I also don't think Space Wolves was that stupid overpowered either. Much more just a few people being pouty about bloodclaws and longfangs.
So once again, it's the codex creep blinders on. You forget all of the good or reasonably balanced codices and focus only on the couple of them that you don't like. It's that kind of disregard for data that makes the idea of codex creep possible.
Plus, in this specific case, the only thing you're showing is that Phil Kelly is a bad eldar writer. Cruddance is bad at writing tyranid, but that doesn't mean all of his other work is overpowered garbage.
Does one good codex fix all the others one has to suffer through for an entire edition? The reasonable don't do jack when you have to deal with the errors that continue to plague the system for years to come.
Also CSM is indicative of his natural style, a few must takes, and the rest are trash, it's a poorly written codex that didn't fix any of the errors of the old while adding new issues to deal with, there's a reason it's called Codex: Heldrake considering it's that one unit that's keeping them relevant.
DE was an alright codex, but still had bad internal balance, and how many people liked the 5th edition Tyranids again?
Space Wolves were one of the armies placing very, very highly in tournaments. So yes they were actually one of the armies that dealt with GK on the Tournament scene and placed very well.
And before 5th edition IG was pretty much one of the lowest tier armies on the chart, so it's not as if 3.5 IG was any good if that was your idea of balance.
And as for reasonably balanced or good, I suppose you shouldn't be speaking about ward then, considering his Space Marines and Blood Angels were pretty middle average, his GK were built for 6th, along with necrons.
As of late, I've gone back to Fantasy for pick up games because it's better balanced. I didn't think that'd be a statement I'd ever say whilst 8e magic is as broken as it is, but there we go. See, in Fantasy, I can actually make a good army for ~£250 which I can field and play with. My armies will contain about 70 models in a few units. I can easily then add details to the units, make unit fillers with spare parts etc and bring the cost down further. On top of that, the game is fairly fast to play and there's a lot of comp stuff should you wish to play that way. Every phase of the game, be it movement, magic, shooting or combat, is very important to your army. You must be able to compete in all phases, or at least minimise damage from them or else you will lose. Armies can rarely be constructed in an unfluffy way and even in tournament lists, you'll see that many of the top players have something which you could easily see being in a background story. Should you wish to use a Forge World army, you will be welcomed pretty much everywhere - I'm yet to see any refusal to play Chaos Dwarfs anywhere at all.
Why do I bring this up? Because this is where 40k used to be - cheaper, faster and lower model counts. Instead, we have an extremely bloated rules system with everything being a corner case of a corner case where model counts are regularly huge and the game is more about gaming the system than actually trying to play well in all aspects of the game. Tau and Eldar basically totally ignore the assault phase as anything other than a way to lock up pests and kill tanks - they can easily win without ever seeing combat VS quite a few armies. Movement is so absurdly important in 40k that we have a system where whoever can move furthest with durable units in one turn basically always wins; this was true at the start of 6e with Necron flyers+GK for support, it's still true now with Eldar just zipping around and firing with stupidly durable tanks. Str D is somehow even MORE broken than flipping magic spells - I remember getting super annoyed at the spell which was hard to cast in the lore of metal which just turns you into gold on a 5+ with no chance to save; the fact that there's a gun which does the same on a 2+ in 40k is almost unbelievable. The background is not represented at all in 40k unless you specifically try to, and even then it's not even possible a bunch of the time. The best lists in events are things which are utterly absurd in the face of the fluff, which severs the player base into people who'd rather win and people who'd rather represent the background; a needless and frustrating division for many of us. Games of 1850 points take about 2 and a half hours between experienced players, and about 4 if someone is new to an army, which is dumb. A "good" army in 40k can cost anywhere from £300 (if you're using the jet council) to almost £800 (most horde lists like IG, almost any list with a lot of Forge World, almost any Escalation list by non-Necrons, etc); this not only costs out new players but makes trying to stay with the releases really strenuous. There's absolutely no semblance of balance in any of the rules and there's still a divide over FW as the rules swing so wildly between broken (the R'varna, thudd guns at the start of 6e) and utterly useless (most of the Eldar stuff not called a hornet, all the DE stuff). In contrast to Fantasy, I'm yet to see a single tournament that allows FW army lists; heck, I've seen people refuse to play them in casual games. The community is so divided, so in contempt of GW and the creators that it doesn't trust anything that anyone else says and causes endless arguments. Want Escalation? Be prepared for whining about Revenants from people who dislike it. Want a game without it? Prepare for whining about jet councils from people who like it. It's just a mess. There's no consensus on what's broken, no consensus on what should and shouldn't be allowed, the mere mention of comp to some is an anathema and to others mandatory, allies are broken but not broken according to various groups - the entire thing is a total joke.
Does this mean Fantasy is a good rule set? No, not at all. It's not terrible and only needs minor tweaks but it's still got a lot of issues. The fact that a rule set which made people quit in droves is less bloated, easier to pick up, clearer and more fluid than the current state of 40k is my way of showing what a pile of trash GW has left us with. Pick up games are incredibly hard to set up; rules are split here, there and everywhere; comp is being introduced despite vocal objections; you can't guarantee that if you pick up a box of figure it'll be remotely usable; an entire phase of the game is now more important to stop shooting than it is to actually do damage which is the opposite of the intent; games are regularly won by last minute contests and hiding rather than fighting; Str D is being pushed hard and is the most broken thing in the game by far, worse than 2e virus bombs and to top it all, it can be fairly boring to play rather than actually fun. The system as it stands is only really good for narrative games (which is all I play any more, anything else is a waste of time and takes as much effort to set up) and it's not even particularly good for that due to the non-fluffy powerful units. I absolutely hate what GW has done over the past 2 editions - 5e was decent for tournaments as lots of vehicles circumvented a lot of the bloatedness and was fairly fast to play, but the fact that just making them a bit worse then adding randomness created the slow game of today shows it wasn't a good rule set at all.
I won't lie - I still have fun games in 40k, they're just far fewer than ever. I almost wish Fantasy hadn't died the way it did because honestly, I'd rather play the most brutal, annoying magic gun line in that than almost any normal 40k game against Tau or Eldar, because at least I could still participate in the game and not just play hide and seek. It's a sad state of affairs indeed. I'm going to just take a break from it for a while, see how I feel about it after that but if this trend of garbage doesn't stop, I can't see a reason to play. I have more fun in other systems and if I wanted a frustrating, slow and hard to establish game of something which goes on forever, I'l just play monopoly with someone who hordes houses. At least I don't have to be worried my piece will be redundant in a month because the dog can **** on the pavement and lower property costs then.
Ailaros wrote: Phil Kelly also wrote CSM, and DE, and worked on CSM and tyranid (5th) and Imperial Guard (3.5). I also don't think Space Wolves was that stupid overpowered either. Much more just a few people being pouty about bloodclaws and longfangs.
So once again, it's the codex creep blinders on. You forget all of the good or reasonably balanced codices and focus only on the couple of them that you don't like. It's that kind of disregard for data that makes the idea of codex creep possible.
Plus, in this specific case, the only thing you're showing is that Phil Kelly is a bad eldar writer. Cruddance is bad at writing tyranid, but that doesn't mean all of his other work is overpowered garbage.
So, are you backpeddling from your previous statement? Because you said that only Codices by Mat Ward, and one by Jeremy Vetock have been participating. This is clearly not the case, as I have demonstrated with Phil Kelly being significantly worse in the codex creep, than either of the two individuals you mentioned, as it is 3 editions in a row that he has caused codex creep to.
Are you going to forget the reasonably balanced Codexes that Matt Ward put out? Like, 5th Edition SM and Blood Angels? GK were shown to be quite balanced, in the edition they were intended for as well. (6th)
It's pretty clear you are the one that has the blinders on here, as you are just picking and choosing what facts you think are convenient. This is pretty much the normal course for your posts though, so I'm not surprised.
Ailaros wrote: Phil Kelly also wrote CSM, and DE, and worked on CSM and tyranid (5th) and Imperial Guard (3.5). I also don't think Space Wolves was that stupid overpowered either. Much more just a few people being pouty about bloodclaws and longfangs.
So once again, it's the codex creep blinders on. You forget all of the good or reasonably balanced codices and focus only on the couple of them that you don't like. It's that kind of disregard for data that makes the idea of codex creep possible.
Plus, in this specific case, the only thing you're showing is that Phil Kelly is a bad eldar writer. Cruddance is bad at writing tyranid, but that doesn't mean all of his other work is overpowered garbage.
So, are you backpeddling from your previous statement? Because you said that only Codices by Mat Ward, and one by Jeremy Vetock have been participating. This is clearly not the case, as I have demonstrated with Phil Kelly being significantly worse in the codex creep, than either of the two individuals you mentioned, as it is 3 editions in a row that he has caused codex creep to.
Are you going to forget the reasonably balanced Codexes that Matt Ward put out? Like, 5th Edition SM and Blood Angels? GK were shown to be quite balanced, in the edition they were intended for as well. (6th)
It's pretty clear you are the one that has the blinders on here, as you are just picking and choosing what facts you think are convenient. This is pretty much the normal course for your posts though, so I'm not surprised.
I think the game is embracing the non-competitive aspect these days.
GW has finally accepted that they aren't doing a good job of balancing the game. In turn, their solution is move toward the completely opposite end of the spectrum (queue music : Redfoo - Let's Get Ridiculous) - make the game as outrageous as the fluff, a total meat grinder.
We have choices:
- embrace the madness
- have gaming group/store play with limitations or house rules
- move on to another game system
Current rumours hold that FW and GW sites will be merging - this is pretty much the final step towards making FW official in 40k. I think GW has finally realized that there are too many types of hobbyists/players out there - trying to standardize gameplay is going to always rub some people the wrong way. Instead this new approach is to give us all the tools we could ever want and essentially build our own adventures from here.
Personally, I will be embracing the madness - for anyone interested in joining me, buying a knight is the first step to recovery
gossipmeng wrote: I think the game is embracing the non-competitive aspect these days.
GW has finally accepted that they aren't doing a good job of balancing the game. In turn, their solution is move toward the completely opposite end of the spectrum (queue music : Redfoo - Let's Get Ridiculous) - make the game as outrageous as the fluff, a total meat grinder.
We have choices:
- embrace the madness
- have gaming group/store play with limitations or house rules
- move on to another game system
Current rumours hold that FW and GW sites will be merging - this is pretty much the final step towards making FW official in 40k. I think GW has finally realized that there are too many types of hobbyists/players out there - trying to standardize gameplay is going to always rub some people the wrong way. Instead this new approach is to give us all the tools we could ever want and essentially build our own adventures from here.
Personally, I will be embracing the madness - for anyone interested in joining me, buying a knight is the first step to recovery
A solid core ruleset with balanced codexes and a variety of exciting optional rules providing for micro skirmish and super-large game styles supported by add-on unit types?
Sasori wrote:It's pretty clear you are the one that has the blinders on here, as you are just picking and choosing what facts you think are convenient. This is pretty much the normal course for your posts though, so I'm not surprised.
:blankstare:
... Ooookay, so let me try this again:
Right. Codex creep - the idea that all new codices are slightly more powerful than the last, has always been a lie.
Yes, we have tau and to a lesser extent, eldar, but we also have DA, CSM, SM, and Tyranid, and those are hardly overpowered armies rolling over everyone. It's pretty hard to make the case for some spiraling arms race.
Do you have any intention of addressing the point I was making, or were you just nit-picking and need to be put on my ignore list?
gossipmeng wrote: I think the game is embracing the non-competitive aspect these days.
GW has finally accepted that they aren't doing a good job of balancing the game. In turn, their solution is move toward the completely opposite end of the spectrum (queue music : Redfoo - Let's Get Ridiculous) - make the game as outrageous as the fluff, a total meat grinder.
We have choices:
- embrace the madness
- have gaming group/store play with limitations or house rules
- move on to another game system
Current rumours hold that FW and GW sites will be merging - this is pretty much the final step towards making FW official in 40k. I think GW has finally realized that there are too many types of hobbyists/players out there - trying to standardize gameplay is going to always rub some people the wrong way. Instead this new approach is to give us all the tools we could ever want and essentially build our own adventures from here.
Personally, I will be embracing the madness - for anyone interested in joining me, buying a knight is the first step to recovery
A solid core ruleset with balanced codexes and a variety of exciting optional rules providing for micro skirmish and super-large game styles supported by add-on unit types?
I can see exactly how everyone would hate that.
Totally. Who wants a game where you can take anything in your codex and stand a chance? It's much better to tell people they can't take so many riptides or deathstars.
gossipmeng wrote: I think the game is embracing the non-competitive aspect these days.
GW has finally accepted that they aren't doing a good job of balancing the game. In turn, their solution is move toward the completely opposite end of the spectrum (queue music : Redfoo - Let's Get Ridiculous) - make the game as outrageous as the fluff, a total meat grinder.
We have choices:
- embrace the madness
- have gaming group/store play with limitations or house rules
- move on to another game system
Current rumours hold that FW and GW sites will be merging - this is pretty much the final step towards making FW official in 40k. I think GW has finally realized that there are too many types of hobbyists/players out there - trying to standardize gameplay is going to always rub some people the wrong way. Instead this new approach is to give us all the tools we could ever want and essentially build our own adventures from here.
Personally, I will be embracing the madness - for anyone interested in joining me, buying a knight is the first step to recovery
A solid core ruleset with balanced codexes and a variety of exciting optional rules providing for micro skirmish and super-large game styles supported by add-on unit types?
I can see exactly how everyone would hate that.
Totally. Who wants a game where you can take anything in your codex and stand a chance? It's much better to tell people they can't take so many riptides or deathstars.
It would be much better to have a company that gave a damn about having balanced rules instead of sticking their heads in the sand with this "forge the narrative" rubbish. Balance the codexes and stick the fringe "used to be in Epic not 40k" stuff and broken things like Allies into an optional (i.e. opponent's permission) ruleset (40k Advanced?) for narrative/campaign games only and keep that crap out of regular games.
I want to play a game in which any player can vom out a new super-unit with some kind of notional play balance, so what I would like a set of vehicle design rules.
They did. Back in Rogue Trader. The result was Landraiders, Rhino's, Dreadnaughts and even Landspeeders with Void Shields. It was a nightmare.
One of the most deadly models in the game at one point was a space marine skimmer made out of airfix spares and (I am not kidding) a roll on deodorant bottle. It even had rules and a "how too" guide published in White Dwarf.
I think it was one of Rick Priestly's creations.
The vehicle rules were really good for narrative scenarios and having a laugh over the gaming table with your mates. But in terms of creating a balanced gaming environment they were a bit of a nightmare.
JPong wrote: Totally. Who wants a game where you can take anything in your codex and stand a chance? It's much better to tell people they can't take so many riptides or deathstars.
Except that they aren't arguing against that being better, they are arguing that this is the way it is and you can either complain/leave the game etc or roll with it. The fact someone is still having fun doesn't automatically mean they think balanced rule sets are stupid.
Martel732 wrote:
But marines are no where near the fluff. Where in the fluff does it say "Marines are the bitches of Tau and Eldar and Chaos Demons"
A marine chapter wiped out a nobody "made up to die" Craftworld and in retaliation Aliatoc wiped out that marine chapter with no indicator of even noticeable difficulty or casualties, so if Eldar players paint their guys blue is it appropriate?
Even assuming you wanted to model to fluff there are so many things out there in the 40k-verse that are far scarier than a marine, it's only the Imperium that thinks they are all that.
There are untold billions of Nids, should Gaunts be 1pt for 10? Fluff is fluff, rules are rules.
Yeah, they expect you to self nerf, they expect you to treat their game as a game between people aiming for mutual fun not a competitive sport because it's how *they* play and it's their game. I wonder if it's a cultural thing because GW has always had that very much old British attitude approach to the game and not the competitive one.
If you don't like what 40k is becoming/has become then *don't play it* vote with your feet and wallet. There are plenty of systems out there that actively want to cater to the competitive crowd that if thats the experience you are looking for would be happy for your patronage.
Dunklezahn wrote: I wonder if it's a cultural thing because GW has always had that very much old British attitude approach to the game and not the competitive one.
It's not a cultural thing, it's a quality thing. The problems that make 40k horrible as a competitive game don't make it a good "casual" game, they just make it a bad game in general. The issue is that GW doesn't care enough to invest the time and money required to make a good game, all that nonsense about "beer and pretzels" is just GW-supported masochism where people with lots of money invested in the game have to tell themselves that there's some redeeming quality to the mess and therefore they haven't wasted their money. Which works great for GW, because they can throw out garbage release after garbage release and their customers will rabidly praise its flaws as if they were virtues.
It's not a cultural thing, it's a quality thing. The problems that make 40k horrible as a competitive game don't make it a good "casual" game, they just make it a bad game in general. The issue is that GW doesn't care enough to invest the time and money required to make a good game, all that nonsense about "beer and pretzels" is just GW-supported masochism where people with lots of money invested in the game have to tell themselves that there's some redeeming quality to the mess and therefore they haven't wasted their money. Which works great for GW, because they can throw out garbage release after garbage release and their customers will rabidly praise its flaws as if they were virtues.
So everyone still enjoying 40k is a masochist lying to themselves about it's redeeming qualities which according to you it doesn't have?
Yeah, I don't think you need me to point out how much of a massive generalization powered by your own bias that is. You don't like the game, we get it, but a lot of us are still having great fun.
If I'm having fun playing it then to me it's a good game, see above for whether that's true or not. If to make a game balanced it has to be like Warmahordes or Magic (which I often see people touting as *balanced*) you can keep it, I found those games boring beyond belief.
The reason I say cultural thing is that a lot of the Brits I play with are treating it like a game, with the aim for both players to have fun whereas a lot of the people who want to play to produce a winner seem to have other flags by their names, it's just an observation of course.
Dunklezahn wrote: So everyone still enjoying 40k is a masochist lying to themselves about it's redeeming qualities which according to you it doesn't have?
No, the masochists are the people who act like 40k is a great game because it has horrible balance and broken rules. You know, people like you, who talk about how "casual" the game is and how competitive players are playing the wrong game. Someone who enjoys the fluff/models and has fun despite the awful rules is just an average player.
If to make a game balanced it has to be like Warmahordes or Magic (which I often see people touting as *balanced*) you can keep it, I found those games boring beyond belief.
Yeah, how boring it must be to have lots of viable strategies and be able to show up to a random pickup game and have a fair and enjoyable experience without having to spend an hour negotiating about which overpowered stuff should be allowed.
The reason I say cultural thing is that a lot of the Brits I play with are treating it like a game, with the aim for both players to have fun whereas a lot of the people who want to play to produce a winner seem to have other flags by their names, it's just an observation of course.
No, you're just missing the point. Once again, the problems with 40k that make it a bad competitive game don't make it a better game for playing the game with your "British" attitude of "just have fun". They make it a worse game for that as well as a worse game for competitive play. And they come from GW's laziness and incompetence, not a decision to make a great "casual" game even at the expense of competitive play.
It's not a cultural thing, it's a quality thing. The problems that make 40k horrible as a competitive game don't make it a good "casual" game, they just make it a bad game in general. The issue is that GW doesn't care enough to invest the time and money required to make a good game, all that nonsense about "beer and pretzels" is just GW-supported masochism where people with lots of money invested in the game have to tell themselves that there's some redeeming quality to the mess and therefore they haven't wasted their money. Which works great for GW, because they can throw out garbage release after garbage release and their customers will rabidly praise its flaws as if they were virtues.
So everyone still enjoying 40k is a masochist lying to themselves about it's redeeming qualities which according to you it doesn't have?
Yeah, I don't think you need me to point out how much of a massive generalization powered by your own bias that is. You don't like the game, we get it, but a lot of us are still having great fun.
If I'm having fun playing it then to me it's a good game, see above for whether that's true or not. If to make a game balanced it has to be like Warmahordes or Magic (which I often see people touting as *balanced*) you can keep it, I found those games boring beyond belief.
The reason I say cultural thing is that a lot of the Brits I play with are treating it like a game, with the aim for both players to have fun whereas a lot of the people who want to play to produce a winner seem to have other flags by their names, it's just an observation of course.
I wouldn't say a lot are having fun playing it.... The huge vast majority are having fun playing. Because its a fun game, Compromise what you want from the game with your friend (as you do with all games, because all games are dependent on the opponent. Thats why elite sports teams that play at the Olympics don't play against school kids) and there is very little to complain about. I agree, I dont like war machine and so forth, I think it looks awful and so forth. What people like pregeriinn need to realize is that nobody cares what they want because they are a tiny minority. Almost all GW players like the game and buy all the latest products and so on even if they arent 100% happy with the product, (which is impossible, there is always something to improve).
I havent noticed the culture thing yet, but now you mentioned it ill keep a look out.
No, the masochists are the people who act like 40k is a great game because it has horrible balance and broken rules. You know, people like you, who talk about how "casual" the game is and how competitive players are playing the wrong game. Someone who enjoys the fluff/models and has fun despite the awful rules is just an average player.
Lets cover how many things i consider wrong with this comment:
1. "No, the masochists are the people who act like 40k is a great game because it has horrible balance and broken rules" No-ones doing that, no-one is saying "this games rules are broken, that makes it great" They are saying they like the rules you hate and so are having fun, your opinion is not fact. This is a strawman we see used time and again despite no-one ever saying it. Show me somewhere I have claimed bad rules make a good game, rules you don't like sure, but bad ones?
2. who talk about how "casual" the game is and how competitive players are playing the wrong game If you aren't having fun and don't find the rules suit the way you want the game to play then you *are* playing the wrong game, casual/tourney/pew pew mini thrower. The vast majority of people complaining about the rules seem to be tourney style players however so it would seem 40k is not what they want in a game.
3.Someone who enjoys the fluff/models and has fun despite the awful rules is just an average player. So, someone who chooses not to play tourney 40k is a statement on the quality of their ability to play the game? Hardly, just as not all tourney players are grand masters of strategy not all casual players are merely average at best. That or by average player you mean "the vast majority of" in which case you are claiming most people find the rules to be bad but play regardless, also a sweeping generalization where you attribute your own opinion to the nameless masses.
Yeah, how boring it must be to have lots of viable strategies and be able to show up to a random pickup game and have a fair and enjoyable experience without having to spend an hour negotiating about which overpowered stuff should be allowed.
Yes, I'd rather have teeth pulled than pay those games. If it takes you an hour to negotiate a reasonable, balanced game, where both players have fun I truly have no idea what you are doing. We'd have written a whole custom scenario and played the first turn in that time.
No, you're just missing the point. Once again, the problems with 40k that make it a bad competitive game don't make it a better game for playing the game with your "British" attitude of "just have fun". They make it a worse game for that as well as a worse game for competitive play. And they come from GW's laziness and incompetence, not a decision to make a great "casual" game even at the expense of competitive play.
Rewording the same strawman from the top doesn't make it any less a strawman. Show us these mythical champions of bad rules.
Having just come back to the hobby this year after a 10 year vacation, I for one found myself pretty overwhelmed. I had the benefit of having models/materials/some previous knowledge of the game before hand. I cannot imagine a new player starting 40K if they knew what they were getting themselves into. Lets assume you want to play a army that is not included in starter set:
New rulebook - $75.00 to $80.00
Codex - $30.00 to $50.00
Paint/Glue/Other Assembly materials (Assuming you want above tabletop quality models) - Anywhere from $50.00 - $300.00 depending on brand, quality, used etc
Dice/Templates etc - $10.00 - $30.00
You haven't even bought models yet, the most expensive part which even at 500-1000pts, your looking at several hundred dollars. Then there is supplements, escalation, stronghold assault, dataslates, Forgeworld products....yeah. I'm all for people being invested in a hobby, but we are talking about the potential growth & eventual survival of the hobby here. Most of the new faces I see are returning players, not new customers. The price point for entry into this hobby is going from very difficult to impossible. Even if finances aren't a obstacles, attempting to learn & retain all the different rules currently available is next to impossible. GW needs to consolidate all of the rules out there into fewer source materials. A new player entering the game shouldn't require more than rulebook, codex, & 1 other material at most.
Commissar Benny wrote: Having just come back to the hobby this year after a 10 year vacation, I for one found myself pretty overwhelmed. I had the benefit of having models/materials/some previous knowledge of the game before hand. I cannot imagine a new player starting 40K if they knew what they were getting themselves into. Lets assume you want to play a army that is not included in starter set:
New rulebook - $75.00 to $80.00 (Or get a used small one from the DV set from E-bay)
Codex - $30.00 to $50.00 (Yeah, they are getting too expensive.)
Paint/Glue/Other Assembly materials (Assuming you want above tabletop quality models) - Anywhere from $50.00 - $300.00 depending on brand, quality, used etc ($300 for paints and brushes? I was an art major and I've never paid near that much. We're talking about a beginner here, right? He'll get enough paints to paint his simplified color scheme.)
Dice/Templates etc - $10.00 - $30.00 ($8 for a bunch of dice. Probably find templates used for cheap on E-bay as well.)
You haven't even bought models yet, the most expensive part which even at 500-1000pts, your looking at several hundred dollars. Then there is supplements, escalation, stronghold assault, dataslates, Forgeworld products....yeah. I'm all for people being invested in a hobby, but we are talking about the potential growth & eventual survival of the hobby here. Most of the new faces I see are returning players, not new customers. The price point for entry into this hobby is going from very difficult to impossible. Even if finances aren't a obstacles, attempting to learn & retain all the different rules currently available is next to impossible. GW needs to consolidate all of the rules out there into fewer source materials. A new player entering the game shouldn't require more than rulebook, codex, & 1 other material at most.
Buy a battle force and an HQ and you're good for small battles to start learning. Maybe $200. Slowly over time buy a box or figure here and there and after a while you'll have a good army. It'll take time but that's how most people do it. Jumping into a hobby this big does take some homework. I'd rather have it like that than something dumbed down like 4ed D&D. (Not saying the rules aren't needlessly complex at times or could use some re-working, just want to say that changing it to the other extreme is bad. Also, no one's forcing anyone to play escelation, stronghold or whatever. You don't want to play them, then don't. It's a game, not conscription.
I wouldn't say a lot are having fun playing it.... The huge vast majority are having fun playing.
What people like pregeriinn need to realize is that nobody cares what they want because they are a tiny minority. Almost all GW players like the game and buy all the latest products and so on even if they arent 100% happy with the product, (which is impossible, there is always something to improve).
You have no more basis in saying this than myself claiming that everyone hates the game and plays it only because its the most readily available game.
Don't confuse your anecdotal evidence and personal views with facts. You don't know if its a tiny minority who want a better game. You don't know its a huge vast majority who are having fun. You haven't even taken into consideration the people who may have left the game or have also started other games.
So everyone still enjoying 40k is a masochist lying to themselves about it's redeeming qualities which according to you it doesn't have?
are you having fun because of the 40k rules, or in spite of them? because lets face it, 40ks rules are a mess. they're clunky, excessive, bloated, poorly written, vague and "loose" in a lot of ways. 40k doesnt need to be "this". and it would still be 40k. i keep remembering andy chambers' starship troopers game, which was meant to be 4th ed 40k. the game was flawed in a few ways, but it was a decade ahead of its time in a lot of ways, and i feel it was a lost opportunity that 40k did not walk this path. it would have still been 40k, but a mechanically better monster!
or are you having fun because you are spending quality time with your friends, in an (arguably... but that's another debate!) engrossing universe?
In my experience, i've often found that a lot of the folks that play 40k, and continue to play 40k seem to like the idea of 40k more so than the actual realitiy of it. Most seem to live in hope that things "will", or "could" be better. Some day. hey, thats what wishlists are for!
I've got nothing against casual gaming. I do plenty. my friday nights are my "casual" game nights, with narrative/story based scenarios at the fore, and mere lip service to "playing exactly by the rules". Typically, its flames of war, infinity, or more recently, historicals (dux bellorum - really nice rules set by the way). 40k should be a good casual game. its what the designers want it to be. Game design, and game theory is actually something i'm quite interested in, and reading between the lines, i think GW have shifted from a previous strategy of "sandbox rules set that is open to the whole community" ie a game that appeals to all facets of the gaming community (its got tanks, planes, cc, shooting, big things, small things, competitive, casual etc. find like minded people and take what you want from it). However, i dont think this strategy worked as well as they wanted. i think having a target audience is what they're aiming for instead.i think GW are trying to drag 40k, and the 40k playing community (still kicking and screaming every step of the way too) to a "new place" where its all about casual, two friends having a polite chat, and one where those playing are those that are happy, comfortable and accepting of the need to self police, self regulate, and self organise. Balance has gone out the window. GW are, more and more, chucking things out to the community. knights. superheavies. there is no "format". the directive seems to have been to throw out "cool stuff" and almost force people along to this "new place".some people are appalled. Some are quite happy with this approach. its the latter that is the target customer, and who GW wants if you ask me.
And fair play. my issue is not with the ideology. surprisingly, im rather sympathetic to GW in a lot of ways as to what they want their game to be. Im far less sympathetic in how they go about doing it.
Commissar Benny wrote: Having just come back to the hobby this year after a 10 year vacation, I for one found myself pretty overwhelmed. I had the benefit of having models/materials/some previous knowledge of the game before hand. I cannot imagine a new player starting 40K if they knew what they were getting themselves into. Lets assume you want to play a army that is not included in starter set:
New rulebook - $75.00 to $80.00 (Or get a used small one from the DV set from E-bay)
Codex - $30.00 to $50.00 (Yeah, they are getting too expensive.)
Paint/Glue/Other Assembly materials (Assuming you want above tabletop quality models) - Anywhere from $50.00 - $300.00 depending on brand, quality, used etc ($300 for paints and brushes? I was an art major and I've never paid near that much. We're talking about a beginner here, right? He'll get enough paints to paint his simplified color scheme.)
Dice/Templates etc - $10.00 - $30.00 ($8 for a bunch of dice. Probably find templates used for cheap on E-bay as well.)
You haven't even bought models yet, the most expensive part which even at 500-1000pts, your looking at several hundred dollars. Then there is supplements, escalation, stronghold assault, dataslates, Forgeworld products....yeah. I'm all for people being invested in a hobby, but we are talking about the potential growth & eventual survival of the hobby here. Most of the new faces I see are returning players, not new customers. The price point for entry into this hobby is going from very difficult to impossible. Even if finances aren't a obstacles, attempting to learn & retain all the different rules currently available is next to impossible. GW needs to consolidate all of the rules out there into fewer source materials. A new player entering the game shouldn't require more than rulebook, codex, & 1 other material at most.
Buy a battle force and an HQ and you're good for small battles to start learning. Maybe $200. Slowly over time buy a box or figure here and there and after a while you'll have a good army. It'll take time but that's how most people do it. Jumping into a hobby this big does take some homework. I'd rather have it like that than something dumbed down like 4ed D&D. (Not saying the rules aren't needlessly complex at times or could use some re-working, just want to say that changing it to the other extreme is bad. Also, no one's forcing anyone to play escelation, stronghold or whatever. You don't want to play them, then don't. It's a game, not conscription.
Is a battle box plus hq 500 points or more? If not then it's not a "real" army and you'd be hard pressed to find opponents willing to play trivial demo games.
Commissar Benny wrote: Having just come back to the hobby this year after a 10 year vacation, I for one found myself pretty overwhelmed. I had the benefit of having models/materials/some previous knowledge of the game before hand. I cannot imagine a new player starting 40K if they knew what they were getting themselves into. Lets assume you want to play a army that is not included in starter set:
New rulebook - $75.00 to $80.00 (Or get a used small one from the DV set from E-bay)
Codex - $30.00 to $50.00 (Yeah, they are getting too expensive.)
Paint/Glue/Other Assembly materials (Assuming you want above tabletop quality models) - Anywhere from $50.00 - $300.00 depending on brand, quality, used etc ($300 for paints and brushes? I was an art major and I've never paid near that much. We're talking about a beginner here, right? He'll get enough paints to paint his simplified color scheme.)
Dice/Templates etc - $10.00 - $30.00 ($8 for a bunch of dice. Probably find templates used for cheap on E-bay as well.)
You haven't even bought models yet, the most expensive part which even at 500-1000pts, your looking at several hundred dollars. Then there is supplements, escalation, stronghold assault, dataslates, Forgeworld products....yeah. I'm all for people being invested in a hobby, but we are talking about the potential growth & eventual survival of the hobby here. Most of the new faces I see are returning players, not new customers. The price point for entry into this hobby is going from very difficult to impossible. Even if finances aren't a obstacles, attempting to learn & retain all the different rules currently available is next to impossible. GW needs to consolidate all of the rules out there into fewer source materials. A new player entering the game shouldn't require more than rulebook, codex, & 1 other material at most.
Buy a battle force and an HQ and you're good for small battles to start learning. Maybe $200. Slowly over time buy a box or figure here and there and after a while you'll have a good army. It'll take time but that's how most people do it. Jumping into a hobby this big does take some homework. I'd rather have it like that than something dumbed down like 4ed D&D. (Not saying the rules aren't needlessly complex at times or could use some re-working, just want to say that changing it to the other extreme is bad. Also, no one's forcing anyone to play escelation, stronghold or whatever. You don't want to play them, then don't. It's a game, not conscription.
Is a battle box plus hq 500 points or more? If not then it's not a "real" army and you'd be hard pressed to find opponents willing to play trivial demo games.
I was $25 bucks off but it does come with an HQ. But that looks about 500 points. This is the strike force box set.
are you having fun because of the 40k rules, or in spite of them? because lets face it, 40ks rules are a mess. they're clunky, excessive, bloated, poorly written, vague and "loose" in a lot of ways. 40k doesnt need to be "this". and it would still be 40k.
I like 40k's rules, now this isn't to say there aren't a few I dislike or in the case of the missions have tweaked (or let others tweak in the case of the great BAO missions) but I like the way the game plays. The main issue I have with the rules is usually one one or both of use remembers a previous edition that did it different and thats not the games fault but more a problem with our ageing minds Then we have to stop and double check, the rest of the time things flow or can be reasoned out pretty easily.
I miss the days of 2nd Ed but I can also see that many of those extra layers of complication would slow down the game now that it has evolved to cater to larger scale battle and I could easily play a smaller game of 2nd Ed or Necromunda if I missed them that much.
or are you having fun because you are spending quality time with your friends, in an (arguably... but that's another debate!) engrossing universe?
Playing with the right people is important, as with any game but the game still takes centre stage, pitting your wits against your opponent, setting up your contingencies for when lady luck shines or kicks you in the nuts. I like the armies and how they interact, they feel nicely themed to me each sitting in their own niche. I really like where 6th edition has gone.
I don't want to quote the next para as it's pretty big but I agree with almost everything you say in it, one thing I will say is that what you call the "New place" I don't think it's new. I think this has always been 40k's model. They dipped their toes into the competitive water previously but I don't think they liked it. Increasingly today we see things that were previously the domain of fun having people trying to push them to a competitive place, I'm just glad GW isn't doing the same, I don't want their focus to be on tourney play because that's not how I want to play my games.
D strength is I think the best example for me. Now I find them way too good for their points which means if you want to balance your army with them against the enemy it's that much more work. *However* they do work as an example of the awesome power of a weapon big enough to shoot Land Raiders at people would posses, so I can see why they that them, Titans and the like are part of the world they are setting the game in.
Yes, it means tourney play suffers but that's how they want their game to be. It's not to say you can't play 40k competitively but to my mind it's not the intended purpose of it so you have to work out your own mods to make it so. If you won't do so it's not lazyness on the part of GW any more than me wanting to play scenarios in something like Magic. It's not designed for it so *I* have to put in the work but I can still do it.
Also thank you Dead, that was a really nice, thought provoking post.
Dunklezahn wrote: So everyone still enjoying 40k is a masochist lying to themselves about it's redeeming qualities which according to you it doesn't have?
No, the masochists are the people who act like 40k is a great game because it has horrible balance and broken rules. You know, people like you, who talk about how "casual" the game is and how competitive players are playing the wrong game. Someone who enjoys the fluff/models and has fun despite the awful rules is just an average player.
I think the real masochists in this hobby are the jaded and bitter 'veterans' that jump on every opportunity to repeat their tired opinion on why they hate this game so much, yet stick around like stubborn mules and refuse to move on.
IF GW is causing you so much grief and you cannot accept what it is/what it has become, or where it is headed yet sit around continuing to complain about it- you are truly a masochist. Why continue to involve yourself in something that is seemingly joyless and no longer rewarding for you?
We get it. A lot of people are overly vocal about their distaste with GW's direction with the game. And quite honestly most of the time we agree with you. Here is the kicker though- it's just a game. You either find ways to enjoy it, or you move on.
When you purchase a PC game, for example, and discover the developer patches the game and modifies the core to the point you dislike it/future patches continue to do this, do you still play the game? Why are so many people that have played this game so long completely delusional? GW has always been this way. The game has always been broken, and jumping into General Discussion forum posts to constantly repeat yourself about 'why this game sucks' whenever any discussion hints on anything related to GW rules is accomplishing nothing for you or anyone else.
I love profanity in the title of a thread. It really supports the OP's argument in a careful, erudite manner, and in no way makes me think they are whiners unfit to play with toy soldiers.
Frazzled wrote: I love profanity in the title of a thread. It really supports the OP's argument in a careful, erudite manner, and in no way makes me think they are whiners unfit to play with toy soldiers.
I would not call "god damn" profanity. This isn't the 1800s.
Dunklezahn wrote: So everyone still enjoying 40k is a masochist lying to themselves about it's redeeming qualities which according to you it doesn't have?
No, the masochists are the people who act like 40k is a great game because it has horrible balance and broken rules. You know, people like you, who talk about how "casual" the game is and how competitive players are playing the wrong game. Someone who enjoys the fluff/models and has fun despite the awful rules is just an average player.
I think the real masochists in this hobby are the jaded and bitter 'veterans' that jump on every opportunity to repeat their tired opinion on why they hate this game so much, yet stick around like stubborn mules and refuse to move on.
IF GW is causing you so much grief and you cannot accept what it is/what it has become, or where it is headed yet sit around continuing to complain about it- you are truly a masochist. Why continue to involve yourself in something that is seemingly joyless and no longer rewarding for you?
We get it. A lot of people are overly vocal about their distaste with GW's direction with the game. And quite honestly most of the time we agree with you. Here is the kicker though- it's just a game. You either find ways to enjoy it, or you move on.
When you purchase a PC game, for example, and discover the developer patches the game and modifies the core to the point you dislike it/future patches continue to do this, do you still play the game? Why are so many people that have played this game so long completely delusional? GW has always been this way. The game has always been broken, and jumping into General Discussion forum posts to constantly repeat yourself about 'why this game sucks' whenever any discussion hints on anything related to GW rules is accomplishing nothing for you or anyone else.
Find a new hobby- seriously.
It's more that these people like/love the game, but want it to be the best it can be so more people can enjoy the game. These are people who want the game to spread, not be marginalized into an ever smaller niche.
People give their opinions on patches to computer games that fundamentally change them, for better or worse. Just look at the WoW forums for example. So I don't really see how that supports your argument.
Dunklezahn wrote: So everyone still enjoying 40k is a masochist lying to themselves about it's redeeming qualities which according to you it doesn't have?
No, the masochists are the people who act like 40k is a great game because it has horrible balance and broken rules. You know, people like you, who talk about how "casual" the game is and how competitive players are playing the wrong game. Someone who enjoys the fluff/models and has fun despite the awful rules is just an average player.
I think the real masochists in this hobby are the jaded and bitter 'veterans' that jump on every opportunity to repeat their tired opinion on why they hate this game so much, yet stick around like stubborn mules and refuse to move on.
IF GW is causing you so much grief and you cannot accept what it is/what it has become, or where it is headed yet sit around continuing to complain about it- you are truly a masochist. Why continue to involve yourself in something that is seemingly joyless and no longer rewarding for you?
We get it. A lot of people are overly vocal about their distaste with GW's direction with the game. And quite honestly most of the time we agree with you. Here is the kicker though- it's just a game. You either find ways to enjoy it, or you move on.
When you purchase a PC game, for example, and discover the developer patches the game and modifies the core to the point you dislike it/future patches continue to do this, do you still play the game? Why are so many people that have played this game so long completely delusional? GW has always been this way. The game has always been broken, and jumping into General Discussion forum posts to constantly repeat yourself about 'why this game sucks' whenever any discussion hints on anything related to GW rules is accomplishing nothing for you or anyone else.
Find a new hobby- seriously.
It's more that these people like/love the game, but want it to be the best it can be so more people can enjoy the game. These are people who want the game to spread, not be marginalized into an ever smaller niche.
People give their opinions on patches to computer games that fundamentally change them, for better or worse. Just look at the WoW forums for example. So I don't really see how that supports your argument.
There is nothing wrong with wanting something to be the best it can be- the issue with this argument is GW does not design the game to fit your specific idea or concept of what that is, nor should they. It's stubbornness, pure and simple. I am not excusing GW for their business practices or forgiving them for any transgressions they have caused- I just don't care. I enjoy the game for what it is, and find ways to increase my enjoyment. If I didn't find any enjoyment in the game or was so bothered by a companies direction for a product, I would leave and find an alternative- hell, you can use your GW minis to play other tabletop games.
My issue is with the people that literally do nothing positive for this hobby. They don't comment on anything that is innately productive, and repeat themselves given any opportunity- and it's always the same people too, like clockwork.
Regarding the PC game example, a lot of people follow similar trends- they just spew anonymous negativity into forums to show their distaste in a game/company, but continue to play the game regardless.
It just doesn't make sense to me. Common sense suggests that things we don't enjoy we stay away from/find alternatives.
Dunklezahn wrote: So everyone still enjoying 40k is a masochist lying to themselves about it's redeeming qualities which according to you it doesn't have?
No, the masochists are the people who act like 40k is a great game because it has horrible balance and broken rules. You know, people like you, who talk about how "casual" the game is and how competitive players are playing the wrong game. Someone who enjoys the fluff/models and has fun despite the awful rules is just an average player.
I think the real masochists in this hobby are the jaded and bitter 'veterans' that jump on every opportunity to repeat their tired opinion on why they hate this game so much, yet stick around like stubborn mules and refuse to move on.
IF GW is causing you so much grief and you cannot accept what it is/what it has become, or where it is headed yet sit around continuing to complain about it- you are truly a masochist. Why continue to involve yourself in something that is seemingly joyless and no longer rewarding for you?
We get it. A lot of people are overly vocal about their distaste with GW's direction with the game. And quite honestly most of the time we agree with you. Here is the kicker though- it's just a game. You either find ways to enjoy it, or you move on.
When you purchase a PC game, for example, and discover the developer patches the game and modifies the core to the point you dislike it/future patches continue to do this, do you still play the game? Why are so many people that have played this game so long completely delusional? GW has always been this way. The game has always been broken, and jumping into General Discussion forum posts to constantly repeat yourself about 'why this game sucks' whenever any discussion hints on anything related to GW rules is accomplishing nothing for you or anyone else.
Find a new hobby- seriously.
It's more that these people like/love the game, but want it to be the best it can be so more people can enjoy the game. These are people who want the game to spread, not be marginalized into an ever smaller niche.
People give their opinions on patches to computer games that fundamentally change them, for better or worse. Just look at the WoW forums for example. So I don't really see how that supports your argument.
There is nothing wrong with wanting something to be the best it can be- the issue with this argument is GW does not design the game to fit your specific idea or concept of what that is, nor should they. It's stubbornness, pure and simple. I am not excusing GW for their business practices or forgiving them for any transgressions they have caused- I just don't care. I enjoy the game for what it is, and find ways to increase my enjoyment. If I didn't find any enjoyment in the game or was so bothered by a companies direction for a product, I would leave and find an alternative- hell, you can use your GW minis to play other tabletop games.
My issue is with the people that literally do nothing positive for this hobby. They don't comment on anything that is innately productive, and repeat themselves given any opportunity- and it's always the same people too, like clockwork.
Regarding the PC game example, a lot of people follow similar trends- they just spew anonymous negativity into forums to show their distaste in a game/company, but continue to play the game regardless.
It just doesn't make sense to me. Common sense suggests that things we don't enjoy we stay away from/find alternatives.
Perhaps I am in the minority.
Except it's not that simple. For one, people might be enjoying parts of it, they just don't post online about those parts. Using it as an excuse to hang out with friends can be fun, but then you're enjoying in spite of the game instead of because of it. Also you may enjoy the hobby aspect and WANT the game to be better so you can enjoy that too. Also you may be heavily invested in it and yet be disenchanted with the game, in some ways it's easier to just give up a video game when it starts to annoy you, it can be harder to give up a table top game you have invested thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours in.
XenosTerminus wrote: There is nothing wrong with wanting something to be the best it can be- the issue with this argument is GW does not design the game to fit your specific idea or concept of what that is, nor should they. It's stubbornness, pure and simple. I am not excusing GW for their business practices or forgiving them for any transgressions they have caused- I just don't care. I enjoy the game for what it is, and find ways to increase my enjoyment. If I didn't find any enjoyment in the game or was so bothered by a companies direction for a product, I would leave and find an alternative- hell, you can use your GW minis to play other tabletop games.
My issue is with the people that literally do nothing positive for this hobby. They don't comment on anything that is innately productive, and repeat themselves given any opportunity- and it's always the same people too, like clockwork.
Regarding the PC game example, a lot of people follow similar trends- they just spew anonymous negativity into forums to show their distaste in a game/company, but continue to play the game regardless.
It just doesn't make sense to me. Common sense suggests that things we don't enjoy we stay away from/find alternatives.
Perhaps I am in the minority.
So if these mythical people you are accusing of doing "nothing positive for this hobby", cause you to not get enjoyment out of the forums, take your own advice and leave.
You are accusing some of the most active, helpful and friendly people on this forum of not contributing anything to the hobby. You are using the same argument as the "entitled gamer" argument which is BS through and through. Gamers, and consumers in general, can and should be asking, no demanding, the best product they can get. That's how capitalism works.
You see negativity, I see criticism. And no one is above criticism.
XenosTerminus wrote: There is nothing wrong with wanting something to be the best it can be- the issue with this argument is GW does not design the game to fit your specific idea or concept of what that is, nor should they. It's stubbornness, pure and simple. I am not excusing GW for their business practices or forgiving them for any transgressions they have caused- I just don't care. I enjoy the game for what it is, and find ways to increase my enjoyment. If I didn't find any enjoyment in the game or was so bothered by a companies direction for a product, I would leave and find an alternative- hell, you can use your GW minis to play other tabletop games.
My issue is with the people that literally do nothing positive for this hobby. They don't comment on anything that is innately productive, and repeat themselves given any opportunity- and it's always the same people too, like clockwork.
Regarding the PC game example, a lot of people follow similar trends- they just spew anonymous negativity into forums to show their distaste in a game/company, but continue to play the game regardless.
It just doesn't make sense to me. Common sense suggests that things we don't enjoy we stay away from/find alternatives.
Perhaps I am in the minority.
So if these mythical people you are accusing of doing "nothing positive for this hobby", cause you to not get enjoyment out of the forums, take your own advice and leave.
You are accusing some of the most active, helpful and friendly people on this forum of not contributing anything to the hobby. You are using the same argument as the "entitled gamer" argument which is BS through and through. Gamers, and consumers in general, can and should be asking, no demanding, the best product they can get. That's how capitalism works.
You see negativity, I see criticism. And no one is above criticism.
Ah, the classic 'If you don't like it you can leave' retort.
You are correct- it is in fact criticism. To me it sounds as if you don't like criticism of some of these 'friendly and helpful' posters.
I am not pointing fingers or calling individual people out- I am generalizing based on overall observations from this (and other) forums. I am only criticizing the logic/mindset and overall toxicity that inevitably seeps from every pore of what should be a forum to discuss a game that we all love/enjoy. On the contrary, this (and other forums) often devolve into outlets to assert perceived game authority on how things 'should be' instead of concentrating on how to make things better how they are. It's not just this forum, or this game- I am aware most forums are like this. And that's why they are generally useless.
People are far too negative, and defending their outlook only encourages them to continue doing it.
It's pretty telling to me that when someone voices their opinion that is actually positive/not overly negative, or calls people out for being arguably useless to fostering a positive outlook on a fractured community, things are really in dire straights (or you are a GW apoligist). Or, to put it another way- people don't like to be called out for what they are- wet blankets.
Also, you are failing to grasp another key aspect of Capitalism. Competition and the ability to make educated decisions as a consumer. Vote with your dollar, not by complaining on a forum.
You are not forced to support a company you dislike. There are alternatives (that remedy many of the issues most people complain about). These people just want 40k to meet every expectation they have, and quite honestly this is not realistic (especially for some people). Trust me when I say I wish 40k met every expectation I had for a game, but it does not.
the exact same threads about "broken things ruining the game" were written fifteen years ago when 40k third edition was a thing. you talk about the helldrake? meet the eldar starcannon of third edition. meet the alaitoc disruption table. meet crystal targetting matrices. meet ulthwe seer councils. meet third ed blood angels.
And it continues.
How about fourth edition? ever here of the abomination that was the Siren Prince, or else Iron Warriors?
Fifth edition - blood angels, space wolves and grey knights.
Sixth edition. tau and eldar.
Not being cheeky, but things that broke the game have always been there. you have not stumbled onto some hitherto unknown conspiracy, or failure that somehow slipped by the vigilance of the 40k community this is simply how GW writes games.
And there are solutions.
(1) treat all the new stuff as "options". GW give you the tools. You, the gamer have the choice to use them or not. play with a friend, and chat and decide what you want. Dont look to what GW does as a "how to" guide - dont look to GW to tell you how to play. - look at it as great models that you can do with as you wish. how about you take control? how about you decide? the best way to enjoy 40k is via a casual, co-operative and gentlemanly manner.
(2) play other games.
(3) grow older and bitter, consumed by hatred and rage,like many other 40k vets
/slowclap
I came here to say this and found myself pleasantly surprised.
Hello Kettle I'm Pot... Utterly agreed on both counts. No one forces you to play. Ever. If you don't like what the other guy brings to the table, politely decline, shake his hand, because you are a gentleman, and move on.
Dunklezahn wrote: So everyone still enjoying 40k is a masochist lying to themselves about it's redeeming qualities which according to you it doesn't have?
No, the masochists are the people who act like 40k is a great game because it has horrible balance and broken rules. You know, people like you, who talk about how "casual" the game is and how competitive players are playing the wrong game. Someone who enjoys the fluff/models and has fun despite the awful rules is just an average player.
I think the real masochists in this hobby are the jaded and bitter 'veterans' that jump on every opportunity to repeat their tired opinion on why they hate this game so much, yet stick around like stubborn mules and refuse to move on.
IF GW is causing you so much grief and you cannot accept what it is/what it has become, or where it is headed yet sit around continuing to complain about it- you are truly a masochist. Why continue to involve yourself in something that is seemingly joyless and no longer rewarding for you?
We get it. A lot of people are overly vocal about their distaste with GW's direction with the game. And quite honestly most of the time we agree with you. Here is the kicker though- it's just a game. You either find ways to enjoy it, or you move on.
When you purchase a PC game, for example, and discover the developer patches the game and modifies the core to the point you dislike it/future patches continue to do this, do you still play the game? Why are so many people that have played this game so long completely delusional? GW has always been this way. The game has always been broken, and jumping into General Discussion forum posts to constantly repeat yourself about 'why this game sucks' whenever any discussion hints on anything related to GW rules is accomplishing nothing for you or anyone else.
Find a new hobby- seriously.
It's more that these people like/love the game, but want it to be the best it can be so more people can enjoy the game. These are people who want the game to spread, not be marginalized into an ever smaller niche.
People give their opinions on patches to computer games that fundamentally change them, for better or worse. Just look at the WoW forums for example. So I don't really see how that supports your argument.
There is nothing wrong with wanting something to be the best it can be- the issue with this argument is GW does not design the game to fit your specific idea or concept of what that is, nor should they. It's stubbornness, pure and simple. I am not excusing GW for their business practices or forgiving them for any transgressions they have caused- I just don't care. I enjoy the game for what it is, and find ways to increase my enjoyment. If I didn't find any enjoyment in the game or was so bothered by a companies direction for a product, I would leave and find an alternative- hell, you can use your GW minis to play other tabletop games.
My issue is with the people that literally do nothing positive for this hobby. They don't comment on anything that is innately productive, and repeat themselves given any opportunity- and it's always the same people too, like clockwork.
Regarding the PC game example, a lot of people follow similar trends- they just spew anonymous negativity into forums to show their distaste in a game/company, but continue to play the game regardless.
It just doesn't make sense to me. Common sense suggests that things we don't enjoy we stay away from/find alternatives.
Perhaps I am in the minority.
What you say is perfectly true, however the PC analogy falls over when you consider the money side, you can spend money on a game moan about it if is naff and call it quits. With GW its not so easy, in my case i'm ok to put effort into warmahordes as there are quite a few players at my club, but i'll keep my 40k stuff as back up, i've stabilised at 4/5 40k armies and to be honest they are still the best model wise.
Its also the community you are used to as well, i could go to my local GW and have a few laughs there (I really ought to i think) without bothering about the rules etc. It rears its head at my regular club as all of the members have done GW over the years, many still have the stuff but can't be bothered to play it. And i'm beginning to see why...
What makes some of us 'fustrated' in a sense is GWs abject faliure to recognise the competition, as someone said 'if they sorted their act out the money is waiting right here...'
Eggs wrote: Out of curiosity, for those that play a lot of 500 points, do you still use 6'x4'?
From my experience 1k or less tends to be more balanced with a smaller board (a larger board can be unbalanced for units that lack mobility, and contradicts the concept of smirmish.
XenosTerminus wrote: Ah, the classic 'If you don't like it you can leave' retort.
You are correct- it is in fact criticism. To me it sounds as if you don't like criticism of some of these 'friendly and helpful' posters.
I am not pointing fingers or calling individual people out- I am generalizing based on overall observations from this (and other) forums. I am only criticizing the logic/mindset and overall toxicity that inevitably seeps from every pore of what should be a forum to discuss a game that we all love/enjoy. On the contrary, this (and other forums) often devolve into outlets to assert perceived game authority on how things 'should be' instead of concentrating on how to make things better how they are. It's not just this forum, or this game- I am aware most forums are like this. And that's why they are generally useless.
People are far too negative, and defending their outlook only encourages them to continue doing it.
It's pretty telling to me that when someone voices their opinion that is actually positive/not overly negative, or calls people out for being arguably useless to fostering a positive outlook on a fractured community, things are really in dire straights (or you are a GW apoligist). Or, to put it another way- people don't like to be called out for what they are- wet blankets.
Also, you are failing to grasp another key aspect of Capitalism. Competition and the ability to make educated decisions as a consumer. Vote with your dollar, not by complaining on a forum.
You are not forced to support a company you dislike. There are alternatives (that remedy many of the issues most people complain about). These people just want 40k to meet every expectation they have, and quite honestly this is not realistic (especially for some people). Trust me when I say I wish 40k met every expectation I had for a game, but it does not.
Given your arguments are "If you don't like it leave" you shouldn't really mind others pointing that out it is hypocritical of you to tell others that.
And there is a difference between consumers criticizing a company, and consumers criticizing consumers. Every consumer is "right" in that it is their opinion. There is no wrong opinion. It's also hard to take you seriously when you are talking about people who HAVE helped more people on this forum and others than you probably ever will. These are the same people that made the forum what it is with thousands of posts. Some helping to better understand rules. Some helping people to pick an army. Some forming tournaments and event FAQs that were about as close the defacto tourney FAQ for an entire edition or longer.
The reason people call out those being "positive" is because their argument boils down to "I like it and so should you." There's nothing to argue there, no points being made, nothing adding to the discussion.
GW has been flailing lately as well. Their stock is down. Not to mention you have people in this very thread calling others out for not buying stuff. The whole argument of "You can't complain if you purchase it, and you can't complain if you don't" is nonsense. People can criticize GW for any reason, whether they actively play or not. Capitalism is a lot more than "Just don't buy stuff". Part of it is telling the company what you will accept. And GW does read the forums. They have taken direct copy and paste questions and answers from the forum for their own FAQs.
Frazzled wrote: I love profanity in the title of a thread. It really supports the OP's argument in a careful, erudite manner, and in no way makes me think they are whiners unfit to play with toy soldiers.
I would not call "god damn" profanity. This isn't the 1800s.
Then you're ignorant. Say it to a cop or your grandmother.
The issue with this whole arguement, is that different gamers have different ideas as to what makes the product better. Mutually exclusive ideas. It's not as GW can please everybody. One of the reasons I love 40K so much is that, if I want a casual game, I can have a casual game. If I want a competitive game, then with a few tournament house-rules in play, I can have that too.
Basically, there are three camps here (I'm really oversimplifying things I know, but bear with me):
1: People who enjoy casual games, don't care about game balance, and just want to have a good time playing a game they enjoy with people they like. These gamers don't care whether they "win" the game or not. Their objective is for both players to have an enjoyable social experience. A player only "loses" if the game wasn't enjoyable for at least one player. In other words: both players have fun = win. Any other result is a loss for both players.
2: People who enjoy competitive/balanced play and are unhappy with the casual nature of the game and it's loosely structured rules. These gamers want a game where one player is a clear winner and the other a clear loser, and a system where skill, not luck, is the factor that determines who wins. Both players enjoying the game is still goal, to some extent, but winning the game is the major objective.
3: Folk who may despise the company, hate the current edition of the game, but love the setting and/or the hobby aspect and are either unable or unwilling to move on or who are content to paint and model. Some members of this group get their kicks by stomping on GW every chance they get, not because they are bad people, but because they have been embittered by the direction "their" game has taken. Others are happy to take what enjoyment they can out of the non-gaming aspects of the hobby.
GW's target audience is clearly players from group number one. BUT it's still possible for the second group of player to enjoy playing the game IF they are willing to take the time to set out the house rules they want to play by. GW doesn't actively support tournament play, but that doesn't mean they are actively trying to undermine it either.
The third group can either continue to enjoy the hobby in other ways (by continuing to play the edition they most enjoy with like-minded people) or by focusing on the painting/modelling side of things.
At the end of the day, Dakka has room for all three groups of gamers, and I think our community is all the richer for embracing all three conflicting viewpoints.
The issue is that GW are pleasing fewer of the people they used to please.
GW may be pleasing some new people, but that's irrelevant and useless to someone who has 10 years, $1,000 and a load of time and love invested in the game as it existed before the recent changes.
It's the same as the arguments about GW needing to pay dividends to their shareholders and so on. I don't care about that. I care about my own game experience. If my game experience is getting worse, I'm going to complain.
LeadLegion wrote: The issue with this whole arguement, is that different gamers have different ideas as to what makes the product better. Mutually exclusive ideas. It's not as GW can please everybody. One of the reasons I love 40K so much is that, if I want a casual game, I can have a casual game. If I want a competitive game, then with a few tournament house-rules in play, I can have that too.
Sure, but they're not mutually exclusive. Improving the game via clarifications, better wording, bloat removal, and a better layout benefit everyone equally. Improving the game via balance makes more lists viable at all levels of play, encourage themes over combos and randomness, and help remove the artificial barrier between 'fluffy' and 'non-fluffy' players.
1: People who enjoy casual games, don't care about game balance, and just want to have a good time playing a game they enjoy with people they like. These gamers don't care whether they "win" the game or not. Their objective is for both players to have an enjoyable social experience.A player only "loses" if the game wasn't enjoyable. In other words: both players have fun = win. Any other result is a loss for both players.
I would disagree that casual gamers don't care about balance. I'm sure many care quite a bit if they played a casual game against a list way out of their league, like say a themed Eldar Serpent list. Then again, even the more competitive players still care for a social experience, and curb stomping of a win isn't any more enjoyable than a hard loss. Granted, I think there's too much black and white being painted, and I generally assume most people here fall somewhere in the myriad of grey shades in between.
2: People who enjoy competitive/balanced play and are unhappy with the casual nature of the game and it's loosely structured rules. These gamers want a game where one player is a clear winner and the other a clear user, and a system where skill, not luck, is the factor that determines who is a loser and who is a winner. Both players enjoying the game is still goal, to one degree or another, but winning the game is the major objective.
As an illustrative example, I'll buy it. But even players that fall more into this camp are still looking for a fun, sociable experience with nicely painted armies on a good looking table. I'd also wager that many enjoy fluffy, themed list, and would love more balance so that they all become valid instead of a small subset.
3: Folk who despise the company, hate the current edition of the game, but love the setting and/or the hobby aspect and are either unable or unwilling to move on. Some members of this group get their kicks by stomping on GW every chance they get, not because they are bad people, but because they have been embittered by the direction "their" game has taken.
Eh, you're not wrong about the GW stomping bit, but I think many on this forum are a little quick to paint any dissenting opinion as 'hating'. There's also the problem that some people might be stuck in a game group that only plays GW games, and the social company pushing models around is still superior to not doing it, despite the flaws of the game.
At the end of the day, Dakka has room for all three groups of gamers, and I think our community is all the richer for embracing all three conflicting viewpoints.
This I can agree with.
I just don't buy any argument that claims a tighter, more balanced rule set (and codices) would hurt casual players. Its a straight win-win scenario for both the most casual and most serious players, and everyone in between.
Kilkrazy wrote: The issue is that GW are pleasing fewer of the people they used to please.
GW may be pleasing some new people, but that's irrelevant and useless to someone who has 10 years, $1,000 and a load of time and love invested in the game as it existed before the recent changes.
It's the same as the arguments about GW needing to pay dividends to their shareholders and so on. I don't care about that. I care about my own game experience. If my game experience is getting worse, I'm going to complain.
Perhaps.
But my, and other peoples, gaming experience with 40K is getting better, not to mention that it is far superiour (by a growing margin) to the game experience offered by other games like Warmachine, Infinity etc..
If people continue lobbying to make 40K more like the inferiour past editions, or the vastly inferior games like Warmachine, I have as much right to complain.
Kilkrazy wrote: The issue is that GW are pleasing fewer of the people they used to please.
GW may be pleasing some new people, but that's irrelevant and useless to someone who has 10 years, $1,000 and a load of time and love invested in the game as it existed before the recent changes.
It's the same as the arguments about GW needing to pay dividends to their shareholders and so on. I don't care about that. I care about my own game experience. If my game experience is getting worse, I'm going to complain.
I am not a new Player, and I enjoy 40k in its current iteration. It's flawed, but largely enjoyable for me and countless others.
The issue is that a lot of the vocal veteran players are self-entitled, and feel that GW needs to cater their game to them. You have to understand that no company, let alone GW, can ever please everyone.
You need to break free from the shackles of adhering to the mindset of everything as printed is sacrosanct and embrace the hobby. No, this is not an excuse for sloppy rules or bad writing- it's legitimate advice for ANY hobby that will allow you to enjoy it more. Instead of waiting around and expecting GW to fix their product (an opinion- to GW and many others their product is not broken)- put forth some effort to find ways to rekindle the hobby you used to enjoy (despite the fact it has always been riddled with issues).
Can't/are not willing to do this? Refuse to adjust your perspective and be open-minded/embrace change? This isn't the hobby for you, and GW is not pandering to that.
Kilkrazy wrote:GW may be pleasing some new people, but that's irrelevant and useless to someone who has 10 years, $1,000 and a load of time and love invested in the game as it existed before the recent changes.
What you're saying, though, is that what caused some people to get into (and stay with) 40k was a well-balanced rules set. The idea that they've made the rules bad when they were once good is silly, because the rules have never been cogent or balanced.
The only other case would be that the game was just well-written enough to get into it and has recently become just-too-poorly-written to be worth playing now. This also seems strange - if you're really so into the game, then you'll roll with the proverbial punches of changes to the game. If the rules changing for the worse have made the game so bad that it makes you regret playing the game, that really brings up questions of how much you actually like the game, or why you actually got into it in the first place.
And furthermore, it's hard to see why things as they are are specifically pandering to new players. Price hikes don't seem new-player friendly. Finally adding in new unit types that people have been begging and whining for for years sounds like pandering to old players, not new ones. So does re-releasing old models in convertible resin and breaking their metal habit, as does updating old kits into new plastics.
What's going on here is the "golden age" problem all over again. Once there was this magical time when the game was perfect and I loved it, and then the great lord of darkness came in and changed perfection to garbage, and I can feel self-righteous about hating what is now an abomination, and have no choice but to heroically lead the crusade to return things to their former glory.
Lots of people take this kind of attitude about a lot of stuff, not just 40k. A lot of the patterns are the same (devolving into conspiracy theories, looking for scapegoats, decrying counterrevolutionaries who are happy with the new changes, etc.), but it isn't any more flattering in 40k than it is in the real world.
I'm not entirely sure I want to see the barrier between "fluffy" players and "competitive" players come down. There's no such barrier in Warmachine - and it actively encourages players to be competitive (even in a casual setting) and discourages "casual" play with non-optimised lists.
I wouldn't say a lot are having fun playing it.... The huge vast majority are having fun playing.
What people like pregeriinn need to realize is that nobody cares what they want because they are a tiny minority. Almost all GW players like the game and buy all the latest products and so on even if they arent 100% happy with the product, (which is impossible, there is always something to improve).
You have no more basis in saying this than myself claiming that everyone hates the game and plays it only because its the most readily available game.
Don't confuse your anecdotal evidence and personal views with facts. You don't know if its a tiny minority who want a better game. You don't know its a huge vast majority who are having fun. You haven't even taken into consideration the people who may have left the game or have also started other games.
Considering GW sells models by the bucket loads, they keep bring new releases that people are excited about, the fact that the other game systems arent as popular, the fact GW can charge 60 dollars for 5 models and still sell them, to me shows the game is fun.
I love the game (hate the models mostly). Its players who have a problem with how they use the rules. Play the game as it was designed for and you wont have problems. whoich is what most players clearly do otherwise GW would be out of buisness. Simple.
Considering GW sells models by the bucket loads, they keep bring new releases that people are excited about, the fact that the other game systems arent as popular, the fact GW can charge 60 dollars for 5 models and still sell them, to me shows the game is fun.
I love the game (hate the models mostly). Its players who have a problem with how they use the rules. Play the game as it was designed for and you wont have problems. whoich is what most players clearly do otherwise GW would be out of buisness. Simple.
But none of that proves that there's only a tiny minority wanting improvements, nor a huge majority perfectly happy and content.
If anything, their sales have stagnated and declined, so while the volume is still there, there's a trend indicating that its not all sunshine and roses.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LeadLegion wrote: I'm not entirely sure I want to see the barrier between "fluffy" players and "competitive" players come down. There's no such barrier in Warmachine - and it actively encourages players to be competitive (even in a casual setting) and discourages "casual" play with non-optimised lists.
I really don't want to see 40K go that way.
Which is a single game with a page in their rulebook discussing how they intended the game to be played. Most other games I've seen don't have such a statement, and yet don't have a barrier between the competitive lists and non-competitive lists.
Hardly a compelling a reason to not advocate greater balance and better written rules.
Considering GW sells models by the bucket loads, they keep bring new releases that people are excited about, the fact that the other game systems arent as popular, the fact GW can charge 60 dollars for 5 models and still sell them, to me shows the game is fun.
I love the game (hate the models mostly). Its players who have a problem with how they use the rules. Play the game as it was designed for and you wont have problems. whoich is what most players clearly do otherwise GW would be out of buisness. Simple.
But none of that proves that there's only a tiny minority wanting improvements, nor a huge majority perfectly happy and content.
If anything, their sales have stagnated and declined, so while the volume is still there, there's a trend indicating that its not all sunshine and roses.
.
Well, our boat sales are down here, and nobody hates boats. People love boats and all want some. But simply put times are hard money wise for people, especially for luxuries. SO to me a decline in slaes means nothing as it will probably rise again as it always does. people like you have always said "sales are dropping" "times are rough for GW" 'The end is near!" and so forth. Well it hasnt happened yet. Just like all luxuries, sales fluxuate, I know because I sell huge luxery items, we get people who come in to just look at what we sell whos yearly wages wouldnt be enough to buy a boat after 10 years of saving every penny. Its a luxery item. I cant stress that point. It would be out of buisness if the vast majority where unhappy with the product. Nobody forces themselves to buy their product unless they are a bit off, they buy luxeries because they want it and enjoy it.
That argument would hold better if it weren't for a significant increase in the miniature market on the whole, while GW is the only one I know of posting losses.
The sale of other luxury items is not a great comparison here when the miniature luxury market is doing quite well.
Games tend to sell more during economic downturns since theyare relatively cheap hobbies that can soak up a lot of time for the dollar and provide escapism.
Dunklezahn wrote:
I like 40k's rules, now this isn't to say there aren't a few I dislike or in the case of the missions have tweaked (or let others tweak in the case of the great BAO missions) but I like the way the game plays.
Hmm, I'll have to disagree with your assessment here. I actively dislike the rules. Maybe it's as a result of playing a whole bunch of other games,or maybe it's from my interest in game theory. But I cannot call 40k a 'good' game, mechanically speaking. And that will drive me away as much as anything else. In evolutionary terms, it's a fossil. It's a port of a napoleonic war game, in space, with serious clutter, counter intuitive rules, bloat, and excess in too many areas, compounded by poor, vague, loosely worded rules with too many grey areas. I liken it to joe Louis the boxer, after ww2. Still technically the world champ, but old, fat, slow, unfit out of shape, going bald and in no way capable of going toe to toe with the young punks that are starting to make names for themselves, and are lean, mean and eager.
Dunklezahn wrote:
Playing with the right people is important, as with any game but the game still takes centre stage, pitting your wits against your opponent, setting up your contingencies for when lady luck shines or kicks you in the nuts. I like the armies and how they interact, they feel nicely themed to me each sitting in their own niche. I really like where 6th edition has gone.
.
Agreed. The community can kill the game. Kinda part of what happened to me. It's what you get when you mix a competitive bunch of gamers, and Pete Haines monstrosity of a chaos codex (specifically iron warriors). That said, I also think the 40k playing community is rather toxic a lot of the time (ever gear the joke of a bunch if 40k players being called a 'whine' of players?) I know it's not popular to say, or feel these things about my peers, but I got sick of the negativity, and toxic atmosphere many vent a long time ago, to the extent that I sometimes feel the direst thing about 40k is 40k players themselves. Sometimes, you just don't want to be a part of the community! Yeah, that won't get me many likes for saying that!
Ironically, what you say you get from your game, I get from different games - warmachine and infinity specifically. Each to their own, I suppose.
Dunklezahn wrote:
I don't want to quote the next para as it's pretty big but I agree with almost everything you say in it, one thing I will say is that what you call the "New place" I don't think it's new. I think this has always been 40k's model. They dipped their toes into the competitive water previously but I don't think they liked it. Increasingly today we see things that were previously the domain of fun having people trying to push them to a competitive place, I'm just glad GW isn't doing the same, I don't want their focus to be on tourney play because that's not how I want to play my games..
Hmm, I apologise, I should clarify. We are in agreement - the 'new place' isn't new. But while gw always wanted the game to be like this, everyone else used to be welcome too. I always felt that it was a big enough sandbox that gw felt all gamer types could come to 40k, and find what they wanted. Now? That 'idea' of what they want the game to be is being pushed, and pushed hard. They're trying to 'force' the game to be where they want it to be, and so what if they gave to drag the playing community (and all the subsets of gamer types)there kicking and screaming all the way. And knowing the 40k playing community, they'll do exactly that! I see it literally as being the case of gw saying to themselves 'we can never please the community. Whatever we do, they give out. What's the point in appeasing them? Let's push the game to where we want it to be. They'll do what they always do...'
Dunklezahn wrote:
Also thank you Dead, that was a really nice, thought provoking post.
Appreciated, and thank you.
XenosTerminus wrote:
I think the real masochists in this hobby are the jaded and bitter 'veterans' that jump on every opportunity to repeat their tired opinion on why they hate this game so much, yet stick around like stubborn mules and refuse to move on.
IF GW is causing you so much grief and you cannot accept what it is/what it has become, or where it is headed yet sit around continuing to complain about it- you are truly a masochist. Why continue to involve yourself in something that is seemingly joyless and no longer rewarding for you?
We get it. A lot of people are overly vocal about their distaste with GW's direction with the game. And quite honestly most of the time we agree with you. Here is the kicker though- it's just a game. You either find ways to enjoy it, or you move on.
.
Yup, pretty much this.a lot of 40k players seem to be self entitled and extremely bitter that the game doesn't revolve around them. But they still stay playing. And yet none are pro active about doing something about it (toxic venting on the interwebs doesnt count if you ask me),Yeah...
Fair enough, I made my choice and voted with my wallet. I'll buy the occasional pretty model, but these days, my time is spent between warmachine, infinity, fow and sine historicals. No regrets.
JPong wrote:
]It's more that these people like/love the game, but want it to be the best it can be so more people can enjoy the game. These are people who want the game to spread, not be marginalized into an ever smaller niche.
But they're pushing their energies in completely the wrong direction. It's like I said - they like the 'idea' of 40k, and believe fanatically in that 'promised land' of a 'perfect balanced 40k'. And just like Moses, they'll never see it! They put so much though into 'what could be' that they fail to realise 'what is'. And he you ask me, there are only a few rational answers.
(1) accept it for what it is, and enjoy it.
(2)get involved in another game if option one won't work.plenty other rules sets out there.
(3) empower themselves to turn 40k into what they, and their group of friends want it to be. Which won't happen, as too many people want to be told how to play the game, instead if being assertive enough to say 'let's make it ours'. Don't feel it has to be done according to 'the rules'. Gw won't send inquisitors after you if you use different unit chaos, other resolution methods, or port over mechanics from other games. That said, And let's be honest. How often does that happen? How often does some bright spark come along, talking about a community project to do something, fix the game, make something better/different, and then it goes nowhere? Cynical? Yup.
These are the answers. Far more positive, and enlightening in my mind, than the toxic miasma that continually infests 40k community boards. Then again, I believe in being assertive, practical, and proactive. If I'm running a half marathon, or a full one, I don't balk. Or whine.I just get down to the business of getting it sorted. No one can do it for me, other than myself. I see wargaming in the same light.
But which is the one we'll see happen? People taking the game into their one hands, it whining about it? I know where my money is on...
In my opinion (which I also think is blatantly obvious to see) is most GW customers are happy and fine to keep buying and playing without any care of issues with the game. Because most of the players dont exploit it, whihc really brings out the problems. Also most players dont own 6 wave serpents and so forth. The game is only broken when the player chooses to break it.
As usual it also depends on where you live and who you play with. Although the other games are growing I find the people that like them are usually really into animae and what not so I think people that play them generally are there because its more to their taste theme wise over "because they hate GW".
Because we dont even know how many gamers there are we will never know for sure, but in my opinion its more likely that the majority of GW players are fine and happy with the game.
Frazzled wrote: I love profanity in the title of a thread. It really supports the OP's argument in a careful, erudite manner, and in no way makes me think they are whiners unfit to play with toy soldiers.
I would not call "god damn" profanity. This isn't the 1800s.
Then you're ignorant. Say it to a cop or your grandmother.
You're overreacting; it's a quote from a song that is a very apt description of 40k. This is not going to change as it is how you get more model sales
But they're pushing their energies in completely the wrong direction. It's like I said - they like the 'idea' of 40k, and believe fanatically in that 'promised land' of a 'perfect balanced 40k'. And just like Moses, they'll never see it! They put so much though into 'what could be' that they fail to realise 'what is'. And he you ask me, there are only a few rational answers.
(1) get involved in another game.plenty other rules sets out there.
(2) empower themselves to turn 40k into what they, and their group of friends want it to be. Which won't happen, as too many people want to be told how to play the game, instead if being assertive enough to say 'let's make it ours'. And let's be honest. How often does that happen? How often does some bright spark come along, talking about a community project to do something, fix the game, make something better/different, and then it goes nowhere? Cynical? Yup.
These are the answers. Far more positive, and enlightening in my mind, than the toxic miasma that continually infests 40k community boards. But which is the one we'll see happen? I know where my money is on...
Wanting a better game, making a better game, playing other games, and discussing the nature of the game are not all mutually exclusive.
I think you'll find some of the biggest detractors have put in quite a bit of effort to help 40k, have moved/or play other games, while also discussing here the nature of 40k and how they think it could be improved.
I'd also hardly call it a toxic miasma, but if you want to think in black and white or an us vs. them mentality, then sure.
I know for myself I've spent over 600 posts helping other people balance their ideas in the proposed rules section. I'll likely work on a patched Guard codex when the new one drops. None of that stops me form wanting a better game from GW.
On the point of upping and leaving. Just on a basic level quitting 40k is a massive waste so it's less of an option. We have what's called a 'vested interest' because usually we are heavily involved by purchasing models etc.
In the game analogy mentioned earlier it's much the same (MMORPG wise) with people being 'involved' and no-one wants to see all their hard work mean nothing.
For me the game fails a bit because it's hard to play. The rules are slightly tetchy in places but more than that, the game is too big for the rules. Playing with loads of terrain to level the game out makes moving units troublesome (especially bigger models) but having enough terrain is necessary to balance the fact that the game wants you to assault.
I also feel that it's hard to enjoy a game when 50% of an army gets wiped out a turn. This seems to be on the increase because obscene weapons are being thrown about a lot more commonly. This is in turn caused by larger numbers of models because of cheaper costs etc. the spiral continues.
Now if they could be some more significant change to how the game played on some level this could be better. My theory on this is increase the points costs of units to reduce the number and make individual models more durable and more independent (to an extent).
Example space marines.
Tactical marine with 3 wounds and independent at 50 points. War gear options available. This make the marine player have 10 marines at 500 points but they can only lose one at a time.
You would then balance say an Ork by making the team 5 for 5 points but they have to stick together.
Then look at the bolter being say assault 3.
Stuff like that.
Obviously it would be more thought out.
But I think less models allows the game more freedom. It would change 40k but scaling it up would be maybe more interesting. It would also allow for games to be played differently possibly using more tactics.
Like I said I've not thought the entire rules out so it would need to be tested etc.
Would help prevent the disheartening feeling of taking a squad off at a time (in some cases).
In my opinion (which I also think is blatantly obvious to see) is most GW customers are happy and fine to keep buying and playing without any care of issues with the game. Because most of the players dont exploit it, whihc really brings out the problems. Also most players dont own 6 wave serpents and so forth. The game is only broken when the player chooses to break it.
As usual it also depends on where you live and who you play with. Although the other games are growing I find the people that like them are usually really into animae and what not so I think people that play them generally are there because its more to their taste theme wise over "because they hate GW".
Because we dont even know how many gamers there are we will never know for sure, but in my opinion its more likely that the majority of GW players are fine and happy with the game.
I get that, and it fine to have your opinion, but presenting as a fact to prove something doesn't help in a proper discussion. I don't have all the numbers, and the trends are still a little new to predict where things will go, so I'm holding my full judgement for the next few reports from GW.
Either way, I enjoy the models of the 40k universe, but I also enjoy other ones, like the Firestorm universe. I also dislike Warmahordes for the aesthetics, but watching a few games left me divided if I could tolerate the models for the rules. Ultimately I haven't started, so I guess the answer is no. Some people jump ship for the rules, some for the models, some out of spite, some for any combination, some because that's all they've ever known. There's too many factors to determine why anyone plays any particular game, but the factors of why people stop is a little simpler.
1) If you don't like it, leave, is not an argument. We have already established that these people like 40k, they just want what is best for the game.
2) If they make their own rules, all of a sudden they aren't playing 40k. They are playing their own game. This leaves them with their small group of friends that is extremely exclusionary, and as such will slowly dwindle down in numbers. People want to play 40k with strangers and friends.
And again, it's constructive criticism. People aren't saying the rules are gak. They are saying the rules are gak, and these are the issues that need addressed. Of course, it's not GW's job to tell us consumers what we want, it's up to us to tell them what we want.
The entitled gamer argument you put forth is bunk.
I think you'll find some of the biggest detractors have put in quite a bit of effort to help 40k, have moved/or play other games, while also discussing here the nature of 40k and how they think it could be improved.
.
Absolutely. But talking about stuff and doing it are too separate things. If they did, fair play, and best of luck to them. If they didn't? Yeah, I was part of a project on another forum for a 'new' tau codex in 4th/5th. The ratio of 'talking' to 'results' was pretty ridiculous!
I'd also hardly call it a toxic miasma, but if you want to think in black and white or an us vs. them mentality, then sure.
.
Maybe it's just my experience on 40k boards then blacksails. For what it's worth, I have huge respect for a lot of your posts by the way. I don't see it as an 'us or them' issue, but I do see 40k gamers, as a whole, being far more negative about things. I don't see anywhere near the sane level of vitriol amongst warmachine, or infinity players (there is some). And I dislike that mentality, as in my mind, from personal experience, being In that state of mind (and it's constant, IMO, on 40k boards) is extremely unhealthy. It saps your mental energy and it doesn't do you any good. I'd rather be positive and do something about it.
Blacksails wrote: .
I know for myself I've spent over 600 posts helping other people balance their ideas in the proposed rules section. I'll likely work on a patched Guard codex when the new one drops. None of that stops me form wanting a better game from GW.
Which is my Point three.
Wanting a better game from gw is pointless. They have no interest In doing it. Fair play to you though for stepping up and patching things. If only more had the same attitude
1) If you don't like it, leave, is not an argument. We have already established that these people like 40k, they just want what is best for the game.
2) If they make their own rules, all of a sudden they aren't playing 40k. They are playing their own game. This leaves them with their small group of friends that is extremely exclusionary, and as such will slowly dwindle down in numbers. People want to play 40k with strangers and friends.
And again, it's constructive criticism. People aren't saying the rules are gak. They are saying the rules are gak, and these are the issues that need addressed. Of course, it's not GW's job to tell us consumers what we want, it's up to us to tell them what we want.
The entitled gamer argument you put forth is bunk.
(1) ie they like the idea of 40k more than the reality. If you don't like it, leave is an argument. I've got 2000pts of tau, and a whole bunch of mArines sitting in boxes. They've not gained in ages. Didn't stop me embracing warmachine, infinity, dystopian wars, drop zone commander, flanges of war etc. maybe it's just me, but I'm quite happy being a mercenary in terms of who/what I give my support to. Gw won't reward me for my loyalty.
(2) different rules don't make it 'not' 40k. There have been six incarnations of 40k, all being different. There are other rules sets (Andy chambers' starship troopers) that were 'almost' 40k. There are other media describing 40k in terms if rules, via computer games, books and RPGs. Saying 40k is only 40k because of a bunch of rules from gw is extremely short sighted. 40k is 40k because of space marines, orks, chainswords, bolter pornand so on. Rules are an abstract. Rules are a mechanism. Rules dont necessarily define ip's. You can inhabit the 40k verse in an infinite number of ways. Don't assume the rules from gw are the only proper way.
And here is the thing, most gAmes of 40k are played by small handfuls of friends, or clubs. Having their own rules is t necessarily exclusionary - 'we do the game a bit differently here mate. Have a look, and see what you think'.
In my own 'casual Friday' group, we normally do flames of war. But we don't use the 'proper' lists for armies - we put down what looks cool. We're also quite happy to add/remove things if we feel they'll add or subtract from the game. Fir example, rather than igoyougo, we've tried alternative activations, which was great, and have added bolt action's random unit activation to our games and it's immensely enjoyable. Sure, it's not 'proper' but who cares - we have fun. And that's the point.
I've heRd people saying the rules are crap for ten years now, they're still crap. Gw won't listen jpong. Go on, tell them exactly what you want, and they'll still go off and do their one thing. Constructive criticism using really constructive when nothing gets done by the company in question! They're 'model making company'. Get their stuff, but make the game your own if how they do it bothers you.
Part of the reason GW discussions appear more negative might have something to do with the company's policies that feel like they're pushing the gamer away. Whether or not that's their intent, it certainly shows in these discussions because the goodwill for them is non-existent between cutting fan favourite games, services, white dwarf shenanigans, and price rises.
Other companies, like Spartan (sorry, I like spaceships and their community is really good), are engaged with their customers, through forum posts, feedback, and play testing/beta teams. That alone generates a significant amount of goodwill that reflects back to them as reasonable feedback, both negative and positive but without the vitriol. Now, different companies and sizes and all that, but that's the gist of why GW discussions feel so negative.
Just try and avoid blanket sweeping statements. They really don't serve much and may irritate people who are running counter to that assumption. Even some of the community's most vitriolic anti-GW voices are excellent hobbyists and provide much back to the community through those channels, which also can't be dismissed.
Thanks for the compliment though.
I just get tired of both sides trying to paint the other in a terrible light. I wantGW to succeed. I also want it to improve. Having poor codex balance, or waiting a decade for an update is bad for everyone equally. I want to run an all Rough rider IG list and not force my opponent to bring something terrible that they may not like or have the models for. I also don't want 40k to become a clone of another game. I just want it to better in all the way it can without sacrificing too much of the feel of the game. Things like alternative activation, streamlined movement, streamlined USRs, and better codex balance. All simple solutions that benefit everyone equally at no cost to anyone.
1) If you don't like it, leave, is not an argument. We have already established that these people like 40k, they just want what is best for the game.
2) If they make their own rules, all of a sudden they aren't playing 40k. They are playing their own game. This leaves them with their small group of friends that is extremely exclusionary, and as such will slowly dwindle down in numbers. People want to play 40k with strangers and friends.
And again, it's constructive criticism. People aren't saying the rules are gak. They are saying the rules are gak, and these are the issues that need addressed. Of course, it's not GW's job to tell us consumers what we want, it's up to us to tell them what we want.
The entitled gamer argument you put forth is bunk.
It is still an argument, and a solution. You can't always get what you want- it's a lesson we learn very early in life, and people stomping their feet and vocalizing/whining until the polar caps melt is akin to a selfish child demanding they get what they want and throwing tantrums. It's one thing to wish things were better,but accept something you seemingly enjoy for all its flaws- it's another thing entirely to vocalize it as if it's the 'cool' thing to do.
If you don't like the vanilla 40k ruleset, and you aren't willing to play homebrew or houseruled variations (which is encouraged)- what do you have left? You are complaining that the rules are bad, but also complaining that you don't want to limit yourself to a specific group or ruleset.
To your last point- people ARE saying the rules are gak. While some people provide examples of how things could be improved, it's not uncommon around here for someone to simply sneak in, hijack a discussion, insert their contrived 'GW is gak and their rules are bad' tripe, then scurry off to the next post to repeat the same thing.
If you, as a consumer, want to voice your opinion about your distaste with the direction GW is going- write them a letter. Call corporate. Do anything but complain about the state of things on a forum. That accomplishes nothing.
1) If you don't like it, leave, is not an argument. We have already established that these people like 40k, they just want what is best for the game.
2) If they make their own rules, all of a sudden they aren't playing 40k. They are playing their own game. This leaves them with their small group of friends that is extremely exclusionary, and as such will slowly dwindle down in numbers. People want to play 40k with strangers and friends.
And again, it's constructive criticism. People aren't saying the rules are gak. They are saying the rules are gak, and these are the issues that need addressed. Of course, it's not GW's job to tell us consumers what we want, it's up to us to tell them what we want.
The entitled gamer argument you put forth is bunk.
It is still an argument, and a solution. You can't always get what you want- it's a lesson we learn very early in life, and people stomping their feet and vocalizing/whining until the polar caps melt is akin to a selfish child demanding they get what they want and throwing tantrums. It's one thing to wish things were better,but accept something you seemingly enjoy for all its flaws- it's another thing entirely to vocalize it as if it's the 'cool' thing to do.
If you don't like the vanilla 40k ruleset, and you aren't willing to play homebrew or houseruled variations (which is encouraged)- what do you have left? You are complaining that the rules are bad, but also complaining that you don't want to limit yourself to a specific group or ruleset.
To your last point- people ARE saying the rules are gak. While some people provide examples of how things could be improved, it's not uncommon around here for someone to simply sneak in, hijack a discussion, insert their contrived 'GW is gak and their rules are bad' tripe, then scurry off to the next post to repeat the same thing.
If you, as a consumer, want to voice your opinion about your distaste with the direction GW is going- write them a letter. Call corporate. Do anything but complain about the state of things on a forum. That accomplishes nothing.
bang on dude.
As to the rough riders want, remember that horses in modern warfare are really sucky. I have recently began to view them as a realistic unit in terms of ability.
If you, as a consumer, want to voice your opinion about your distaste with the direction GW is going- write them a letter. Call corporate. Do anything but complain about the state of things on a forum. That accomplishes nothing.
And if I do any/all/some of those things (you also forgot not buying their products), do I then have your permission to write a gently worded complaint on a forum?
As to the rough riders want, remember that horses in modern warfare are really sucky. I have recently began to view them as a realistic unit in terms of ability.
I guess you could always model them as motorcycles?
I am not a new Player, and I enjoy 40k in its current iteration. It's flawed, but largely enjoyable for me and countless others.
I think you mean uncounted rather than countless, after all invoking numbers in this debate is pointless as nobody knows how many people are for or against.
Criticizing on forums will get far more attention than anything else. Because GW doesn't want potential customers from googling their game only to come up with a million results on it's poor quality.
And again, the "If you don't like it, leave" argument is hypocritical. If you don't like the forums not agreeing with you, leave. If you want an echo chamber go make your own.
If you, as a consumer, want to voice your opinion about your distaste with the direction GW is going- write them a letter. Call corporate. Do anything but complain about the state of things on a forum. That accomplishes nothing.
And if I do any/all/some of those things (you also forgot not buying their products), do I then have your permission to write a gently worded complaint on a forum?
As to the rough riders want, remember that horses in modern warfare are really sucky. I have recently began to view them as a realistic unit in terms of ability.
I guess you could always model them as motorcycles?
Either way, it looks metal as feth.
There is an important distinction between voicing ones opinion and abusing/beating it to death.
I would never call someone out for stating their opinion in moderation- it just starts to look like legitimate trolling when the same names appear and complain about the same things, for literally years. YEARS.
If complaining to faceless people on the internet about a game you care so much about anonymously on a forum gives you the illusion that things will magically change for the better, by all means fire away. Just don't expect people to label you as anything less than a complainer.
If you, as a consumer, want to voice your opinion about your distaste with the direction GW is going- write them a letter. Call corporate. Do anything but complain about the state of things on a forum. That accomplishes nothing.
And if I do any/all/some of those things (you also forgot not buying their products), do I then have your permission to write a gently worded complaint on a forum?
As to the rough riders want, remember that horses in modern warfare are really sucky. I have recently began to view them as a realistic unit in terms of ability.
I guess you could always model them as motorcycles?
Either way, it looks metal as feth.
There is an important distinction between voicing ones opinion and abusing/beating it to death.
I would never call someone out for stating their opinion in moderation- it just starts to look like legitimate trolling when the same names appear and complain about the same things, for literally years. YEARS.
If complaining to faceless people on the internet about a game you care so much about anonymously on a forum gives you the illusion that things will magically change for the better, by all means fire away. Just don't expect people to label you as anything less than a complainer.
You'd never call someone out for stating their opinion, as long as they do so within the confines of what you deem acceptable?
You have the stones to call players calling for improvements to make the game as accessible and enjoyable for as wide a range of attitudes and approaches as possible, and making it robust enough that people with different approaches can still play each other and have a positive experience entitled, and then post this gak?
As to the rough riders want, remember that horses in modern warfare are really sucky. I have recently began to view them as a realistic unit in terms of ability.
I guess you could always model them as motorcycles?
Either way, it looks metal as feth.
I love my horses, even if they loose half their men on average to over watch haha.
You'd never call someone out for stating their opinion, as long as they do so within the confines of what you deem acceptable?
You have the stones to call players calling for improvements to make the game as accessible and enjoyable for as wide a range of attitudes and approaches as possible, and making it robust enough that people with different approaches can still play each other and have a positive experience entitled, and then post this gak?
If you, as a consumer, want to voice your opinion about your distaste with the direction GW is going- write them a letter. Call corporate. Do anything but complain about the state of things on a forum. That accomplishes nothing.
And if I do any/all/some of those things (you also forgot not buying their products), do I then have your permission to write a gently worded complaint on a forum?
As to the rough riders want, remember that horses in modern warfare are really sucky. I have recently began to view them as a realistic unit in terms of ability.
I guess you could always model them as motorcycles?
Either way, it looks metal as feth.
There is an important distinction between voicing ones opinion and abusing/beating it to death.
I would never call someone out for stating their opinion in moderation- it just starts to look like legitimate trolling when the same names appear and complain about the same things, for literally years. YEARS.
If complaining to faceless people on the internet about a game you care so much about anonymously on a forum gives you the illusion that things will magically change for the better, by all means fire away. Just don't expect people to label you as anything less than a complainer.
You'd never call someone out for stating their opinion, as long as they do so within the confines of what you deem acceptable?
You have the stones to call players calling for improvements to make the game as accessible and enjoyable for as wide a range of attitudes and approaches as possible, and making it robust enough that people with different approaches can still play each other and have a positive experience entitled, and then post this gak?
Suggesting improvements is fine. I am pointing out that there is a difference between this and how a lot of people approach it- IE an endless cycle whining.
To clarify what you said, I have the stones to call people out for what they are. Crybabies. I agree the game would be better if it were literally PERFECT for every type of player, style of play, and arbitrary scenario you can come up with. Guess what? It isn't.
Allow me to illustrate my point.
Forum poster X posts how Army Y is better than Army Z in a specific way, or how a specific rule in the current edition of the rulebook favors said army.
Now, a perfectly reasonable conversation/debate could potentially come out of this.
If another poster commented and stated. for example: 'Yeah that army book is generally viewed as being overall more competitive, or favors the style of play the current rulebook was designed around'- this would be a perfectly reasonable comment. He could then talk about options, ways to approach or overcome obstacles, or overall just look for the positive, despite the fact they are faced with some challenges.
What generally happens?
'That book is gak' 'That army is gak' 'GW writes sloppy rules' 'This edition is garbage' 'GW only want your money', and many more.
Basically it boils down to jaded GW-hate/rage derailing what COULD be potentially valid or interesting conversations about ways to discuss or improve the hobby how it is. Some people honestly have nothing more to offer when people post about challenges with this hobby, often frustrated, than to be overly negative and do nothing constructive. At all.
I'm not seeing that half as much as you seem to be, so I'm thinking you're projecting or suffering confirmation bias.
You have a wide age range, degree of intellect and articulation all posting here. I find a quick clink on the user name to view someone's profile often suggests what level of maturity you're looking at behind the posts, which often couches whatever they're posting in an appropriate context.
Regardless, you're still dismissing people's opinions because they're not expressing them in your preferred manner, which is perhaps human nature, but calling people crybabies for having strong opinions isn't going to gain you many friends.
LeadLegion wrote: GW's target audience is clearly players from group number one.
No, their target audience is clearly groups 3 and 4:
3: Young kids who beg their parents to buy space marines because that demo game looks so cool. Most of them will probably just throw their 40k stuff in the closet to gather dust until they go off to college and their parents get rid of it, because they aren't willing to invest the time and effort required to build an army. The actual rules of the game don't matter for this group, you just need to present the idea of a game to tempt them into that initial purchase. Designing for this group means minimizing costs to maximize profit: why bother playtesting or spending time writing good rules when none of it matters?
4: Dedicated collectors who want to buy a dozen copies of every new release no matter how awful it is. Again, they're going to buy stuff no matter how bad the rules are, so why invest money in making better rules?
If your group 1 was the real target then the rules would be a lot better. Even casual players want good balance and straightforward rules, and 40k as it is now is absolute garbage as a casual game. There's just a loud group of "casual at all costs" players who have given themselves the role of white knights and post constantly about how GW's excuses for why they don't have to make a better game are really the sacred wisdom of the greatest casual game designers ever.
LeadLegion wrote: I'm not entirely sure I want to see the barrier between "fluffy" players and "competitive" players come down. There's no such barrier in Warmachine - and it actively encourages players to be competitive (even in a casual setting) and discourages "casual" play with non-optimised lists.
I really don't want to see 40K go that way.
The point you keep missing is that this "barrier" only exists when you have a bad game. If the rules work properly and balance is good then the barrier is irrelevant because a "casual" player and a "competitive" player can sit down and play an enjoyable game without any problems. You only have to keep the two separate if the game is a complete mess like 40k, where how much you optimize your list to exploit the balance mistakes is the most important factor in whether you win or lose.
Also, think about what you're saying here: would you really rather have a version of 40k that is worse as a casual game just so the "competitive" players stay away? Wouldn't you rather have a better casual game instead of that kind of bizarre masochism?
Zweischneid wrote: But my, and other peoples, gaming experience with 40K is getting better, not to mention that it is far superiour (by a growing margin) to the game experience offered by other games like Warmachine, Infinity etc..
If people continue lobbying to make 40K more like the inferiour past editions, or the vastly inferior games like Warmachine, I have as much right to complain.
And once again you fail (or deliberately refuse) to understand a very simple concept: nobody here wants a clone of Warmachine. The things we want to see 40k learn from those other games are things that would make 40k a much better game while still being 40k. Better balance and rules that don't require extensive FAQs and multi-page YMDC threads are universally good things. The only reason to oppose them is out of some bizarre masochistic pride in how much abuse you can suffer and still give money to a company.
I've been playing since RT days and I love 6th edition. For decades we've clamored for fortifications, baneblades in regular games, knights, faster codex releases, etc. And now that we finally get them I hear a great deal of complaining. Let me define complaining. Complaining is different than criticism. There's plenty of room for criticism when it comes to GW. But complaining (how I define it) is when it gets reactionary, toxic and just annoying. And the GW community is growing more toxic which in no way helps the hobby at all.
Also, saying "nothing's wrong and if you make any criticism you're just whining" doesn't help either.
Understand where the other poster is coming from and see if they have a valid argument first. If someone with criticism wants to make a change, start sending in letters. Get your friends to send in letters. Create open (polite and professional) letters on forums like this addressed to GW. But just going around saying "GW is Gak! I haven't played GW in twenty years because they suck so much!" That doesn't help in the slightest.
For decades we've clamored for fortifications, baneblades in regular games, knights, faster codex releases, etc.
We have? I know that everybody and their brother wants faster codex updates (which were needed), but I can't remember a major push for any of these other items.
If your group 1 was the real target then the rules would be a lot better. Even casual players want good balance and straightforward rules, and 40k as it is now is absolute garbage as a casual game. There's just a loud group of "casual at all costs" players who have given themselves the role of white knights and post constantly about how GW's excuses for why they don't have to make a better game are really the sacred wisdom of the greatest casual game designers ever.
As opposed to stating your opinion as indisputable fact, you don't like the game and aren't having fun, stop playing. You speak like those of us still playing and enjoying the game and it's mechanics are idiots and that the idea we are still liking the rules is an impossibility so we must be faking it.
You don't pick up a game and then demand it changes to meet your expectations of rules, you look at a games rules and if you like it then you play it.
Look at any of these "Lets fix X threads" you can't get 5 people to agree on what something's stats should be but you want GW to balance their whole game on what you alone think? What you think are good rules others will hate, such is life.
Suggesting someone stops doing something if they aren't enjoying it isn't hypocrisy, trolling, or apologism. It's simply the sensible solution. If I lose interest in say Rugby but I have a season ticket I don't keep going to games and suffering through because "well I paid money" and keep shouting that they should be allowed to pass the ball forward.
I write off the ticket as a bad investment, maybe try and flog it on at a loss and find something else I enjoy. Our time is finite, why waste it?
So understand that when someone says "If you don't like it leave" it's advice, not an ultimatum.
So harking back you have a couple of choices:
1. Stop playing, cut your loses and find something else you enjoy.
2. Mod the rules yourself to be something you and your group enjoy more, keep the basic framework, no sense reinventing the wheel, but mod it.
3. Say this is the game GW wants and I enjoy it and keep playing.
There are probably some grey areas in between like maybe put your stuff in storage and wait for 7th ed or somethign but I think that hits the main ones.
Oh and Blacksails, lets not kid ourselves that all those thousands of posts folks are all beacons of light for the community, many forums this one included are guilty of having a veteran forum Mafia. Just look at how many personal attacks get thrown around this forum when someone dares to state a contrary opinion, there are some good folks out there but there's also a lot of toxins.
Dunklezahn wrote: You speak like those of us still playing and enjoying the game and it's mechanics are idiots and that the idea we are still liking the rules is an impossibility so we must be faking it.
No, you're not faking it, but I suspect you've had very little experience with other games. Once you've seen how things are done better in other games it takes some pretty rabid fanboyism to claim that 40k's rules are good.
Also, note the difference between "you're not having fun" and "you could be having more fun if GW didn't suck at game design". You might enjoy the game now, but if GW fixed the things that competitive players want fixed then you and all the other casual players would also have a much better game. And then you'd look back on 6th edition and wonder how anyone could suffer through such a horrible mess of a "game".
You don't pick up a game and then demand it changes to meet your expectations of rules, you look at a games rules and if you like it then you play it.
Except in the case of 40k (or other similar "hobby" games) you have a lot of people who play the game because of the fluff/models and have to put up with whatever rules allow them to use the things they care about. And then, thanks to GW's dominance of the market, there are a lot of people who only have 40k/WHFB available. If it's a choice between a bad miniatures game and no game at all then many of them will settle for a GW game even if the rules are terrible.
Look at any of these "Lets fix X threads" you can't get 5 people to agree on what something's stats should be but you want GW to balance their whole game on what you alone think?
That's because those threads are arguing about fine points of balance. I don't think you'll find any real disagreement over whether GW should improve balance and rule clarity as a general principle, or invest more time in design and playtesting instead of throwing out unfinished garbage as fast as they can.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrotherHaraldus wrote: I'm not going to dive into this mess too much, but I feel the need to ask;
What do you base this statement on?
Are there statistics on this somewhere?
I base this on the obvious evidence in the books GW publishes: they are clearly targeted primarily at an audience that either doesn't play the game at all (kids buying space marines) or doesn't care about the rules as long as they can keep collecting the awesome models. The only possible explanation, short of assuming that GW's game designers are utter incompetents who only have a job because GW is running a charity for people who aren't even qualified to flip burgers, is that GW is aiming for people with low standards and is unwilling to invest the effort required to make a better game when their target audience doesn't care. And my groups 3 and 4 are the two major elements of GW's customer base that have low enough standards.
the exact same threads about "broken things ruining the game" were written fifteen years ago when 40k third edition was a thing. you talk about the helldrake? meet the eldar starcannon of third edition. meet the alaitoc disruption table. meet crystal targetting matrices. meet ulthwe seer councils. meet third ed blood angels.
And it continues.
How about fourth edition? ever here of the abomination that was the Siren Prince, or else Iron Warriors?
Fifth edition - blood angels, space wolves and grey knights.
Sixth edition. tau and eldar.
Not being cheeky, but things that broke the game have always been there. you have not stumbled onto some hitherto unknown conspiracy, or failure that somehow slipped by the vigilance of the 40k community this is simply how GW writes games.
And there are solutions.
(1) treat all the new stuff as "options". GW give you the tools. You, the gamer have the choice to use them or not. play with a friend, and chat and decide what you want. Dont look to what GW does as a "how to" guide - dont look to GW to tell you how to play. - look at it as great models that you can do with as you wish. how about you take control? how about you decide? the best way to enjoy 40k is via a casual, co-operative and gentlemanly manner.
(2) play other games.
(3) grow older and bitter, consumed by hatred and rage,like many other 40k vets
/slowclap
I came here to say this and found myself pleasantly surprised.
Well not quite true
2nd eldar
3rd eldar
4th eldar
5th ah.. Well they skipped this one
6th elderp, tauderp derpderp
Eldar have been pretty broken/powerfull in every ed, and people are shocked they are again... Really??
If your group 1 was the real target then the rules would be a lot better. Even casual players want good balance and straightforward rules, and 40k as it is now is absolute garbage as a casual game. There's just a loud group of "casual at all costs" players who have given themselves the role of white knights and post constantly about how GW's excuses for why they don't have to make a better game are really the sacred wisdom of the greatest casual game designers ever.
As opposed to stating your opinion as indisputable fact, you don't like the game and aren't having fun, stop playing. You speak like those of us still playing and enjoying the game and it's mechanics are idiots and that the idea we are still liking the rules is an impossibility so we must be faking it.
You don't pick up a game and then demand it changes to meet your expectations of rules, you look at a games rules and if you like it then you play it.
Look at any of these "Lets fix X threads" you can't get 5 people to agree on what something's stats should be but you want GW to balance their whole game on what you alone think? What you think are good rules others will hate, such is life.
Suggesting someone stops doing something if they aren't enjoying it isn't hypocrisy, trolling, or apologism. It's simply the sensible solution. If I lose interest in say Rugby but I have a season ticket I don't keep going to games and suffering through because "well I paid money" and keep shouting that they should be allowed to pass the ball forward.
I write off the ticket as a bad investment, maybe try and flog it on at a loss and find something else I enjoy. Our time is finite, why waste it?
So understand that when someone says "If you don't like it leave" it's advice, not an ultimatum.
So harking back you have a couple of choices:
1. Stop playing, cut your loses and find something else you enjoy.
2. Mod the rules yourself to be something you and your group enjoy more, keep the basic framework, no sense reinventing the wheel, but mod it.
3. Say this is the game GW wants and I enjoy it and keep playing.
There are probably some grey areas in between like maybe put your stuff in storage and wait for 7th ed or somethign but I think that hits the main ones.
Oh and Blacksails, lets not kid ourselves that all those thousands of posts folks are all beacons of light for the community, many forums this one included are guilty of having a veteran forum Mafia. Just look at how many personal attacks get thrown around this forum when someone dares to state a contrary opinion, there are some good folks out there but there's also a lot of toxins.
2. Mod the rules yourself to be something you and your group enjoy more, keep the basic framework, no sense reinventing the wheel, but mod it.
Best choice, in my experience. Just remember to not buy anything rule-related from GW. Use the free market and don't pay for what you don't really want to use dammit!
No, their target audience is clearly groups 3 and 4:
I'm not going to dive into this mess too much, but I feel the need to ask;
What do you base this statement on?
Are there statistics on this somewhere?
GW themselves have stated that the majority of the people buying their models never play the game. That's disputable but that's their words.
They also told a court that at Gamesday GWs fans get to participate in their favourite part of the hobby, buying things from Games Workshop.
They also stated in an investors report (a few years back now I think) that they were in the busness of selling toys to kids.
No, you're not faking it, but I suspect you've had very little experience with other games. Once you've seen how things are done better in other games it takes some pretty rabid fanboyism to claim that 40k's rules are good.
Nope, your suspicion is pretty far off the mark, I haven't played Flames of War but the rest of the list I've either played or own an army for. I find 40k to be the most fun of the systems which is why I keep playing it. "Good" is purely subjective, I find Warmachine for example dull as all getout and would rather 40k stayed as far away from it as possible if that's what a balanced ruleset looks like. Dystopian Wars is good but hoo-boy was that first rules draft a mess.
Peregrine wrote: Also, note the difference between "you're not having fun" and "you could be having more fun if GW didn't suck at game design". You might enjoy the game now, but if GW fixed the things that competitive players want fixed then you and all the other casual players would also have a much better game. And then you'd look back on 6th edition and wonder how anyone could suffer through such a horrible mess of a "game".
Your opinion, list some of the specific changes you'd make to make it better and watch as people hate them. Competitive players can agree what should be changed any more than anyone else unless the criteria is as vague as "The rules should be better". GW have said "This is our game" and what you are saying is "I don't like it, they should change it" If that's the case just make the mods you and your group want and move on, GW cannot possibly appease everyone, that's not fanboyism, that's simple fact.
Except in the case of 40k (or other similar "hobby" games) you have a lot of people who play the game because of the fluff/models and have to put up with whatever rules allow them to use the things they care about. And then, thanks to GW's dominance of the market, there are a lot of people who only have 40k/WHFB available. If it's a choice between a bad miniatures game and no game at all then many of them will settle for a GW game even if the rules are terrible.
How are GW dominating the market? Warmachine, Infinty, the new Dystopian Wars range, Historical rulesets, Flames of War. The wargaming market has plenty of options, many of which can transfer models directly or whose rule systems can be adapted to use those beloved Warhammer models. People have even said how GW's profits are down but others are up, no-one is trying anyone to 40k, if people stay they have chosen to stay.
That's because those threads are arguing about fine points of balance. I don't think you'll find any real disagreement over whether GW should improve balance and rule clarity as a general principle, or invest more time in design and playtesting instead of throwing out unfinished garbage as fast as they can.
Except it's the same with rules, X should be stronger so this should happen, X should work like this, no it shouldn't. You have absolutely no chance of producing a ruleset everyone is happy with, 0. Hell, I doubt you could produce a ruleset you could get a dozen folks on here all happy with the changes. Changing core rules leads to changes in fine balance being required, everything is interlinked.
I base this on the obvious evidence in the books GW publishes: they are clearly targeted primarily at an audience that either doesn't play the game at all (kids buying space marines) or doesn't care about the rules as long as they can keep collecting the awesome models. The only possible explanation, short of assuming that GW's game designers are utter incompetents who only have a job because GW is running a charity for people who aren't even qualified to flip burgers, is that GW is aiming for people with low standards and is unwilling to invest the effort required to make a better game when their target audience doesn't care. And my groups 3 and 4 are the two major elements of GW's customer base that have low enough standards.
Huge assumption that works on the principle that everyone who sees the rules for Riptides or whatever and proceeds to jam as many in their list as possible, that's not everyone. Clearly *to you*, once again, far divorced from fact.
Except in the case of 40k (or other similar "hobby" games) you have a lot of people who play the game because of the fluff/models and have to put up with whatever rules allow them to use the things they care about. And then, thanks to GW's dominance of the market, there are a lot of people who only have 40k/WHFB available. If it's a choice between a bad miniatures game and no game at all then many of them will settle for a GW game even if the rules are terrible.
How are GW dominating the market? Warmachine, Infinty, the new Dystopian Wars range, Historical rulesets, Flames of War. The wargaming market has plenty of options, many of which can transfer models directly or whose rule systems can be adapted to use those beloved Warhammer models. People have even said how GW's profits are down but others are up, no-one is trying anyone to 40k, if people stay they have chosen to stay.
Um... have you joined the hobby within the last year and have no idea what it was like 5 years ago? GWs competition is growing and they are shrinking but for the past 20-30 years they have been almost always the only game in town. People aren't staying with 40k because they like it better, people are finally leaving 40k (and that's showing in the financial reports, not anecdotal) because they are discovering other options. GW are still the biggest by a wide margin though. They are shrinking but they still dominate the market, to say anything else is either a sign that in your local area they have shrunk a lot more than in others recently or complete and utter ignorance.
@Peregrine: This is semantics I know, but I'm going into this for the sake of clarification. You're group 3 (while it exists) isn't exactly going to be on DakkaDakka and hence is not one of the three groups we have "here". "Here" being on this particular thread. Probably my fault for not being specific enough in my comments.
You're group 4 pretty much falls into my group 3.
Of the three groups here on Dakka, group 1 is the target audience.
I also think you're in danger of maginalizing anyone who has an opinion that clashes with your own as either a "GW fanboy" or a moron. On the contrary, the posters who are debating your points don't come across that way to me. No one here is denying that the game has flaws.
That being said, I'll introduce myself a bit so that you have a better idea of where I'm coming from.
I'm 34
I started gaming when I was eight with WFB 3rd ed, red box D&D and 40K Rogue Trader.
My favorite edition remains Rogue Trader (which was also a very flawed system in terms of the holy grail of balance, but downright fun to play for all that).
Of editions 2-6, 6 has been my favorite. That being said, I only played about 4 games of 4th in total before rage quitting (not at the rules, but at the costs) and coming back for the tail end of 5th.
I have played (or currently play): Infinity, Malifaux, Blasters and Bulkheads, Warmachine, Hordes, Starship Troopers, In the Emperor's Name, WAB, Wastelands, Noble Armada, Judge Dredd, Void, Heavy Gear, Firestorm Armada, Mutant Chronicles, AT. And that's just the non-GW, non Fantasy Genre Games.
I'm a former TO.
I'm a former pod-caster.
I'm reliant on the wargames hobby for my livelihood and as such, keep up to date with as many new releases and rules-sets as possible.
I get my biggest kick out of gaming when it's viewed as a "co-operative" experience where neither player cares who wins, rather than a competitive one where the goal is winning.
But I am also a tournament player, because I enjoy that style of play as well.
And yet, despite all these varied experiences, I keep coming back to 40K. Because it's the game I most enjoy.
None of the dozens of games I have ever played have ever had "perfect balance" where there weren't at least some broken units or combinations.
Warmachine, the holy grail many 40K players look up to as the "Holy Grail" of game balance has just as many over-powered lists and units and just as many units that no-body uses. There's a reason that Cryx and Legion currently dominate the tournament seasons all over the world, cloself followed by Cygnar and Circle.
It's because: WARMACHINE ISN'T BALANCED EITHER.
Because it's impossible to create a perfectly balanced game. Ever hear of the theory of perfect imbalance? That's the design philosophy that Warmachine uses, and it's only possible because they release updates for every army at the same time, rather than a separate codex for each. (In other words, you still need to buy every damn book in order to play). Incidently, 40K also employs the "perfect imbalance" design theory. Albiet not as well, due to a longer period between faction updates (five years for a new codex as oppossed to every faction getting new stuff in every update for Warmachine and Hordes).
The video below explains it very well.
Moreover, Warmachine is about as dull a game as you'll ever come across (in my opinion at least) it's so damn bland and I keep seeing the same lists again and again (just like 40K but more so) every time I sit down to play.
Oh look, another Hayley and Collossal themed army. What a surprise. Hey there Mr Cryx player, is that Gaspy and Deneghra I see you playing in your lists. Wow. That was unexpected.
Of all the other games I've listed, there's not one that doesn't have issues with balance. The only difference I can see is that 40K has a larger player pool, and therefore a much larger vocal minority to whinge and moan about the things they don't like. I'm not talking about GW business practices here. I'm just referring to the players that constantly harp on about game balance and how much they hate the game but keep playing anyway.
Playing a game you hate? That's masochism. Playing a game you love even when other gamers hate it? That is not masochism. That's a hobby.
Now that I am on a keyboard and not a tablet let me address this.
Deadnight wrote: (1) ie they like the idea of 40k more than the reality. If you don't like it, leave is an argument. I've got 2000pts of tau, and a whole bunch of mArines sitting in boxes. They've not gained in ages. Didn't stop me embracing warmachine, infinity, dystopian wars, drop zone commander, flanges of war etc. maybe it's just me, but I'm quite happy being a mercenary in terms of who/what I give my support to. Gw won't reward me for my loyalty.
Tell me more what other people do and do not like.
Deadnight wrote: (2) different rules don't make it 'not' 40k. There have been six incarnations of 40k, all being different. There are other rules sets (Andy chambers' starship troopers) that were 'almost' 40k. There are other media describing 40k in terms if rules, via computer games, books and RPGs. Saying 40k is only 40k because of a bunch of rules from gw is extremely short sighted. 40k is 40k because of space marines, orks, chainswords, bolter pornand so on. Rules are an abstract. Rules are a mechanism. Rules dont necessarily define ip's. You can inhabit the 40k verse in an infinite number of ways. Don't assume the rules from gw are the only proper way.
And here is the thing, most gAmes of 40k are played by small handfuls of friends, or clubs. Having their own rules is t necessarily exclusionary - 'we do the game a bit differently here mate. Have a look, and see what you think'.
In my own 'casual Friday' group, we normally do flames of war. But we don't use the 'proper' lists for armies - we put down what looks cool. We're also quite happy to add/remove things if we feel they'll add or subtract from the game. Fir example, rather than igoyougo, we've tried alternative activations, which was great, and have added bolt action's random unit activation to our games and it's immensely enjoyable. Sure, it's not 'proper' but who cares - we have fun. And that's the point.
Of course changing the rules makes it exclusionary. "I am sorry little timmy, you can't play with your 3 riptides, even though you only bought them because you love the model." BAM you just excluded someone from your group. Having a set of house rules makes for a bad game. Take Monopoly for example. That has a set of rules that makes the game over pretty quickly. Unfortunately, people don't like losing quickly, so pretty much everyone has their house rules (a common one is putting taxes and fees into "Free Parking") and those make the game go on for hours. The funny thing about the Monopoly example, is the game was initially created to show the horrors of true capitalism. I have played Monopoly with about 5 different households and all of them had different rules. And none of them were fun because the games dragged on for 8 hours.
No ones stopping you from using your own home made rules. But saying "I play 40k" because you use the models doesn't make it true. I can't really claim I am playing Warmachine, because I am using the models for it in 40k rules.
All of those 6 official versions of 40k ARE 40k. Because those are the rules for the game as published by the company. I don't see how that supports your argument of "Blacksail's 40k" is 40k.
Deadnight wrote: I've heRd people saying the rules are crap for ten years now, they're still crap. Gw won't listen jpong. Go on, tell them exactly what you want, and they'll still go off and do their one thing. Constructive criticism using really constructive when nothing gets done by the company in question! They're 'model making company'. Get their stuff, but make the game your own if how they do it bothers you.
And that doesn't mean people can't voice their opinion. And just because the company doesn't listen, doesn't mean it isn't constructive criticism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
XenosTerminus wrote: It is still an argument, and a solution. You can't always get what you want- it's a lesson we learn very early in life, and people stomping their feet and vocalizing/whining until the polar caps melt is akin to a selfish child demanding they get what they want and throwing tantrums. It's one thing to wish things were better,but accept something you seemingly enjoy for all its flaws- it's another thing entirely to vocalize it as if it's the 'cool' thing to do.
Except, again, we have established these people like 40k. Not to mention the hypocrisy in complaining about people complaining and telling them if they don't like it to go away. No one has addressed the hypocrisy.
XenosTerminus wrote: If you don't like the vanilla 40k ruleset, and you aren't willing to play homebrew or houseruled variations (which is encouraged)- what do you have left? You are complaining that the rules are bad, but also complaining that you don't want to limit yourself to a specific group or ruleset.
Why should people play homebrewed 40k rules? That's just asking for your group to get smaller and smaller. You are excluding people from playing in your group, simply because you don't like some rules.
XenosTerminus wrote: To your last point- people ARE saying the rules are gak. While some people provide examples of how things could be improved, it's not uncommon around here for someone to simply sneak in, hijack a discussion, insert their contrived 'GW is gak and their rules are bad' tripe, then scurry off to the next post to repeat the same thing.
Selection bias. You want to read something so you are reading it.
XenosTerminus wrote: If you, as a consumer, want to voice your opinion about your distaste with the direction GW is going- write them a letter. Call corporate. Do anything but complain about the state of things on a forum. That accomplishes nothing.
Jpong, I think you may be overstating the case for house rules changing a game into a different game entirely.
Just about every RPG group I've ever played in had it's own house rules for every single system they used. Yet I've never had any problem sliding into a new group whenever I've moved area, because house rules generally have such a minor impact on a game. (Anecdotal evidence I know, but show me how to find stats for this and I'll use them too).
For example. Here's our groups informal house-rules for 40K. So simple, none of us have ever seen the need to write them down. They just evolved naturally.
No Strength D weapons unless you're opponent has one too.
Escalation and Stronghold Assault are allowed (but see above)
If you want to use a non-GW codex, check with your opponent first.
Now, if the house rules involved changes as complex as alternate unit activation then I'd agree that they become fundamentally different from 40K. Such a house rule would change the meta and completely throw any new player coming into the group. A new player would have to re-think all his old assumptions. In fact, such a change is so drastic that, unless the rest of the rules was re-written as well, it would completely destroy the existing balance altogether. At that point, more house rules would be needed and in time the rules that resulted would bear little resemblance to 40K.
Unless I've greatly mis-interpreted this thread, no-one is suggesting anything so drastic here.
Um... have you joined the hobby within the last year and have no idea what it was like 5 years ago? GWs competition is growing and they are shrinking but for the past 20-30 years they have been almost always the only game in town. People aren't staying with 40k because they like it better, people are finally leaving 40k (and that's showing in the financial reports, not anecdotal) because they are discovering other options. GW are still the biggest by a wide margin though. They are shrinking but they still dominate the market, to say anything else is either a sign that in your local area they have shrunk a lot more than in others recently or complete and utter ignorance.
More than 20 years actually, you'll also notice you responded to a comment I didn't make, notice I said:
"if people stay they have chosen to stay"
Not that the majority of people are staying. The comment was in reference to the idea being bandied around that players are somehow trapped in 40k like a junkie, if people have stayed playing 40k the simplest assumption is they want to stay.
JPong wrote: Why should people play homebrewed 40k rules? That's just asking for your group to get smaller and smaller. You are excluding people from playing in your group, simply because you don't like some rules.
That's why it's a group discussion among folks willing to discuss and compromise. Yes it can make a smaller group but if it improves the quality of the game it's not a bad thing. Plus nothing stops a new person joining the group, seeing how that group plays and making their own suggestions.
JPong wrote: Selection bias. You want to read something so you are reading it.
Oh come now, I wouldn't because it's naming and shaming and just not nice but I think we can all name a number of people who swing by almost every discussion to make those kinds of statements and sometimes even take a swing at the posters. You are very lucky if you've managed to not see them.
LeadLegion wrote: Jpong, I think you may be overstating the case for house rules changing a game into a different game entirely.
Just about every RPG group I've ever played in had it's own house rules for every single system they used. Yet I've never had any problem sliding into a new group whenever I've moved area, because house rules generally have such a minor impact on a game. (Anecdotal evidence I know, but show me how to find stats for this and I'll use them too).
For example. Here's our groups informal house-rules for 40K. So simple, none of us have ever seen the need to write them down. They just evolved naturally.
No Strength D weapons unless you're opponent has one too.
Escalation and Stronghold Assault are allowed (but see above)
If you want to use a non-GW codex, check with your opponent first.
Now, if the house rules involved changes as complex as alternate unit activation then I'd agree that they become fundamentally different from 40K. Such a house rule would change the meta and completely throw any new player coming into the group. A new player would have to re-think all his old assumptions. In fact, such a change is so drastic that, unless the rest of the rules was re-written as well, it would completely destroy the existing balance altogether. At that point, more house rules would be needed and in time the rules that resulted would bear little resemblance to 40K.
Unless I've greatly mis-interpreted this thread, no-one is suggesting anything so drastic here.
Just about every RPG also has a DM that tells you what the rules are. And no one can argue with him. His interests aren't counter to the interests of everyone else playing.
No StrD weapons sounds reasonable, but what do you say to the guy that likes that new Knight model coming out and buys it and really wants to play it. All of a sudden you are turning away a gamer because you don't like something. This is especially a problem in smaller areas with less players.
And then why bother going through the trouble of making non-GW codexes? I wouldn't play against one. I couldn't take one I created anywhere and expect people to play against it. It is probably worse in every way than a GW one anyways. Because it's all wishlisting. I want to be playing the same rules as everyone else, because that means I can go anywhere and play a game, not be confined to a specific group of people (who are probably friends but sometimes change is fun too) because I feel something is OP and should be banned.
Plenty of people have been saying "Play it this way or you are wrong." Plenty of people have been telling other people what to think. Plenty of people here, have been accusing people who have been helping people play this game for decades of being unhelpful.
JPong wrote:
Why should people play homebrewed 40k rules? That's just asking for your group to get smaller and smaller. You are excluding people from playing in your group, simply because you don't like some rules.
That's why it's a group discussion among folks willing to discuss and compromise. Yes it can make a smaller group but if it improves the quality of the game it's not a bad thing. Plus nothing stops a new person joining the group, seeing how that group plays and making their own suggestions.
So no argument against it making smaller groups? And you can't see how making an already niche hobby more niche is bad? And the group will continue to shrink down in size because people will leave and new people won't join. Joining this group has a new barrier to entry, you have to learn how they play the game (and it probably isn't written down) so you will randomly get rules thrown at you like "Oh yeah, we treat all the bottom floor windows as boarded up blocking LOS" (An actual houserule I have seen).
JPong wrote:
Selection bias. You want to read something so you are reading it.
Oh come now, I wouldn't because it's naming and shaming and just not nice but I think we can all name a number of people who swing by almost every discussion to make those kinds of statements and sometimes even take a swing at the posters. You are very lucky if you've managed to not see them.
Point them out.
Seriously, if you are just going to continue to claim this, and not bother with context, then what's the point in arguing this.
You might see someone who says "I agree these rules are dumb and something needs to be done about them" in a thread filled with people who have said "Yeah, I don't like random charge lengths, fixed ones were so much better", in which case, the first quote there might just not have anything to add that hasn't already been said.
It's selection bias. You are reading what you want to read because it agrees with your own preconceived notions. It doesn't matter if some people who say it are the same people as who have said it before.
"Because it's all wishlisting. I want to be playing the same rules as everyone else, because that means I can go anywhere and play a game, not be confined to a specific group of people (who are probably friends but sometimes change is fun too) because I feel something is OP and should be banned. "
Which, to me sounds as though you're saying non_GW codixes shouldn't be allowed because you want to play the same game as everyone else. But then you say:
"Plenty of people have been saying "Play it this way or you are wrong." Plenty of people have been telling other people what to think. Plenty of people here, have been accusing people who have been helping people play this game for decades of being unhelpful."
Haven't you yourself just told us that you think allowing non-GW codices is wrong? Because you want to play the same rules as everyone else. Doesn't that mean that you yourself are also telling people what to think, and that the way they want to play the game is wrong?
I'm not trolling you here. I genuinely want to understand your viewpoint, but that last post of yours has very confused. If I've misinterpreted you, please let me know.
Anyway, in answer to your other points:
If a member of our group has a D Weapon model and wants to play it, the solution in our group is simple: another players brings out his own D-Weapon list and both players get a game.
The reason we allow non-GW codices in friendly games is because GW doesn't have a Codice for every model in the current range. We allow fan-made Squat codices because it means that a player who spent a ton of money on the models still gets to use them. We allow the fan made Genestealer cult and Arbiters codeces for the same reason. We haven't come across any others yet, but if someone turned up with a fan made Ad-Mech codex, we'd allow that too.
"Because it's all wishlisting. I want to be playing the same rules as everyone else, because that means I can go anywhere and play a game, not be confined to a specific group of people (who are probably friends but sometimes change is fun too) because I feel something is OP and should be banned. "
Which, to me sounds as though you're saying non_GW codixes shouldn't be allowed because you want to play the same game as anyone else. But then you say:
"Plenty of people have been saying "Play it this way or you are wrong." Plenty of people have been telling other people what to think. Plenty of people here, have been accusing people who have been helping people play this game for decades of being unhelpful."
Haven't you yourself just told us that you think allowing non-GW codices is wrong? Because you want to play the same rules as everyone else. Doesn't that mean that you yourself are also telling people what to think, and that the way they want to play the game is wrong?
I'm not trolling you here. I genuinely want to understand your viewpoint, but that last post of yours has very confused. If I've misinterpreted you, please let me know.
P.S If the guy has a D Weapon model and wants to play it, the solution in our group is simple: another players brings out his own D-Weapon list and both players get a game.
No I did not. I said I wouldn't play against one because of those reasons. People are free to play however they want.
I would like a ruleset where rule changes weren't required just to have a reasonable game. I want to be able to go into any store and play a game where we are all on the same terms without having an hour and a half long discussion on every rule bug there is. Hell, right now, there are people who could be playing using the entire rulebook as written and they are playing a different game than me, because of the FAQs that totally changed how certain things worked, because as written they were broken (LOS! being a prime example).
JPong wrote: [So no argument against it making smaller groups? And you can't see how making an already niche hobby more niche is bad? And the group will continue to shrink down in size because people will leave and new people won't join. Joining this group has a new barrier to entry, you have to learn how they play the game (and it probably isn't written down) so you will randomly get rules thrown at you like "Oh yeah, we treat all the bottom floor windows as boarded up blocking LOS" (An actual houserule I have seen).
People will join though, but the group says "that's how we play". A new person may come in and bring a new discussion to the group over something they already discussed, maybe the group changes it's mind, maybe it doesn't. A person is just as likely to say "I like that idea" as they are to say "I hate that idea enough not to play". Part of the hobby is discussion and that group has laid down it's changes, they aren't set in stone but they are the current iteration and after a game or two most folks can easily remember a few tweaks here and here to a ruleset. If the new person finds the rules incompatible with their desired way to play they walk on by, no harm, no foul.
JPong wrote: Seriously, if you are just going to continue to claim this, and not bother with context, then what's the point in arguing this.
Because even if that kind of naming and shaming isn't against site rules I'm pretty sure the mods don't want to see it because it could easily be interpreted as a personal attack and I respect that line, it doesn't mean it's not going on. Call it selection bias if you want, I say if you genuinely haven't noticed it you are lucky indeed.
JPong wrote: I would like a ruleset where rule changes weren't required just to have a reasonable game.
And folks are arguing that game is 40k for them, or that they like 40k how it is as a framework and don't really want too much change, if it's not for you play a different game. Why cling so stoicly to a game who's system you dislike? They changed 40k to make it for them, you want 40k change for you.
"Plenty of people have been saying "Play it this way or you are wrong." Plenty of people have been telling other people what to think. Plenty of people here, have been accusing people who have been helping people play this game for decades of being unhelpful."
Haven't you yourself just told us that you think allowing non-GW codices is wrong? Because you want to play the same rules as everyone else. Doesn't that mean that you yourself are also telling people what to think, and that the way they want to play the game is wrong?
I don't think that he meant this rules-wise but more like attitude-wise. So what he is saying is something like this: "Play the game with all the official rules and leave your homebrew rules and restrictions in the trash bin." And then he is pointing out is that there are still people with this annoying (for him, at least) "B-but muh homebrew rules/restrictions!" approach and preach their ways as they were The Truth even though they aren't because they are messing up the system with non-official stuff.
That being said, I'll introduce myself a bit so that you have a better idea of where I'm coming from.
I'm 34
I started gaming when I was eight with WFB 3rd ed, red box D&D and 40K Rogue Trader.
My favorite edition remains Rogue Trader (which was also a very flawed system in terms of the holy grail of balance, but downright fun to play for all that).
Of editions 2-6, 6 has been my favorite. That being said, I only played about 4 games of 4th in total before rage quitting (not at the rules, but at the costs) and coming back for the tail end of 5th.
I have played (or currently play): Infinity, Malifaux, Blasters and Bulkheads, Warmachine, Hordes, Starship Troopers, In the Emperor's Name, WAB, Wastelands, Noble Armada, Judge Dredd, Void, Heavy Gear, Firestorm Armada, Mutant Chronicles, AT. And that's just the non-GW, non Fantasy Genre Games.
I'm a former TO.
I'm a former pod-caster.
I'm reliant on the wargames hobby for my livelihood and as such, keep up to date with as many new releases and rules-sets as possible.
I get my biggest kick out of gaming when it's viewed as a "co-operative" experience where neither player cares who wins, rather than a competitive one where the goal is winning.
But I am also a tournament player, because I enjoy that style of play as well.
And yet, despite all these varied experiences, I keep coming back to 40K. Because it's the game I most enjoy.
None of the dozens of games I have ever played have ever had "perfect balance" where there weren't at least some broken units or combinations.
Warmachine, the holy grail many 40K players look up to as the "Holy Grail" of game balance has just as many over-powered lists and units and just as many units that no-body uses. There's a reason that Cryx and Legion currently dominate the tournament seasons all over the world, cloself followed by Cygnar and Circle.
It's because: WARMACHINE ISN'T BALANCED EITHER.
Because it's impossible to create a perfectly balanced game. Ever hear of the theory of perfect imbalance? That's the design philosophy that Warmachine uses, and it's only possible because they release updates for every army at the same time, rather than a separate codex for each. (In other words, you still need to buy every damn book in order to play). Incidently, 40K also employs the "perfect imbalance" design theory. Albiet not as well, due to a longer period between faction updates (five years for a new codex as oppossed to every faction getting new stuff in every update for Warmachine and Hordes).
Moreover, Warmachine is about as dull a game as you'll ever come across (in my opinion at least) it's so damn bland and I keep seeing the same lists again and again (just like 40K but more so) every time I sit down to play.
Oh look, another Hayley and Collossal themed army. What a surprise. Hey there Mr Cryx player, is that Gaspy and Deneghra I see you playing in your lists. Wow. That was unexpected.
Of all the other games I've listed, there's not one that doesn't have issues with balance. The only difference I can see is that 40K has a larger player pool, and therefore a much larger vocal minority to whinge and moan about the things they don't like. I'm not talking about GW business practices here. I'm just referring to the players that constantly harp on about game balance and how much they hate the game but keep playing anyway.
Playing a game you hate? That's masochism. Playing a game you love even when other gamers hate it? That is not masochism. That's a hobby.
Exalted because it is similar to my own story. I'm 35 and have been playing since RT first came out.
I played the old Red box D&D, cyberpunk, Mekton Zeta, and many others.
I was huge into Battletech and other games but my heart was always into 40k.
6th edition is by far my favorite edition and I have a metric crap ton of fun every time I play. (except when I got curb stomped by this Necron tournie list)
I'm an author.
I'm a blogger.
I'm a combat veteran
Lived in several countries.
I say this to show that I'm not a teenage noob that doesn't know better.
There are many valid criticisms of GW and WH40k, but this community has become toxic and that's hurting the community as much as GW's business practices. We can't change GW very much, but we can change the community and maybe direct the energy to a more productive effort.
JPong wrote: [So no argument against it making smaller groups? And you can't see how making an already niche hobby more niche is bad? And the group will continue to shrink down in size because people will leave and new people won't join. Joining this group has a new barrier to entry, you have to learn how they play the game (and it probably isn't written down) so you will randomly get rules thrown at you like "Oh yeah, we treat all the bottom floor windows as boarded up blocking LOS" (An actual houserule I have seen).
People will join though, but the group says "that's how we play". A new person may come in and bring a new discussion to the group over something they already discussed, maybe the group changes it's mind, maybe it doesn't. A person is just as likely to say "I like that idea" as they are to say "I hate that idea enough not to play". Part of the hobby is discussion and that group has laid down it's changes, they aren't set in stone but they are the current iteration and after a game or two most folks can easily remember a few tweaks here and here to a ruleset. If the new person finds the rules incompatible with their desired way to play they walk on by, no harm, no foul.
And the harm is done. You have said "No" to this person. You have excluded someone from playing. And it's not like it's a 50/50 yes/no response. Yes there are only two answers, but it's more complex than that and you know it.
JPong wrote:
I would like a ruleset where rule changes weren't required just to have a reasonable game.
And folks are arguing that game is 40k for them, or that they like 40k how it is as a framework and don't really want too much change, if it's not for you play a different game. Why cling so stoicly to a game who's system you dislike?
Because as we have established. People like 40k and want what is best for the game to foster growth. Fracturing your already niche community into even more niches doesn't help it grow.
MWHistorian wrote: I think communication between players is vital and not too much to ask for.
Why should it be vital to play the base game? Beyond the most basic discussions like defining what terrain is what, I would much rather shoot the gak with my opponent than talk about how rules should work. Game of Thrones discussions are way better than "What exactly does shooting through the gaps in a unit mean and how does it apply to 25% obscured?"
I started collecting 40K because I liked the setting and chose Necrons for my army because I liked their concept (it was during the final days of the fifth edition).
I am not a very competative player but I quickly found that to have fun games merely being non-competative wasn't enough, I had to actively limit my purchases and playstyles to keep my army from automatically steamrolling most of my opponents!
I really liked the Wraiths, but I kept myself from buying more than a single unit because they're too good. I like scythes but even with merely two I had some people giving me funny looks and mentioning bakeries and circuses and more than once I found myself assuring people I have no intention of buying more. When I looked into FW models I didn't consider just aesthetics and effectiveness, I also made sure to compare them to similar models to make sure they weren't too powerful. I thought the Transcendent C'tan looked awesome so I ordered it along with the brand new Apoc rulebook thinking it'll look awesome on the shelf and maybe get to be played in an apoc game once in a blue moon, and then I found myself appalled to discover that Escalation suddenly made that monstrosity legal for regular games (never played at one except for one instance where my opponent specifically asked me to).
I took active steps to limit my own army and I still crush many codices without even trying really hard. A few months ago I wrote up a fairly random sub optimal list for a friendly game and ended up accidentally tabling a Dark Angels player in about 3 turns in a completely one sided massacre... I actually felt bad about it afterwards!
This is not how a fun casual game should be like. The core rules have issues, but that problem pales bleached white in the face of the horrendous codex balance.
MWHistorian wrote: I think communication between players is vital and not too much to ask for.
Why should it be vital to play the base game? Beyond the most basic discussions like defining what terrain is what, I would much rather shoot the gak with my opponent than talk about how rules should work. Game of Thrones discussions are way better than "What exactly does shooting through the gaps in a unit mean and how does it apply to 25% obscured?"
Because its not a video game and requires human interaction. If some simple communication makes the game more fun, maybe you should communicate? I've never played a table top game or RPG where communication wasn't vital. If you want that go play Dawn of War on the PC.
MWHistorian wrote: I think communication between players is vital and not too much to ask for.
Why should it be vital to play the base game? Beyond the most basic discussions like defining what terrain is what, I would much rather shoot the gak with my opponent than talk about how rules should work. Game of Thrones discussions are way better than "What exactly does shooting through the gaps in a unit mean and how does it apply to 25% obscured?"
Because its not a video game and requires human interaction. If some simple communication makes the game more fun, maybe you should communicate? I've never played a table top game or RPG where communication wasn't vital. If you want that go play Dawn of War on the PC.
Did you actually read my post? Human interaction does make the game more fun. But I prefer to interact in things not totally revolving around the rules or what is and is not acceptable to bring to a game. Nothing you said here addressed that.
@ JPong: Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it.
@MWHistorian: Thanks very much. Hadn't realised you were an actual historian. I'll need to check out your blog.
The vital communication in terms of "game-speak" is discussing terrain and saves, and what sort of game is going to be played (Escalation, Stronghold Assault etc). Generally speaking that sort of thing is over before the first dice roll. Much of it (unless you're playing a pick-up game) is even sorted out a couple of weeks in advance, when you first arrange to meet up for a game. After all of that is sorted, the mid-game conversation naturally turns to things like game of thrones and interesting in-game events.
Pick-up games are a little bit different, because the shared assumptions/consensus you have with a regular opponent isn't present. So you need to chat about mechanics a bit more, especially in terms of things like mysterious terrain and objectives. It's hard to cover everything in advance of the first dice roll in a pick-up game, so naturally a little bit of mechanics talk creeps in during the actual game.
At least outside of a tournament setting where all these issues are normally settled well in advance.
40K is no different from any other game system in this regard, If you're playing a regular opponent, the game mechanics talk is normally dealt with before the first dice roll. If it's not a regular opponent, it creeps into the the actual mid-game conversation as various issues come up
That's true whether you're playing 40K, Warmachine, Battletech, Infinity, Malifaux or any other game. Personally, I find the pre-game chat about terrain is actually something of an ice-breaker, when you're staring across a tournament table at some guy you've never met before. It's the first thing I bring up after hello's, hand-shakes and "how's the weather?"
The really vital thing is to make sure both players have the same expectations before the game starts. In other words to make sureone of you doesn't turn up expecting to play Stronghold Assault when the other hasn't. Or that one of you doesn't turn up expecting a casual game while the other has brought a tourny list.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ Galorian: I completely understand where you're coming from. Necrons are a very powerful codex and all the cool looking choices from a modelling point of view also happen to be really powerful in game.
As you say, sometimes it's not always possible to tailor your existing collection to match the kind of game your opponent wants (especially when one or both of you are new players). Dark Angels have a notoriously hard time dealing with flier heavy armies because they have so little in the way of anti-air. Even one or two fliers can present a huge problem for them.
As your group allows forgeworld, you might want to suggest to him that he picks up a Mortis Dreadnaught or a Mortis Contemptor Dreadnaught. It's a Dreadnaught that gains the skyfire and intercept rules if it stands still. The double twin-linked auocannons and the double twin-linked lascannon version are probably the best choices, allowing the Dread to do good work on ground and air targets. I play Dark Angels as one of my armies, and the addition of a couple of Mortis Dreads to my list made a huge difference in terms of enjoying the game, both for myself and for my opponnents.
LeadLegion wrote: 40K is no different from any other game system in this regard, If you're playing a regular opponent, the game mechanics talk is normally dealt with before the first dice roll. If it's not a regular opponent, it creeps into the the actual mid-game conversation as various issues come up.
There are many games where this isn't true. Game mechanics are generally just understood by the people playing.
Take Magic the Gathering for example. When I played, here is how a typical game would go.
Random Person : "Yo, JPong, I challenge you to a duel" (from across the store)
Me : "I accept, ya villainous scum, what be the terms"
RP : "Type 2"
*After finding a table*
*Dice roll, cut, flip a coin, Rock Paper Scissors, or any other method to see who goes first*
Me : "Did you see that ludicrous display last night? Attack"
RP : "Block. Totally, the problem with Arsenal is they always try and walk it in." *Marks life down*
Etc.
Hell, I stopped playing that game like 10 years ago and to this day I could still play a game with anyone. I have only passingly read the Warmachine rulebook, but I am pretty sure with minimal rules discussion, I could play that game today. I would, if people played it in my area.
The problem with 40k is that it requires more than terrain discussion. Because some rules just don't work. And then you have people who say "No, you can't play with more than one riptide because they are OP." Or as in the case of the guy with necrons just a few posts up saying he gets funny looks for fielding what he wants, and he isn't even doing that, because he is afraid to field what he wants. How is that, in any way, good for the hobby?
I'll grant you that magic hasn't changed much. But then, Magic is a card game with a rulebook that's only has a few dozen pages.
I know plenty of wargames with just a few dozen pages of rules. And every one of them has failed to capture my attention because, unlike Magic, there are too few variables involved in a 36page set of wargames rules to keep the game interesting for long.
But everytime I've sat down to play magic, there's always a discussion about the rule on this card interacts with the rule on this card. It's only the really experienced players who play against one another regularly (or who play on the tournament circuit) that don't have this kind of conversation because they've already settled these issues on previous occassions..
I'm reluctant to accept any comparison between card game and wargame mechanics because of the fundamental differences in the way they play. But if you can suggest a popular wargame that doesn't involve at least a little game-mechanic discussion between strangers at the start of the game, then I'll run out and buy it.
Warmachine is not that game by the way. I've played in Warmhordes tournaments and in casual games, and even in Warmachine we need to discuss terrain before we start. In fact, sometimes we need to actually measure the height of the terrain. Why? Because LOS in Warmachine isn't determined by whether or not the actual model is visible over the actual terrain piece. It's determined by the size of the models base compared to the height of the terrain piece!
With regards to Galorian and the problems he has encountered, I can also say hand on heart that I've encountered the same scenario in every game I have played. It's not a problem unique to 40k. Hayley with Temporal Barrier in Warmachine will nuke any list that isn't specifically designed around ranged weapons. In fact, in Warmachine, you bring at least two lists to a tournament, and pick one before each game. Why? Because the problem Galorian describes is even worse in Warmachine than it is in 40K.
LeadLegion wrote: I'll grant you that magic hasn't changed much. But then, Magic is a card game with a rulebook that's only has a few dozen pages.
I know plenty of wargames with just a few dozen pages of rules. And every one of them has failed to capture my attention because, unlike Magic, there are too few variables involved in a 36page set of wargames rules to keep the game interesting for long.
But everytime I've sat down to play magic, there's always a discussion about the rule on this card interacts with the rule on this card. It's only the really experienced players who play against one another regularly (or who play on the tournament circuit) that don't have this kind of conversation because they've already settled these issues on previous occassions..
I'm reluctant to accept any comparison between card game and wargame mechanics because of the fundamental differences in the way they play. But if you can suggest a popular wargame that doesn't involve at least a little game-mechanic discussion between strangers at the start of the game, then I'll run out and buy it.
Warmachine is not that game by the way. I've played in Warmhordes tournaments and in casual games, and even in Warmachine we need to discuss terrain before we start. In fact, sometimes we need to actually measure the height of the terrain. Why? Because LOS in Warmachine isn't determined by whether or not the actual model is visible over the actual terrain piece. It's determined by the size of the models base compared to the height of the terrain piece!
With regards to Galorian and the problems he has encountered, I can also say hand on heart that I've encountered the same scenario in every game I have played. It's not a problem unique to 40k. Hayley with Temporal Barrier in Warmachine will nuke any list that isn't specifically designed around ranged weapons. In fact, in Warmachine, you bring at least two lists to a tournament, and pick one before each game. Why? Because the problem Galorian describes is even worse in Warmachine than it is in 40K.
I have already said a little terrain discussion is needed. Why do you keep bringing that up?
Of course terrain discussion is needed, because no one makes levels in ruins that are 3" tall because it is awkward to get models underneath them, but everyone still admits that it would be broken if you didn't count them as 3" for the purposes of moving between them. Although this edition actually has pretty clear rules for terrain, the only real issue they need to fix about it, is to discuss sizes of terrain. Warmachine actually covers that pretty well. Talking about destroying sections of terrain and height of the sections and such.
If you need to measure terrain as part of the game, I don't see how you can complain about that. Even 40k only uses true los most of the time. But for example, if you can see a wing of a creature, it doesn't count. This gets hairy when talking about Tyranids though. Because arms do count, and for tyranids wings are arms.
Card games are totally valid comparisons however. Magic actually doesn't have many issues, since if you read the card it tells you exactly how it works. Interactions are handled on the stack, each card one at a time. As long as both players understand the rules, it's fairly clear. Even though tournament circuit judges actually have a giant rulebook with like 1000 pages that they need to memorize on pretty much every specific card interaction. I actually watched a high level tournament game in Magic (only once, it's otherwise quite boring) the judge was called over like 16 times in one game, and all of it was because of basic rules. You didn't untap that in your untap phase, it's still tapped, etc. The basic rulebook for magic is probably a dozen pages, but if you include all the special rules written on cards, it would be way higher.
40k is not that complicated at it's root. It's only complicated because it's poorly written. One of the simplest things GW could do to help clarify the rules is actually define all the phases of the game. Have your Blessing/Malediction phase, your reserves phase, your regrouping phase, your movement phase, your shooting phase, your running phase, your charging phase, your melee phase, your consolidation phase, any phases that I may have missed and not necessarily in that order. That's why there are problems. They introduced all those special rules (of which I don't think there are too many like some) in the rulebook, and then they don't use them. They invent even newer rules in the codexes, rather than rely on ones that already exist. The differences in armies should be how they get these rules not new rules.
I have to run just now, so I won't be able to reply properly until later. Just a few quick comments.
The terrain thing was just mean't as an example of the sort of game mechanic chat that's required before any wargame. I apologise if I've been belaboring the point a bit.
You mentioned that there were no Warmachine players in your area. There is a thriving Warmachine scene playing on a virtual online tabletop using Vassal. There's even a small tournament scene on Vassal as well. I have a quick "how-to" guide bookmarked somewhere. I'll dig it out for you and post it up in case you'd like to try the game out for yourself. It's a decent game, and I'm not trying to trash-talk it here (despite the fact I keep using it as a sacrifical kitten). I just don't enjoy it as much as I enjoy 40k. It holds my interest for a couple of dozen games at most, then I get bored and disappear from the scene for a couple of years.
I am not a huge Vassal fan, not that there is anything wrong with Vassal. I play wargames to get away from the computer, since I work on them all day. Plus, it's fun to hang out with real living people.
JPong wrote: And the harm is done. You have said "No" to this person. You have excluded someone from playing. And it's not like it's a 50/50 yes/no response. Yes there are only two answers, but it's more complex than that and you know it.
a/ the harm isn't done, what have they said no to, you aren't stopping them from playing you are just saying "this is how we decided to play". Now if that person plays and then has input they want want to add they are welcome to add it and maybe those rules change maybe they don't. If the player instantly goes "Well that's not how I want to play" and walks off that's no loss. If you aren't willing to give and take and discuss it then you want something different to our group and we should play separately.
There are only two options, you become part of the social structure of the group or you don't. And yes there are criteria like treating the other members of the group with the respect you would expect, would you consider it bad to exclude a tantrum model thrower?
JPong wrote:
Because as we have established. People like 40k and want what is best for the game to foster growth. Fracturing your already niche community into even more niches doesn't help it grow.
No, if people want GW to change to their will they don't want what's best for the 40k, they want it to become what they think 40k should be. That's the difference. A group that is open to discussion and rules tweaks is helping the game grow, a group that complains about lazy rules writing an waiting for GW to follow their model is just poisoning the well for new players.
Everyone has the right to complain or compliment but there are repercussions in the greater community.
JPong wrote: And the harm is done. You have said "No" to this person. You have excluded someone from playing. And it's not like it's a 50/50 yes/no response. Yes there are only two answers, but it's more complex than that and you know it.
a/ the harm isn't done, what have they said no to, you aren't stopping them from playing you are just saying "this is how we decided to play". Now if that person plays and then has input they want want to add they are welcome to add it and maybe those rules change maybe they don't. If the player instantly goes "Well that's not how I want to play" and walks off that's no loss. If you aren't willing to give and take and discuss it then you want something different to our group and we should play separately.
There are only two options, you become part of the social structure of the group or you don't. And yes there are criteria like treating the other members of the group with the respect you would expect, would you consider it bad to exclude a tantrum model thrower?
You fractured the community, and someone didn't get to join a new community. That's harm. That's harming the game. This isn't someone who makes the game unfun. This isn't someone who makes the game physically dangerous. This is someone who just wants to game.
JPong wrote:
Because as we have established. People like 40k and want what is best for the game to foster growth. Fracturing your already niche community into even more niches doesn't help it grow.
No, if people want GW to change to their will they don't want what's best for the 40k, they want it to become what they think 40k should be. That's the difference. A group that is open to discussion and rules tweaks is helping the game grow, a group that complains about lazy rules writing an waiting for GW to follow their model is just poisoning the well for new players.
Everyone has the right to complain or compliment but there are repercussions in the greater community.
Uhhh huh. This doesn't counter what you quoted at all. It doesn't address the fracturing of the community. It doesn't address how making better rules would help the community. It doesn't address anything.
I get it, you are happy with the rules the way they are and don't want anything to change and you just want everyone that doesn't agree with you to feth off and die. But that's not going to happen. And it's hypocritical of you to complain about people complaining and wishing they would leave. Again, YOU STILL HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THE HYPOCRISY.
JPong wrote: hhh huh. This doesn't counter what you quoted at all. It doesn't address the fracturing of the community. It doesn't address how making better rules would help the community. It doesn't address anything.
It really does, best for who? Also better rules is subjective, better for who you? What if others don't like them? Are they still better rules if you are the only one who likes them?
JPong wrote: I get it, you are happy with the rules the way they are and don't want anything to change and you just want everyone that doesn't agree with you to feth off and die. But that's not going to happen. And it's hypocritical of you to complain about people complaining and wishing they would leave. Again, YOU STILL HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THE HYPOCRISY.
At least argue against my point rather than your preconceived version.
There is no hypocrisy, no-one is being stopped from playing anything, you have fractured nothing. You are saying this is how we play, by all means join us, talk about it, put your point on the rules forward and lets play a game we all enjoy. You are the one who refused to talk to your opponent before the game about the rules. Nobody is being told to go anywhere to die, profanity or no. If you aren't enjoying where the group chooses to tweak the rules to well you've been as fair as you can putting it up for discussion and if you don't wan't to play that's a shame but it's the game the majority want to play. At the end of the day the game is meant to be fun and if two peoples ideas of fun are incompatible then them playing a game together isn't going to be fun for both parties and a waste of time. Fracture would imply that those two groups are whole previously, they aren't, people want different things.
JPong wrote:
hhh huh. This doesn't counter what you quoted at all. It doesn't address the fracturing of the community. It doesn't address how making better rules would help the community. It doesn't address anything.
It really does, best for who? Also better rules is subjective, better for who you? What if others don't like them? Are they still better rules if you are the only one who likes them?
This is a problem with the so-called "communication" games too. Who should yield? Who is right? Who is wrong? Whose opinion should be the basis for an argument? It is hard to have a normal discussion over a matter that is pretty much a messed up slope of slippery slipperyness (the WH40k ruleset in its full glory). And if we can't come to a conclusion, then we have just wasted precious time. Time we could have spent with, y'know, having fun with something worthwhile instead of arguing over a sh*tty game system.
This is a problem with the so-called "communication" games too. Who should yield? Who is right? Who is wrong? Whose opinion should be the basis for an argument? It is hard to have a normal discussion over a matter that is pretty much a messed up slope of slippery slipperyness (the WH40k ruleset in its full glory). And if we can't come to a conclusion, then we have just wasted precious time. Time we could have spent with, y'know, having fun with something worthwhile instead of arguing over a sh*tty game system.
Why does one person have to yield, if you can come to a compromise that you can both enjoy then problem solved. If no-ones willing to budge don't play each other and play a game against someone else. Seriously why does everyone need to win something? There doesn't need to be a winner and a loser in every element of life.
If you have that much of an issue with the game system why are you bothering to have the discussion in the first place when you could be off doing whatever from the get go? All the old versions of 40k and other game systems didn't disappear into the ether, find some folks who like *insert your favourite edition/system*
That is a lot of swinging parts that have to be kept up with. I also think WotC has a dedicated person to manage the rules who interacts with the developers to understand how new cards impact the rules.
Tell me more what other people do and do not like.
.
already covered that. but people here do seek to like complaining about stuff (a lot, granted is understandable), whilst simultaneously not wanting to do anything about it. inertia. ten years ago, i saw exactly the same arguments. and its gone nowhere. its a vicious circle of spite, negatvity and bile.
Of course changing the rules makes it exclusionary. "I am sorry little timmy, you can't play with your 3 riptides, even though you only bought them because you love the model." BAM you just excluded someone from your group.
.
cute. but bad strawman is bad. Firstly, you do not know how we organise things, or how we get out games going. the guys like historicals. so we'll do ww2 stuff. recently we've done some very fun viking v saxon games. i like sci fi. so we'll do infinity. if we fancy a spaceship game, we'll do that (x-wing, or firestorm armada has garnered some interest). "little timmy" can come along, and assuming he loves his riptides, im sure we could write up an awesome scenario where he gets to use them, and try and storm the enemy fortification. we dont "ban" peoples cool units. we build them into story, and narrative based scenarios. We'll bring the new guy into our group, and he'll get to bring his stuff to the table, and he'll get to enjoy a variety from what the others do too. i hardly see that as him being "excluded". that's just a cheap shot on your part. putting words in peoples mouths (never mind hopelessly incorrect ones) does nothing but undermine your own crediblity in this discussion, and show you up as being extremely unreasonable, and short sighted.
Having a set of house rules makes for a bad game.
.
not in my experience. amongst a group of friends, who are all on the same page, its a great way of doing something new, or trying something different. how about a scenario with a theme of "recon forces only"? how about using alternative rules mechanicsms to add something? Like i mentioned, we added the random activation order mechanic from bolt action to our games (basically, you pull a "token" out of a bag, at random, and the player whose token gets picked gets to activate one unit). and it added a new level to our games that were a lot of fun. it added a lot of new tactical considerations (because you never knew if the other guy would be able to activate next and ruin your plans) and made the game far more interesting.
arbitrarily saying "house rules makes for a bad game" just shows you up as being short sighted. dont dismiss them. try them out.
No ones stopping you from using your own home made rules. But saying "I play 40k" because you use the models doesn't make it true. I can't really claim I am playing Warmachine, because I am using the models for it in 40k rules.
.
"We do a 40k homebrew" works just fine, IMO. Or else "we play 40k, but took the system used in infinity, and tweaked it to work at a squad level. its different, but great fun" also works. So long as its space marines versus orks (or whatever), you are inhabiliting the 40kiverse. and there is no "correct" way to do this.
All of those 6 official versions of 40k ARE 40k. Because those are the rules for the game as published by the company. I don't see how that supports your argument of "Blacksail's 40k" is 40k.
.
they show there is no one defined system for what defines what 40k "is". Each of those versions is different. marines used to be t3. you cannot define 40k by a set of rules. rules change from edition to edition. codices, units and fluff change from edition to edition. Ergo, i dont define 40k as being "confined" by a specific set of rules published by GW. i define 40k as a blood soaked universe, soaked by the blood spilled by billions of heroes and villains each day, desperately holding out against an unending tide of horror, all against the backdrop of a crumbling empire desperately seeking to survive, only to face another blood soaked dawn. rules are merely how you live in it.
Blacksails 40k is as much a way of inhabiting that universe as something "official". all they are, are the rules published by GW. no different, better or worse than other options. And GW wont sent inquisitors after me, should i wish to use other rules (they even encourage house rules!) , nor heaven forbid, should i prefer an alternative rules set!
And that doesn't mean people can't voice their opinion. And just because the company doesn't listen, doesn't mean it isn't constructive criticism.
.
Which means less than nothing at the end of the day, regardless of how "constructive" it was.
"words are wind". heh, always wanted to say that quote from David Gemmell!
constructive criticism is all well and good, when it accomplishes something. but screaming against a brick wall isnt smart. its not clever. its far from practical. it wont solve things. nor will it do you any good at the end of the day. all it does is reinforce your own opinions by repeating them. and given the choice between the "idealism" of giving valid constructive criticism (and it going nowhere!), and the "practicality" of doing my own thing with my friends, or walking away from gaming systems that simply dont give me what i want, i'll go with the latter option every time. let every one else scream. If i come back here in ten years time, they'll be doing exactly the same thing. in the meantime, i'll have had ten great years of gaming, and no headaches.
JPong wrote:
hhh huh. This doesn't counter what you quoted at all. It doesn't address the fracturing of the community. It doesn't address how making better rules would help the community. It doesn't address anything.
It really does, best for who? Also better rules is subjective, better for who you? What if others don't like them? Are they still better rules if you are the only one who likes them?
JPong wrote:
I get it, you are happy with the rules the way they are and don't want anything to change and you just want everyone that doesn't agree with you to feth off and die. But that's not going to happen. And it's hypocritical of you to complain about people complaining and wishing they would leave. Again, YOU STILL HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THE HYPOCRISY.
At least argue against my point rather than your preconceived version.
There is no hypocrisy, no-one is being stopped from playing anything, you have fractured nothing. You are saying this is how we play, by all means join us, talk about it, put your point on the rules forward and lets play a game we all enjoy. You are the one who refused to talk to your opponent before the game about the rules. Nobody is being told to go anywhere to die, profanity or no.
If you aren't enjoying where the group chooses to tweak the rules to well you've been as fair as you can putting it up for discussion and if you don't wan't to play that's a shame but it's the game the majority want to play. At the end of the day the game is meant to be fun and if two peoples ideas of fun are incompatible then them playing a game together isn't going to be fun for both parties and a waste of time. Fracture would imply that those two groups are whole previously, they aren't, people want different things.
Well written rules benefit everyone. If you can't see how, then there is no point in continuing this discussion. If you can't see how well written rules make a game where you can leave your rulebook at home, and not have to look up minor rule interactions and consult an oracle to make sure you haven't missed something 100 pages away in a completely different section leads to smoother games, than there just is nothing I can say to you.
I have shown how you have fractured the community. You have created your own little subset where only people that agree with you can play with you. The community, is one big community. You have taken the larger community and said "F that I will have my own rules, with hookers, and blackjack." Hence, you have fractured the community.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: I have actually stayed out of this. There's no point.
I am about out of it. People keep saying "Nuh uh" without addressing my arguments. They use a lot of words to say nothing.
Well written rules benefit everyone. If you can't see how, then there is no point in continuing this discussion. If you can't see how well written rules make a game where you can leave your rulebook at home, and not have to look up minor rule interactions and consult an oracle to make sure you haven't missed something 100 pages away in a completely different section leads to smoother games, than there just is nothing I can say to you.
They do, but what one person calls well written another calls nonsense. Rules that make sense to one are silly to another. Also the 6th ed rules are only 130 pages long the odds of two rules you mix up being that far apart are slim but I get what you meant at least, the flow of the rulebook could be better. That is however book layout not the rules. I seriously can't remember the last time is wasn't edition echo syndrome we had trouble working out how rules interacted that wasn't resolved in a very short span indeed, do you have any examples?
I have shown how you have fractured the community. You have created your own little subset where only people that agree with you can play with you. The community, is one big community. You have taken the larger community and said "F that I will have my own rules, with hookers, and blackjack." Hence, you have fractured the community.
It's not though, example, I want to play a scenario, you want to play a book mission or plain annihilation, we don't play each other because we both want something different. The community is already split and that had nothing to do with rules. Two things that wouldn't interact anyway aren't fractured. By being willing to discuss you engage a far larger proportion of the community than any group that doesn't could ever possibly hope to. Ultimately not everyone wants to play like that but there is animosity or bad blood, the two groups go their separate ways, if they can find common ground they blend over mutual respect for the enjoyment of the other.
Why does one person have to yield, if you can come to a compromise that you can both enjoy then problem solved..
How else can you make a compromise? Someone has to yield. For example if I want to bring my Triptide list but you want to bring your Tyranid Midzilla list then one us has to make a sacrifice: either I won't bring the Triptide or you won't bring the Midzilla. But what exceptional right you have to rebuff the Triptide list? Similarly, I can't tell you to abandon your Midzilla army because it is a pile of trash. Should one of us yield, thus wasting his fun so his opponent can have a good time? Or should we play the Most Unfun Battle of the Decade, no matter what?
And it isn't like you can just abandon the battle entirely because the gaming club is not centered around your Midzilla list and after turning down the Eldar guy with the Revenant titan and the IG guy with his SimCity list, you will end up with lots of wasted time.
If you have that much of an issue with the game system why are you bothering to have the discussion in the first place when you could be off doing whatever from the get go? All the old versions of 40k and other game systems didn't disappear into the ether, find some folks who like *insert your favourite edition/system*
I just pointed out that this "Player communication solves every problem!" is such an unreliable thing that I can't see how it could work on a constant basis and without major conflicts. People tend to disagree or pull out the stubborn card from their sleeves, and if communication fails then you can wave your fun goodbye.
And this is slowly becoming my Pet Peeve. A gaming club is not a hive mind society. Different people will have different opinions and you can't reject them just because of this. And IMHO, it s a very ignorant solution that you will only play with those who have a similar view on the game than you. Like, what's next? The formation of 40k political parties? The clash of the United Competitive Front and the Casual Liberation Unity?
I play Starcraft against people that don't even speak English and have zero problems. Funny that. I shouldn't have to negotiate every table because GW can't do math.
Martel732 wrote: I play Starcraft against people that don't even speak English and have zero problems. Funny that. I shouldn't have to negotiate every table because GW can't do math.
Didn't you just say that you were staying out of this because there's no point?
Martel732 wrote: I play Starcraft against people that don't even speak English and have zero problems. Funny that. I shouldn't have to negotiate every table because GW can't do math.
Didn't you just say that you were staying out of this because there's no point?
Well written rules benefit everyone. If you can't see how, then there is no point in continuing this discussion. If you can't see how well written rules make a game where you can leave your rulebook at home, and not have to look up minor rule interactions and consult an oracle to make sure you haven't missed something 100 pages away in a completely different section leads to smoother games, than there just is nothing I can say to you.
They do, but what one person calls well written another calls nonsense. Rules that make sense to one are silly to another. Also the 6th ed rules are only 130 pages long the odds of two rules you mix up being that far apart are slim but I get what you meant at least, the flow of the rulebook could be better. That is however book layout not the rules. I seriously can't remember the last time is wasn't edition echo syndrome we had trouble working out how rules interacted that wasn't resolved in a very short span indeed, do you have any examples?
I call BS on pretty much everything you said here. First of all, there are rules that are 300 pages apart in the BRB (not the little one, not sure how far away they are there) the rules for generating psykic powers. They are no where near the psyker rules.
I have already stated several rules issues that pop up quite frequently. But lets look at one that has been in the game since 4th edition without change. Drop pod doors. The rules as written say nothing about doors going down, but people always insist they do, and when the doors can't go down, they always say to treat them like they are down and the drop pod is all of a sudden an invisible drop pod. Or what happens if you Terrify a Flying MC? What if it's a Synapse creature? If you haven't found issues in the rulebook, it's because you are reading what you think it says.
I have shown how you have fractured the community. You have created your own little subset where only people that agree with you can play with you. The community, is one big community. You have taken the larger community and said "F that I will have my own rules, with hookers, and blackjack." Hence, you have fractured the community.
It's not though, example, I want to play a scenario, you want to play a book mission or plain annihilation, we don't play each other because we both want something different. The community is already split and that had nothing to do with rules. Two things that wouldn't interact anyway aren't fractured. By being willing to discuss you engage a far larger proportion of the community than any group that doesn't could ever possibly hope to. Ultimately not everyone wants to play like that but there is animosity or bad blood, the two groups go their separate ways, if they can find common ground they blend over mutual respect for the enjoyment of the other.
But, well written and balanced rules means while you both are looking for different things in a game, you can both still play the same game and get what you want out of it.
@Deadnight, I missed this post earlier.
"they show there is no one defined system for what defines what 40k "is"" Except there is. You know, the 40k rulebook. Playing Homebrew 40k is not playing 40k. At best, it's lip service to the name. You can't take that Homebrew 40k and play it with other people and expect them to just follow along.
And again, since you didn't address it (you just said nuh uh). Constructive criticism is still constructive criticism regardless of if anyone is listening. That's why it's called criticism.
*Edit* Forgot the main point I wanted to address in your comment. It is not a strawman to say people are refusing games against Triptide lists. It is ACTIVELY happening. It is not a strawman to say "casuals" are refusing games against tournament lists.
Well written rules benefit everyone. If you can't see how, then there is no point in continuing this discussion. If you can't see how well written rules make a game where you can leave your rulebook at home, and not have to look up minor rule interactions and consult an oracle to make sure you haven't missed something 100 pages away in a completely different section leads to smoother games, than there just is nothing I can say to you.
.
agreed. but coming to a consensus in your own group as to how you want things to work is as valid for those folks that do it. community consensus can work wonders.
In my heart, im a warmachine player. i close clear, consise, airtight, and utterly unambiguous rules. doesnt stop me enjoying a casual game of dux bellorum, our infinity homebrew, or our flames of war homebrew on a friday evening. and yet, despite homebrews, and house rules, we're all on the same page with how things worth. Even though Dunklezahn likes what i regard as a rubbish rules set, im pretty confident he'll be in the same boat as myself when i say this.
I have shown how you have fractured the community. You have created your own little subset where only people that agree with you can play with you. The community, is one big community. You have taken the larger community and said "F that I will have my own rules, with hookers, and blackjack." Hence, you have fractured the community.
.
stop being so bloody melodramatic. christ, the drama is leaking out of my computer and hurting my eyes.
He's not "fractured" anything. No more than saying "we play game x" to a guy who plays game y. he's never said anything of it being an exclusive club,or certain people are not welcome. No, just that they play their games a certain way, and by the way, you're welcome to join them. its a long way from your ridiculous assertion of "where only people that agree with you can play with you", especially since, well, you know, everyone can bring their own input to the tabletop. not that you'll listen.
Ironic too that you dismiss creating a "little subset" of gamers, when some of the best adivce given to 40k players etc is "find people who want the same thing out of the game as you do".
the community is a big community. Only as a whole though. but dont forget, we like lots of different things. Just like i'm Irish. Like a whole nunch of other people from the same island. doesnt mean we all think the same, sound the same or want the same things. Not everything needs to be based off of "the one" set of rules. christ, open up a bit.
]I am about out of it. People keep saying "Nuh uh" without addressing my arguments. They use a lot of words to say nothing.
and yet you keep putting words in peoples mouths of building strawmen arguments. rather than listening to them.
"they show there is no one defined system for what defines what 40k "is"" Except there is. You know, the 40k rulebook. Playing Homebrew 40k is not playing 40k. At best, it's lip service to the name. You can't take that Homebrew 40k and play it with other people and expect them to just follow along.
true. there are official rulebooks. and there are plenty other generic rules sets out there that others have used. Sure, you wont get into a tournament with it, but you can still have a lot of fun with friends. homebrew 40k is as much 40k as anything else, so long as whats on the tabletop represents the tragedy and horror of that universe. a space marine is still a space marine, regardless of whether he's t4 3+sv (as 40k's system goes), or has +8ARM, regeneration and six hits (as Infinity would do it) . different rules, representing exactly the same 28mm model on the table top, kicking ass as purging the enemies of the emperor. *shrug* i dont know what else to say. maybe im just not closeminded enough, or shortisghted enough to see your point of view and accept it as valid.
as to not being able to take homebrew 40k and play it with other people, i can do exactly that. funnily enough. i know enough gamers that are fun enough, and open enough, and interested enough in trying new things to give a 40k homebrew a go and "follow along". especially if i say i'd like to do this, would they be interested, and if they were, would they bring some ideas to the table. there, its not "my" thing anymore, its "ours". not everyone is as close minded or afraid of evolution, and trying new things as you are.
And again, since you didn't address it (you just said nuh uh). Constructive criticism is still constructive criticism regardless of if anyone is listening. That's why it's called criticism.
think whatever you want bud.
indeed, it is criticism, but what does it accomplish, is what im asking. if "nothing" is the answer, other than riling you up for the next round of internet nerdrage, its kinda pointless. fight battles that are worth fighting, the rest is a waste of energy. practicality beats idealism every time.
whatever. i'm bowing out. this thread has become toxic.
As someone who used to play pick up games at both FLGS and official GW stores, this is typically how I saw things go down.
1) As players enter the store, they put their name on a list of who wants to play a game.
2) As table become available, the next two names are called off the list and sent to a table. If someone drops, they move the last on the list.
3) Once the game is complete, the players can sign up on the list again.
The vast majority of players only brought one list and the associated models. Players may bring multiple point lists, but they typically built on a smaller list meaning some of the key hated units would still show up at any point level.
If a player was picky about what he/she played, they may never get a game because they would always be at the end of the list because they kept declining games. Most people just sucked it up and played whomever was paired with them and moved on, even though it may harm their view of the game.
Barfolomew wrote: As someone who used to play pick up games at both FLGS and official GW stores, this is typically how I saw things go down.
1) As players enter the store, they put their name on a list of who wants to play a game.
2) As table become available, the next two names are called off the list and sent to a table. If someone drops, they move the last on the list.
3) Once the game is complete, the players can sign up on the list again.
The vast majority of players only brought one list and the associated models. Players may bring multiple point lists, but they typically built on a smaller list meaning some of the key hated units would still show up at any point level.
If a player was picky about what he/she played, they may never get a game because they would always be at the end of the list because they kept declining games. Most people just sucked it up and played whomever was paired with them and moved on, even though it may harm their view of the game.
That's not how it worked where I played, but yeah, you took whatever game you could get or you'd never get a game. Turn people down and you could spend all night there and never get a game. I am struggling to think of anything worse to do in an evening than sit in a store not playing games all night, lol.
I fully acknowledge that 40K is far from perfect, in fact the current state of the rules and the company are why I only ever play games of either 2nd edition, or 4th edition. I haven't bought a single product by GW other than miniatures for two full editions and counting. There are far better games out there for sure, but there are also many things I still like about 40K. It was the game that started me in the hobby nearly 20 years ago, and I can still have fun playing games of it because of how i see fit to pick and choose what goes into my games.
But that being said, all I gotta say is....Damn, some of you guys are bitter- so bitter that you have to put down people who like the game, because evidently you can't stand to see someone having fun with a game that you people admittedly refuse to play any more because you say it's so bad. So why are you so set on insulting everyone who still plays....and why are you even on the 40K sections of Dakka, for that matter??
I understand it's one of the main points of the internet, but sheesh.
We're not cavemen. 40k to be played with fun needs some basic communication.
"I'm bringing my necron tourny list."
"I just got a fluffy BA list."
Getting curb stomped is no fun but if you can take a moment to work something out that close to equal wouldn't the game be better for it?
I agree that it would be best if you didn't have to, but that's not the current reality. Either do something about it or keep complaining uselessly. We've offered suggestions on how to solve the situation but I haven't seen anything the complainers. (Different from people offering justified criticism.)
MWHistorian wrote: We're not cavemen. 40k to be played with fun needs some basic communication.
"I'm bringing my necron tourny list."
"I just got a fluffy BA list."
Getting curb stomped is no fun but if you can take a moment to work something out that close to equal wouldn't the game be better for it?
I agree that it would be best if you didn't have to, but that's not the current reality. Either do something about it or keep complaining uselessly. We've offered suggestions on how to solve the situation but I haven't seen anything the complainers. (Different from people offering justified criticism.)
This isn't how it works in my experience. Usually the only thing agreed upon is the points value, and if you're lucky then you'll get asked if you have a competitive list or not. Usually though it's see who shows up to the game store, see who's free for a game with their army, and play them.
MWHistorian wrote: We're not cavemen. 40k to be played with fun needs some basic communication.
"I'm bringing my necron tourny list."
"I just got a fluffy BA list."
Getting curb stomped is no fun but if you can take a moment to work something out that close to equal wouldn't the game be better for it?
I agree that it would be best if you didn't have to, but that's not the current reality. Either do something about it or keep complaining uselessly. We've offered suggestions on how to solve the situation but I haven't seen anything the complainers. (Different from people offering justified criticism.)
Problem is that at the moment it's more like this from my experience-
"I'm playing Necrons, what are you playing?"
"DA. Do you mind if I use proxies?"
"Nah, go ahead."
*We each write up a list, I opt to be even more generous than I'm already by default from the mere fact I hold myself back from buying too many "good" models and write up a fairly random list that literally has no duplicate units, not even Barges, and includes a gauss sentry pylon despite knowing full well that there's going to be no enemy fliers on the board and a Tomb Stalker despite the fact I rarely expect it to so much as make it to the enemy, let alone repay its 205pt price tag*
[we play]
...
[I table him in 3-4 turns, the Tomb Stalker didn't even assault anything]
...
*awkward silence while I try to think of something to say that will not reek of pity... Can't even blame the dice since the rolls weren't anything special*
AegisGrimm wrote: But that being said, all I gotta say is....Damn, some of you guys are bitter- so bitter that you have to put down people who like the game, because evidently you can't stand to see someone having fun with a game that you people admittedly refuse to play any more because you say it's so bad. So why are you so set on insulting everyone who still plays....and why are you even on the 40K sections of Dakka, for that matter??
It's not because people enjoy the game, it's because they make stupid comments like "I don't want the competitive players to get the version of 40k they want because I like casual 40k" when in reality the things the competitive players hate make the game worse for casual play as well. It's about masochistic nonsense like being glad that there are broken rules that nobody understands because it forces people to talk about what they expect before playing the game, or celebrating things that make the game worse for casual play because it keeps the hated competitive players off in their separate tournament-only version of the game.
Totaly agree . Let us take something simple like battle brother ally interaction , if those were fixed it help would to balanced tournament play and at the same time helps a casual player without forcing him to buy a titan.
AegisGrimm wrote: But that being said, all I gotta say is....Damn, some of you guys are bitter- so bitter that you have to put down people who like the game, because evidently you can't stand to see someone having fun with a game that you people admittedly refuse to play any more because you say it's so bad. So why are you so set on insulting everyone who still plays....and why are you even on the 40K sections of Dakka, for that matter??
It's not because people enjoy the game, it's because they make stupid comments like "I don't want the competitive players to get the version of 40k they want because I like casual 40k" when in reality the things the competitive players hate make the game worse for casual play as well. It's about masochistic nonsense like being glad that there are broken rules that nobody understands because it forces people to talk about what they expect before playing the game, or celebrating things that make the game worse for casual play because it keeps the hated competitive players off in their separate tournament-only version of the game.
It does, i dont wanna buy another rule book just so a bunch of minority opinionated people can try table people. We loose out because in order for things to go your way a whole new update needs to be done, where all our codices and rule books and so forth need to be changed. Why should we go through that to play the game we already enjoy the way you people want to play.
I say screw you guys, get another game and let us enjoy it as we do already without a total overhaul.
The way the current rules are done is fine, because for a start we enjoy it, for a second people like us dont enjoy playing you guys anyway (generally) so who cares? Its attitude not rules that counts, then on top of that we dont have to buy all out books again, we dont have to learn an entirely new game system for no real reason and the list goes on.
It doesnt benefit us because if its your way then its not 40k, its another game with 40k rules that we had to pay for when we where already happy. And to be honest, im fine with the overly competitive minded people getting angry and buggering themselves off, means we get to enjoy things our way without fuss.
Either learn to make friends on the playground by following their rules and games, or go sit in a corner and whine to your parents that the other kids wont play the way you want. Or better yet get some initiative and try a new game with the kids down the road, heck it might even shut you up.
Swastakowey wrote: It does, i dont wanna buy another rule book just so a bunch of minority opinionated people can try table people.
WTF? Did you miss the whole explanation of how competitive players hate the fact that tabling is so common? Competitive players want less of a difference between "fluff" or "casual" lists and optimized tournament lists, so that a game between the two will be fun and interesting instead of just a massacre.
Why should we go through that to play the game we already enjoy the way you people want to play.
Because the game I want is better for you as well. Yes, it means buying new books, but that's a small price to pay to get rid of things like the IGOUGO turn structure and the bloated incoherent mess of rules on top of rules on top of rules going all the way back to 1980. Besides, you're going to have to buy new books anyway when the next edition comes out, so it might as well be a better game instead of just some change for the sake of forcing you to give GW another $150+ to keep playing.
The way the current rules are done is fine, because for a start we enjoy it
And I guess you don't care about being able to enjoy it more? This is like settling for some rotting meat for dinner instead of a proper meal because at least you're not starving to death so why ask for more?
And to be honest, im fine with the overly competitive minded people getting angry and buggering themselves off, means we get to enjoy things our way without fuss.
And this is exactly my point about masochism: you're willing to accept a game that is worse for the things you want to do with it simply because it keeps away the people you don't like. This isn't playing a game for fun, it's taking some bizarre moral high ground about how you're such an awesome "casual" player and everyone else is just WAACTFGs.
I love the game.. stop saying I dont like it... If I wanted someone to pretend to know what others think id go see the pretend gypsie at the carnival.
The game wont be better for me, it will be a different game. If I want a different game ill go buy another game and use 40k bits for it.
If you hate tabling people tune down your list or play another game with 40k bits (which is pretty much what you want)
At least the next edition is pretty much the same as the last. Not an entirely new game.
I enjoy it as it is. When I want a different game I go buy one, I dont whine until they change the ones I have.
People like you are a minority. I dont want 40k to be dropped so some other game can come out. What a waste of time. And im fine with you playing competitively, im not fine with trying to govern what i want in a game. Im not taking a high ground. im just trying to keep things how they are because thats what I paid for, thats what I put hours of enjoyment into. Dont turn bitter because you dont know how to invest your money and time. Thats your problem nobody elses. So do what you really want and buy a new game system and use 40k models. Because that is exactly what you want. You dont want to play 40k, you want to play a new game with 40k models.
Swastakowey wrote: I love the game.. stop saying I dont like it... If I wanted someone to pretend to know what others think id go see the pretend gypsie at the carnival.
You might love it now, but you'd love it more if it wasn't such a broken mess.
The game wont be better for me, it will be a different game. If I want a different game ill go buy another game and use 40k bits for it.
Yeah, it would be so different if GW did things like make Vendettas sanely priced instead of 130 points, or clarify the screamerstar buff to only work on the model's base demon save instead of saves from other sources, and then put more effort into future rules so that problems like those were never printed in the first place. Which is why every time GW publishes a new codex or core edition with changes of that magnitude it's a completely different game and you ragequit.
If you hate tabling people tune down your list or play another game with 40k bits (which is pretty much what you want)
Sigh. Why is it so hard to understand why this is a terrible answer? If you're obligated to study game balance so you can make a "fair", avoid buying the "wrong" models, and then suffer through pre-game negotiation about what you're each allowed to take, that means that something is wrong. The fact that you can fix GW's incompetent work and still kind of have a successful game despite the printed rules doesn't mean that we should consider that an acceptable situation.
Im not taking a high ground.
That's exactly what you're doing. Read your own words:
And to be honest, im fine with the overly competitive minded people getting angry and buggering themselves off, means we get to enjoy things our way without fuss.
im just trying to keep things how they are because thats what I paid for, thats what I put hours of enjoyment into.
Ok, so you just fear change and would rather cling to the bad game you have right now than have a better game that might be *shock* *horror* different.
You dont want to play 40k, you want to play a new game with 40k models.
You're right. I want to scrap pretty much all of the current rules because they suck. I want a new game to make better use of the 40k IP, and that game would be much better for casual AND competitive players. The only people who lose are the masochists and the people like you who oppose necessary changes just because change is scary.
But its entirely your opinion, you are exactly like the guys who made the decision to invade vietnam. "Because they will enjoy it more your way and cant make their own decisions."
I wont bother arguing you because you seem to be too hooked up on the idea nobody likes the game and you know better than them.
The game is amazing, has cool ideas, is easy and as long as people dont play people like you everybody gets along fine. The rules are great for the majority who just want to play with their models every so often. Its does what its designed for.
If you cant accept that people enjoy something you dont then I think its just you with the mental problem.
Enjoy your hobby of anger and whining, im sure you have plenty reason to collect your expensive dust gatherers.
Swastakowey wrote: But its entirely your opinion, you are exactly like the guys who made the decision to invade vietnam. "Because they will enjoy it more your way and cant make their own decisions."
Ok, let's give you a chance to make a decision. In fact, I'll even let you make two decisions:
* Tell me how the IGOUGO system is better than the alternatives, such as alternating unit activations.
* Tell me how the WS mechanic, where WS is pretty much an irrelevant stat, is a good thing and shouldn't be replaced.
And please tell me why they're good mechanics, not just that they're adequate for the things you want to do and you don't care enough to improve them.
The game is amazing, has cool ideas, is easy and as long as people dont play people like you everybody gets along fine.
Yeah, as long as you shun everyone that doesn't play the game exactly the way you want to play it the game works fine. It's just absurd to expect GW to publish a game that functions well enough for everyone to play it together.
The rules are great for the majority who just want to play with their models every so often. Its does what its designed for.
Seriously? That's your standard for what a good game is? "I can play an occasional game" is good enough? What happened to expecting quality products when you're paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for them? Shouldn't we expect a little more than "barely adequate" for that price?
Swastakowey wrote: But its entirely your opinion, you are exactly like the guys who made the decision to invade vietnam. "Because they will enjoy it more your way and cant make their own decisions."
Ok, let's give you a chance to make a decision. In fact, I'll even let you make two decisions:
* Tell me how the IGOUGO system is better than the alternatives, such as alternating unit activations.
* Tell me how the WS mechanic, where WS is pretty much an irrelevant stat, is a good thing and shouldn't be replaced.
And please tell me why they're good mechanics, not just that they're adequate for the things you want to do and you don't care enough to improve them.
The game is amazing, has cool ideas, is easy and as long as people dont play people like you everybody gets along fine.
Yeah, as long as you shun everyone that doesn't play the game exactly the way you want to play it the game works fine. It's just absurd to expect GW to publish a game that functions well enough for everyone to play it together.
The rules are great for the majority who just want to play with their models every so often. Its does what its designed for.
Seriously? That's your standard for what a good game is? "I can play an occasional game" is good enough? What happened to expecting quality products when you're paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for them? Shouldn't we expect a little more than "barely adequate" for that price?
No because im not dumb enough to buy something i dont like and keep buying it.
My standard for a good game is how much I and the people I play with enjoy it. Which is immensely.
The I go, you go system is great. Because its like most board games, its easy to remember and when the game is set up in a fare manner it works well. Also I go, you go is just a different system of tactics over your alternative. Its simply a preference.
the close combat issue with WS can be odd at times, but Melee troops still beat non combat troops easily, it works well. Just set up a proper map and combat troops do well. I dont care to improve them because they work and everybody enjoys them provided the map is well set up. The map is also not a problem, you cant expect a game to be fair without an appropriate board.
And when you bring up quality and what not, its not always important. Earth Defense Force 2017 is by far the best video game my friends and I have ever played. And its basic low budget and so on. Amazing game.
And the game is fun when everybody states what they want out of a game and goes from there. Its just unfortunate that most competitive players dont communicate before a game (in our experience) and ruin it for all us who want to forge a narrative with a winner and looser. It just shows how much people like that are in it for themselves. Just like when I play any board game with a kid or any video game, I always find out before I start what kind of game they want or how good they are and play it based on that. Its easy and important for any game. Its something that I like about it. I would hate it if my rough riders where effective on the battle field. They are horses... they will die on any modern battlefield.
I also did not say barely accurate so dont twist words. I said they are great, they are GREAT. A HUGE difference between great and barely adequate eh.
As been said, GW cant make it great for everyone. Nothing is perfect for everyone, except oxygen, water maybe?... and even then.
I hate to say this but make your own game, if GW is too incompetent to do something you bark about the easily able to fix why dont you do it, show people how much "better" your way of doing it is and maybe people will agree with you and there, you have done something useful other than belittle those who love playing the game.
Swastakowey wrote: But its entirely your opinion, you are exactly like the guys who made the decision to invade vietnam. "Because they will enjoy it more your way and cant make their own decisions."
Ok, let's give you a chance to make a decision. In fact, I'll even let you make two decisions:
* Tell me how the IGOUGO system is better than the alternatives, such as alternating unit activations.
Trick question, it's not! This alone would stop tabling and lead to much more interesting and complex gameplay.
Peregrine wrote:
* Tell me how the WS mechanic, where WS is pretty much an irrelevant stat, is a good thing and shouldn't be replaced.
I really think just altering the chart would make a big difference. As it stands the number of attacks and strength are much more significant. Just make it match the strength/toughness chart. 3 hits 4 on a 5+, 5 and higher on a 6+. 4 hits 3 on a 3+, 3 or lower on a 2+.
Swastakowey wrote: No because im not dumb enough to buy something i dont like and keep buying it.
Neither am I. I buy the models because I enjoy building and painting them, and I don't buy GW rules.
The I go, you go system is great. Because its like most board games, its easy to remember and when the game is set up in a fare manner it works well. Also I go, you go is just a different system of tactics over your alternative. Its simply a preference.
Lol, no. "Easy to remember" is a joke when the entire 40k rulebook is a complicated mess, and "we alternate moving/shooting/assaulting with our units" is just as easy to remember. And it isn't even close to fair, especially when the rest of the rules favor alpha strike shooting armies that can cripple your entire army before you get to act. Finally, it isn't fun for "casual" games because it's completely non-interactive. If you change saves to a mathematically-equivalent roll to defeat saves then you can go take a lunch break while your opponent plays the game and not lose anything. That's just incredibly poor design.
And in the end, you had to resort to "I like it because I like it, it's just a preference" without really addressing any of the problems with IGOUGO. Your whole "argument" pretty much comes down to "this is how it currently is, and change is scary".
the close combat issue with WS can be odd at times, but Melee troops still beat non combat troops easily, it works well. Just set up a proper map and combat troops do well. I dont care to improve them because they work and everybody enjoys them provided the map is well set up. The map is also not a problem, you cant expect a game to be fair without an appropriate board.
You're missing the point here. The problem with the WS mechanic isn't melee vs. shooting or anything that the table setup has anything to do with, it's about the minimal value of high WS. Consider a WS 4 marine fighting a squad of WS 3 guardsmen: the marine hits the guardsmen on a 3+, and is hit by the guardsmen on a 4+. Now replace the marine with a WS 5 character marine. You would expect this to make a difference, just like a BS 5 character is better at shooting his bolter at guardsmen than a BS 4 tactical marine. But because of the idiotic weapon skill table the character still hits on the same 3+, and is hit on the same 4+. This is clearly stupid, and the only reason not to fix it to something more sensible (like using the same chart as to-wound rolls) is that this is how it's been done since WHFB in the 1980s and change is scary.
And then there's the fact that WS is often a redundant stat because of how closely it is tied with the other melee stats. If, instead of comparing WS for to-hit rolls, you compared initiative values you'd almost always get the same results. So why have WS as a separate stat at all?
And when you bring up quality and what not, its not always important. Earth Defense Force 2017 is by far the best video game my friends and I have ever played. And its basic low budget and so on. Amazing game.
What does that have to do with anything? I'm not saying that low-budget games can't be fun, I'm saying that when you charge $50 for a codex it's not exactly unreasonable to expect a good rulebook for that $50 instead of a poorly designed mess.
And the game is fun when everybody states what they want out of a game and goes from there.
Exactly what I said: it's only "fun" if you only play with people who want to play the game the same way. This is a sign of a bad game. Good games don't have this requirement, you just get out the game and play without any of the up-front negotiation about game styles.
Its just unfortunate that most competitive players dont communicate before a game (in our experience) and ruin it for all us who want to forge a narrative with a winner and looser.
Why is it the competitive player's duty to communicate before the game? Why isn't it your duty to communicate and inform everyone that you want to play a narrative-heavy game with a weak list, study their list and decide if it's a good matchup for your weak list, and decline to play if they aren't willing to accept your request?
Just like when I play any board game with a kid
So now we're putting 40k in the same category as board games for small children? You really do have low standards...
I would hate it if my rough riders where effective on the battle field. They are horses... they will die on any modern battlefield.
Yeah, wouldn't it suck if the guy who thinks horses are cool (kind of like the people who think that all of the other equally-stupid and suicidal melee units are cool) had a fair chance of winning with their rough rider themed army? That would just be the end of the world. It's much better that they wasted a bunch of money on an army that can't give them a fun game unless they beg their opponent to cripple their own list and make things even. I don't know how any reasonable person could possibly want GW to do a better job of balancing the game so that this problem doesn't happen.
I also did not say barely accurate so dont twist words. I said they are great, they are GREAT. A HUGE difference between great and barely adequate eh.
You use the word "great", but all you talk about is how the rules are good enough.
As been said, GW cant make it great for everyone.
You're right, they can't. But, once again, the problems that make the game bad for competitive players also make the game bad for casual players. If making a better casual game AND a better competitive game means sacrificing people like you, who are just afraid of change, then I guess that's the price that has to be paid.
I hate to say this but make your own game, if GW is too incompetent to do something you bark about the easily able to fix why dont you do it, show people how much "better" your way of doing it is and maybe people will agree with you and there, you have done something useful other than belittle those who love playing the game.
Because making a good game is a full-time job, and I would be an absolute idiot if I invested that kind of work in a game that GW will never allow me to sell instead of making my own game.
MWHistorian wrote: We're not cavemen. 40k to be played with fun needs some basic communication.
"I'm bringing my necron tourny list."
"I just got a fluffy BA list."
Getting curb stomped is no fun but if you can take a moment to work something out that close to equal wouldn't the game be better for it?
I agree that it would be best if you didn't have to, but that's not the current reality. Either do something about it or keep complaining uselessly. We've offered suggestions on how to solve the situation but I haven't seen anything the complainers. (Different from people offering justified criticism.)
Problem is that at the moment it's more like this from my experience-
"I'm playing Necrons, what are you playing?"
"DA. Do you mind if I use proxies?"
"Nah, go ahead."
*We each write up a list, I opt to be even more generous than I'm already by default from the mere fact I hold myself back from buying too many "good" models and write up a fairly random list that literally has no duplicate units, not even Barges, and includes a gauss sentry pylon despite knowing full well that there's going to be no enemy fliers on the board and a Tomb Stalker despite the fact I rarely expect it to so much as make it to the enemy, let alone repay its 205pt price tag*
[we play]
...
[I table him in 3-4 turns, the Tomb Stalker didn't even assault anything]
...
*awkward silence while I try to think of something to say that will not reek of pity... Can't even blame the dice since the rolls weren't anything special*
Well....if its the person I think it is, TBH he is a rather horrible player.
Even with the old tau codex, it wast the uphill battle it was supposed to be (we both know how much the old was sucked. they did a good fix on most things, just went a bit crazy with riptide and a few "relics")
And with the new...I'm not even trying against a few, and still crush them.
And before you blame it on the DA codex being poor and tau being OP. I'd like to note that some random necron kid suffer the same fate, so does a tau kid, and chaos kid ("kid" is everyone a few years younger then myself in my book) and it all happened with my OLD codex, where railgun broadsides were OP, and the entire rest of the codex didnt do anything (and I had 2 broadsides only)
Under the new codex...unless I play against opponent that I KNOW have a minimum skill level, I liturally shoot myself in the leg during list building by intentionally avoiding the strongest picks.
Riptide? didn't even bother finishing to built it yet.
Support commander? nope, mine has fusions or missile pods, and is in process of becomeing Shas'omgwtfbbq R'alai, one of the most fun, yet impractical choices out there.
All the complains that the game is becoming an arms race gets a bit silly when people can run "bad" units and still beat "good" lists. people underestimate the value of skills.
Sure, when we play in a turny we let go of the brakes and let loose with as much cheese as we can muster, but even us competitive guys just want to have fun in the end, and a part of the fun is trying out new things, and have a game.
And a wipeout isn't a game, its target practice.
AegisGrimm wrote: But..but...you can't bring in your best possible stuff!
Seriously, 500/1000 point games change the tactics of the game quite a bit. Especially 500pts.
Agreed; however, my gaming group fits 'bring all the net cheese you can' stereotype. My group seems to look down upon 500-1000 points because that limits the cheddar they're able to field against me. I LOVE KT, but that isn't even an option in the group.
Because the game I want is better for you as well. Yes, it means buying new books, but that's a small price to pay to get rid of things like the IGOUGO turn structure and the bloated incoherent mess of rules on top of rules on top of rules going all the way back to 1980. Besides, you're going to have to buy new books anyway when the next edition comes out, so it might as well be a better game instead of just some change for the sake of forcing you to give GW another $150+ to keep playing.
This, right here, is an example of what I have been trying to demonstrate. Thanks for providing an example.
Someone who evidently only buys GW models whining about a game system they are aware has been 'broken' for 34 years. Someone who does not actually play the game, complaining in thread after thread, despite the fact he does not actually play the game.
Why? do you also randomly visit other product forums and assert your opinion on things you don't willingly participate in?
'This restaurants food is bad. I don't eat there, or have not in 20 years, but in my opinion it is bad so I come here every day to talk about it''. Seriously now- how bored does somebody have to be to do this on a regular basis?
You know, I'm of the "I love 6th edition" camp, but Swastiguy is making me side with Perigine just from the worst arguments ever. "I like it because I like it and my standards are super low." Perigine makes very good points that if the game was better balanced, there'd be far less cheese and less tabling and that's good for everyone. I'm going to start playtesting a new turn system, maybe based off of Initiative. This whole, "My whole army shoots yours first" business has got to go.
XenosTerminus wrote: Seriously now- how bored does somebody have to be to do this on a regular basis?
Nothing more needs to be said, really.
How bored do you have to be to keep posting about this?
The man obviously enjoys parts of the hobby and dislikes other parts. Or maybe he is a masochist, in which case he is enjoying himself being in suffering. Either way, get over it already.
Blacksails wrote: Xenos, why are you so opposed to having a discussion with someone about how to improve the game?
Its not whining, its not hating, its not even complaining. Its discussing the flaws in the game and how it could be improved to everyone's benefit.
Enlighten me on how 40k is perfect the way it is, and how wanting better balance and smoother rules would be detrimental.
I am not opposed to civil discussion. This entire thread spun out of control because I called out people, frequent offenders, for blatantly whining/complaining after they started poisoning actual discussion. I do not feel any sense of remorse for doing this- people should, hell, NEED to be called out when they exhibit repeated behavior that is harmful to a community or is just generally not pleasant. A healthy discussion is never benefited from someone jumping in and simply repeating how they dislike the game or the rules are bad. Ever.
People that like the game will get butt-hurt, and people that dislike it will be fed. It stokes the flames of the 'us vs them' mentality that seems to divide the 40k community as a whole. I am neutral, and tend to read the topics to see if anything useful can be gleaned, and it rarely does- and against my better judgement I decided to comment.
I largely dislike 6th edition. It's functional at best, but it's not as enjoyable to me as previous iterations. It's far from perfect, and can definitely be improved to better all types of gamers- to this point I agree 100% with Peregrine and many of the others who are adamantly against GW and Crusade against them daily. It's the approach that these veteran posters take that I dislike. If anyone comments about anything remotely positive about the hobby or aspect of the game they dislike, they are quick to jump in and make it known, once again, how they feel, regardless of the circumstances. Very rarely are these responses useful for actual discussion.
I openly foster rules rewrites and house rules in order to make this game more enjoyable than it is- I just get tired of the same people sabotaging potentially interesting conversations about this game. And it always happens.
I am not opposed to civil discussion. This entire thread spun out of control because I called out people, frequent offenders, for blatantly whining/complaining after they started poisoning actual discussion. I do not feel any sense of remorse for doing this- people should, hell, NEED to be called out when they exhibit repeated behavior that is harmful to a community or is just generally not pleasant. A healthy discussion is never benefited from someone jumping in and simply repeating how they dislike the game or the rules are bad. Ever.
So instead of engaging in a civil discussion, you call others out (continuing the cycle) and then complain about their opinions labelling them as whining? Who are you to decide who needs to be 'called out'? All I see are a difference of opinions that don't need to be judged as valid by someone else. Frankly, 'calling out' people only makes the situation worse, and certainly doesn't paint you in a good light. I don't see particularly harmful behaviour, if anything what you do is far worse than people discussing why they like or dislike parts of this game.
By the way, if you think the 'whiners' simply repeat the same things over and over again, how is the other side any different? Why aren't you calling out the people who enjoy the game for repeating the same things over and over again?
I think instead of trying to judge others, you should just discuss the points being made. We'll let the mods figure out what's healthy and what isn't for the community.
People that like the game will get butt-hurt, and people that dislike it will be fed. It stokes the flames of the 'us vs them' mentality that seems to divide the 40k community as a whole. I am neutral, and tend to read the topics to see if anything useful can be gleaned, and it rarely does- and against my better judgement I decided to comment.
You certainly don't come across as neutral. If anything, you fan the flames yourself. If you want to contribute positively, argue the points being made, not the person behind them. Do so in a civil manner by providing counter examples and clarifying what the other side is trying to say.
I largely dislike 6th edition. It's functional at best, but it's not as enjoyable to me as previous iterations. It's far from perfect, and can definitely be improved to better all types of gamers- to this point I agree 100% with Peregrine and many of the others who are adamantly against GW and Crusade against them daily. It's the approach that these veteran posters take that I dislike. If anyone comments about anything remotely positive about the hobby or aspect of the game they dislike, they are quick to jump in and make it known, once again, how they feel, regardless of the circumstances. Very rarely are these responses useful for actual discussion.
You disliking their approach isn't a valid enough reason to de-rail threads to 'call them out'. I know of one poster who comes across a little harsher than others, but the points are all valid and should be addressed as such. I don't like the way some posters who support 40k 6th write and behave on this forum, but its not stopping me from being civil in return.
Likewise, anyone that posts anything negative is met by a horde of GW supporters and labelled as whining. You know, while we're throwing around hyperbole and the like.
I openly foster rules rewrites and house rules in order to make this game more enjoyable than it is- I just get tired of the same people sabotaging potentially interesting conversations about this game. And it always happens.
I actively support custom rules too. If you're getting tired of these discussions, I suggest maybe not partaking in them? I personally don't find much that's being sabotaged; all the discussions I've been a part of have been perfectly fine.
To be logical, a complete ground-up re-write of the rules would have the same effect as any minor edition change (3rd-4th-5th-6th) in terms of forcing people to buy new books or quit.
I think both sides have valid points. There's too much negativity but the criticisms are valid.
So, instead of calling "the other side" names, let's work out what can be done and how to do it. Is there any way to get through to GW? If not, what can we as a community do? (probably have to unite as a community first.)
MWHistorian wrote: I think both sides have valid points. There's too much negativity but the criticisms are valid.
So, instead of calling "the other side" names, let's work out what can be done and how to do it. Is there any way to get through to GW? If not, what can we as a community do? (probably have to unite as a community first.)
Unfortunately, GW won't be changing anything for the better for the foreseeable future, and they're not exactly an open channel of customer feedback either. Also, a community run project would likely fail as too many people pull in different directions.
The best course of action would be one (or a very small team of experienced rules writers) writing out a 'patch' or new version. Similar to what happened with BFG after GW dropped it. It'll likely never happen though, at least not to the level the BFG 2010 FAQ was successful.
MWHistorian wrote: I think both sides have valid points. There's too much negativity but the criticisms are valid.
So, instead of calling "the other side" names, let's work out what can be done and how to do it. Is there any way to get through to GW? If not, what can we as a community do? (probably have to unite as a community first.)
Unfortunately, GW won't be changing anything for the better for the foreseeable future, and they're not exactly an open channel of customer feedback either. Also, a community run project would likely fail as too many people pull in different directions.
The best course of action would be one (or a very small team of experienced rules writers) writing out a 'patch' or new version. Similar to what happened with BFG after GW dropped it. It'll likely never happen though, at least not to the level the BFG 2010 FAQ was successful.
Why wouldn't it work? ( An honest question, not sarcastic....freak, I feel like an Elcor from Mass Effect. "Delighted. Greeting Human. Curious. How are you?")
Why wouldn't it work? ( An honest question, not sarcastic....freak, I feel like an Elcor from Mass Effect. "Delighted. Greeting Human. Curious. How are you?")
Its not like internet speak would suffer from clarifying the tone of the response...though it'd be strange.
Why wouldn't what work? The community project? Or any project gaining enough traction to be recognized by a not insignificant portion of players?
The 2010 BFGFAQ worked by being a small team, and had (to my understanding) a GW official sanction to publish it as an official (or some degree thereof) FAQ/patch for the game.
MWHistorian wrote: I think both sides have valid points. There's too much negativity but the criticisms are valid.
So, instead of calling "the other side" names, let's work out what can be done and how to do it. Is there any way to get through to GW? If not, what can we as a community do? (probably have to unite as a community first.)
I think the community in general is too divided to come to arrive at any sort of conclusion or agreement.
GW's target audience is also not consistent in a way to actually address all types of players, or they are not willing to change their practices in order to do this. Like it was just mentioned, a complete rules rewrite (which would benefit everyone if the rules were written in a way to encourage all styles of play) would not necessarily meet the approval of everyone, and would still require people to basically 'reset' their armies, more or less, and have to purchase more supplements.
Basically nobody will ever agree on anything, and GW (as long as the company is publicly traded/must meet a bottom line to appease shareholders) has no incentive to do so as long as these individuals are pleased with the direction the game has gone.
But this isn't something new, or unique to this game. It's impossible to please everyone, and the rabid fanbase/masses will never be happy.
XenosTerminus wrote: If anyone comments about anything remotely positive about the hobby or aspect of the game they dislike, they are quick to jump in and make it known, once again, how they feel, regardless of the circumstances. Very rarely are these responses useful for actual discussion.
WTF? Where are you getting this idea from? This thread, right from the beginning, was about how the rules of 40k are bad. That's the whole point of the discussion, and lecturing people on how they're complaining too much makes about as much sense as getting into a screaming match with a glass of water because you don't like that it's wet. That's not even close to the same thing as jumping into, say, someone's painting thread where they talk about how cool the latest model is, which I (and all of the other people who you're complaining about) would never do.
No. People who actually play the game are a minority, and people who are dedicated enough to post on a forum about the game are a tiny minority. GW has clearly decided that spending money on making a better game to satisfy a minority of their customers isn't worth it. Every single person on this forum could ragequit and GW would probably not even notice. When a company is that short-sighted and out of touch with reality there isn't really anything you can do besides hope that they go bankrupt ASAP and someone better takes over the IP.
XenosTerminus wrote: If anyone comments about anything remotely positive about the hobby or aspect of the game they dislike, they are quick to jump in and make it known, once again, how they feel, regardless of the circumstances. Very rarely are these responses useful for actual discussion.
WTF? Where are you getting this idea from? This thread, right from the beginning, was about how the rules of 40k are bad. That's the whole point of the discussion, and lecturing people on how they're complaining too much makes about as much sense as getting into a screaming match with a glass of water because you don't like that it's wet. That's not even close to the same thing as jumping into, say, someone's painting thread where they talk about how cool the latest model is, which I (and all of the other people who you're complaining about) would never do.
No. People who actually play the game are a minority, and people who are dedicated enough to post on a forum about the game are a tiny minority. GW has clearly decided that spending money on making a better game to satisfy a minority of their customers isn't worth it. Every single person on this forum could ragequit and GW would probably not even notice. When a company is that short-sighted and out of touch with reality there isn't really anything you can do besides hope that they go bankrupt ASAP and someone better takes over the IP.
So let me get this straight. Because a company is out of touch with a minority of their customer base or is not living up to your expectations as a consumer you are condemning them to bankruptcy? Do you realize how selfish and downright petulant that attitude is?
There isn't a single company that does not either internally or externally suffer from some sort of issue that hampers them in some way. That's the nature of business, and its not unusual in any way shape or form. While some companies are better at handling their external PR, marketing, or listening to their customers, that does not mean these same companies will miraculously appease their entire customer base- they are just better in that aspect and flawed in others.
You need to put things in perspective here and stop beating the already dead horse into a fine mist.
'I like the models but dislike the game. I will continue to buy the models, thus supporting GW in their primary focus/goal (to sell plastic crack), but wish the company would cease to be because I dislike the other aspect of the company'
First world problems. My luxury item/hobby isn't perfect. We better hold a conference/state of the union address.
XenosTerminus wrote: So let me get this straight. Because a company is out of touch with a minority of their customer base or is not living up to your expectations as a consumer you are condemning them to bankruptcy? Do you realize how selfish and downright petulant that attitude is?
No, I condemn them to bankruptcy because the biggest problem with the 40k IP right now is the greedy and incompetent idiots managing the company. If/when GW goes bankrupt their IP will be bought by someone else, and it's pretty reasonable to expect that the new owner will do a better job of running things.
You need to put things in perspective here and stop beating the already dead horse into a fine mist.
As opposed to your constant beating of the "stop complaining about GW in GW rant threads" dead horse? If you don't like the subject feel free to ignore it instead of posting to tell everyone how they're doing it wrong.
You can make a scenario of pretty much any level you want with a huge variety of models.
I made a scenario that captured objectives and points were included for beating up a Baneblade.
2000pts including that tank with imperial guard.
Space marines took it on with 2000 points mechanized.
They killed it and won (big help with las-Pred now named "David").
They were warned about the Baneblade but no other army list information.
Objectives and points schemes were posted.
Much death and carnage and both groups had fun.
It works if you are able to talk a bit, "pick-up games" or competition games I think would be difficult in the extreme.
The game rules as they stand is a great tool for imagining anything you want but needs scenarios and some moderation crafted for it to work (and a neutral 3rd party...) so this does not happen often. I can see why GW game designers wax poetic about the specially made scenarios: it is the only way their silly rules work (or the very small warband type games which are also a bit heavy in "forging the narrative").
I can only say that the highly competitive folks out there that this meta is really army build "rock-paper-scissors" and a ton of math-hammer dice so if you are trying to show how brilliant a general you are; this is the wrong game for you. If you want a slug-fest as epic (almost literally the game epic) as you envision, this is the game for you.
Like they say in Pirates of the Caribbean: "We like to think of the rules as "guidelines" ". It gives some basis to try to get an even scrap going.
Peregrine wrote: GW has clearly decided that spending money on making a better game to satisfy a minority of their customers isn't worth it. Every single person on this forum could ragequit and GW would probably not even notice. When a company is that short-sighted and out of touch with reality there isn't really anything you can do besides hope that they go bankrupt ASAP and someone better takes over the IP.
So let me get this straight, You're upset because a company has decided to satisfy the MAJORITY of their customers (a pillar business strategy of every successful business in the history of the world) instead of satisfying a minority of their customers (a strategy that is what usually causes companies to go under)... and you are mad at them for doing this? I'm with you, let us raise our voices in unison "How dare you do things that will make you a successful company! What are you thinking making decisions that will make you more money and allow you ton continue to make a product that we love and purchase but complain about anyway!"
Peregrine wrote: GW has clearly decided that spending money on making a better game to satisfy a minority of their customers isn't worth it. Every single person on this forum could ragequit and GW would probably not even notice. When a company is that short-sighted and out of touch with reality there isn't really anything you can do besides hope that they go bankrupt ASAP and someone better takes over the IP.
So let me get this straight, You're upset because a company has decided to satisfy the MAJORITY of their customers (a pillar business strategy of every successful business in the history of the world) instead of satisfying a minority of their customers (a strategy that is what usually causes companies to go under)... and you are mad at them for doing this? I'm with you, let us raise our voices in unison "How dare you do things that will make you a successful company! What are you thinking making decisions that will make you more money and allow you ton continue to make a product that we love and purchase but complain about anyway!"
Wow you are right man, that did feel good.
It's fine to disapprove of a business and the way it operates- nobody is really suggesting that there is a problem with vocalizing this- this is normal.
The hypocrisy surfaces when open complaints are thrown around while simultaneously supporting the thing they hate, IE continuing to buy the models (for a model company) and having the audacity to wish doom upon that same entity, knowing full well that said company has been this way for decades.
So your solution is to be vocal on forums, hope they fall to ruin, and purchase their products.
GW could care less that you are upset with their business practices- they are still making money of of you!
MWHistorian wrote: You know, I'm of the "I love 6th edition" camp, but Swastiguy is making me side with Perigine just from the worst arguments ever. "I like it because I like it and my standards are super low." Perigine makes very good points that if the game was better balanced, there'd be far less cheese and less tabling and that's good for everyone. I'm going to start playtesting a new turn system, maybe based off of Initiative. This whole, "My whole army shoots yours first" business has got to go.
Im not very charismatic through typing, I also have never been on a forum in my life until now. If it where a verbal argument I would have been able to make far better arguments. Im an amazing public speaker but not a very good writer haha. Although I can write essays and so forth very well.
So most things I type come out stupid really, makes me look like im some guy with a low IQ.
My argument wasnt that my standards are low, its that I (and what the majority likes) like is what 40k provides. A set of rules which can be changed at will, to play a game with models we love, in a fashion we enjoy. Where funny things happen, where skill is still involved, as long as its not abused (and all rules are always abused, just look at what people get away with in court), so to us it makes no difference if the rules or balanced or not. That TFG is still gonna optimize to the max (there will always be good and bad options) and that casual player is still just gonna take what they think is cool. So why should we have to change the game we actually purchase and enjoy to another game that we may or may not like to suit the small amount of people who play the wrong game for their tastes?
The only thing I wouldnt mind is if they brought out a "Competative play" expansion that both players agree on, it will have 2 lists with exactly the same gear and rules (buit different models) and they can play that between each other with whatever rules are in there. That way we can still play what we enjoy and they can play what they enjoy without us being affected.
I personally dont see changing it as a benifit because at the end of the day its great at getting people into the hobby. Most wargamers are probably here because of them, im not praising them, (I dont like their shops or leadership, or models mostly, but I love their rules) but if they make it like those other games a small minority play then it may stop the huge influx of kids getting into the hobby. Some of you may not care about that point, but think about how dull the hobby will be when it doesnt grow.
The only rule id add to the current system is in huge letters on the first page saying "1st rule, dont be a ****, have fun. Dont play until you learn this rule". It may not solve anything, but those players who argue over milimetres etc can just be shown that first page as a wee reminder of the game and its purpose.
Swastakowey wrote: >snip<
So why should we have to change the game we actually purchase and enjoy to another game that we may or may not like to suit the small amount of people who play the wrong game for their tastes?
The only thing I wouldnt mind is if they brought out a "Competative play" expansion that both players agree on, it will have 2 lists with exactly the same gear and rules (buit different models) and they can play that between each other with whatever rules are in there. That way we can still play what we enjoy and they can play what they enjoy without us being affected.
I personally dont see changing it as a benifit because at the end of the day its great at getting people into the hobby. Most wargamers are probably here because of them, im not praising them, (I dont like their shops or leadership, or models mostly, but I love their rules) but if they make it like those other games a small minority play then it may stop the huge influx of kids getting into the hobby. Some of you may not care about that point, but think about how dull the hobby will be when it doesnt grow.
The only rule id add to the current system is in huge letters on the first page saying "1st rule, dont be a ****, have fun. Dont play until you learn this rule". It may not solve anything, but those players who argue over milimetres etc can just be shown that first page as a wee reminder of the game and its purpose.
I was unaware GW would show up at your house and confiscate your old books!
Edit: Simple question: Is a game that is unbalanced fun?
When a game is not supported it dies out. Good rules or bad rules. Yes, some have people still playing them but its not wide spread nor are those groups growing.
Well yes, because my friends and I find it fun. Along with the majority of people playing it.
So question, if the rules are so bad and imbalanced, why does most of the wargaming hobby play them?
Well I find it fun. And clearly most of the customers find it fun. So if done well then yes they are fun. Obviously there is room for not likeing it. There are balanced games people dont like, just like there are unbalanced games people dont like. But overall Id say it doesnt have much to do with balance, why people like a game is based on fun and enjoyment. (for the most part)
Which kinda also answers my question to you. If people find it fun, it doesnt matter if its unbalanced, because thats not the only selling point in a game.
GW rules offer me more freedom than any other wargame I have played in terms of rule changing, models and opponents. I love historical games, but playing the same 40 year old can get a bit boring(I do enjoy it, but part of the hobby is meeting people and playing around with the huge variety of forces and people). GW opens up my gaming to heaps of players who enjoy the game like I do. It also gives me the freedom to use histporical models as a base for my army.
I have seen armoies made from scrap that look amazing, I have never seen so many different models and inventive ways of making armies as I have seen in 40k anywhere else. While historic gaming will always be among the most fun, 40k gameplay, freedom and the ability of the player to decide everything easily puts up top.
In short, balance isnt the only selling point in a game so is a balanced game fun? Maybe.
When a game is not supported it dies out. Good rules or bad rules. Yes, some have people still playing them but its not wide spread nor are those groups growing.
Well yes, because my friends and I find it fun. Along with the majority of people playing it.
So question, if the rules are so bad and imbalanced, why does most of the wargaming hobby play them?
Several reasons, would you like a list?
1) Nostalgia
2) The rules are secondary to their actual enjoyment of the in game universe
3) To play with friends
Balance isn't the only point, obviously. That doesn't mean it isn't a pretty fundamental point.
Would you play a game which you could win by agreeing to play the game? Of course not. It would be boring and stupid. Even if you wanted to, who would play against you?
That is an argumentum ad absurdum, naturally, however I hope that it shows the point that people want some degree of balance or fairness in games
Well I find it fun. And clearly most of the customers find it fun. So if done well then yes they are fun. Obviously there is room for not likeing it. There are balanced games people dont like, just like there are unbalanced games people dont like. But overall Id say it doesnt have much to do with balance, why people like a game is based on fun and enjoyment. (for the most part)
Which kinda also answers my question to you. If people find it fun, it doesnt matter if its unbalanced, because thats not the only selling point in a game.
GW rules offer me more freedom than any other wargame I have played in terms of rule changing, models and opponents. I love historical games, but playing the same 40 year old can get a bit boring(I do enjoy it, but part of the hobby is meeting people and playing around with the huge variety of forces and people). GW opens up my gaming to heaps of players who enjoy the game like I do. It also gives me the freedom to use histporical models as a base for my army.
I have seen armoies made from scrap that look amazing, I have never seen so many different models and inventive ways of making armies as I have seen in 40k anywhere else. While historic gaming will always be among the most fun, 40k gameplay, freedom and the ability of the player to decide everything easily puts up top.
In short, balance isnt the only selling point in a game so is a balanced game fun? Maybe.
To the bolded: People play the game, because as you say, it's the most common game around. Also, many current players have invested a large amount of money and time in their armies. That doesn't mean we like 100% of the rules, or even think the current ruleset is very good. It means I'd rather play bad rules than not play, but I'd also rather play good rules than bad. Full disclosure: I have switched from 40k to WHFB, as has my entire group, because the rules tend to be so painfully lop sided.
To the underlined: I must be misunderstanding your point. Unless the FoW writers or Infinity writers are literally standing behind you with a gun, then no single game is different in any appreciable way from another in terms of house rules. And models? I've played a WHFB game against a guy who had 1 model assembled for his 1000 point Chaos Warriors force; the rest was empty bases. Good models, bad models, same company models, different company models... models are almost completely irrelevant to the rules themselves. Saying "I think the rules are okay because I can use whatever models I want" makes 0 sense, as the rules have nothing to do with that.
Pretty much everything you've said has 0 to do with quality of rules, beyond your ability to house rule them. But as house rules are largely subjective to your group and locale, there is 0 reason to use "I can house rule" to excuse a rule set that is so terribly in need of work.
It's perfectly fine to think the 6th edition rule set is fine as-is, or in need of minor tweaks via FAQ. But to say "the rules are fine because we can change them" is to admit that the rules are faulty and in need of being changed.
Saying that the rules are not broken because you can just houserule the broken parts away is utter nonsense and a piss poor way to justify shoddy design.
WayneTheGame wrote: Saying that the rules are not broken because you can just houserule the broken parts away is utter nonsense and a piss poor way to justify shoddy design.
We house rule new scenarios, new units, new guns. If its gonna be cool to try something we change the rules to allow it. (like hawks assaulting aircraft) and so forth. Thats what I mean by home rules or "mods".
I think the clear problem is you guys cant enjoy the game. If you cant enjoy it thats fine. No need to make a huge noise about it. Its only broken if you choose to exploit it. Thats players unable to exercise self control and so forth. Not rules being poor.
Also to the guy that said nostalgia, I have been playing since the begining of 5th edition, (maybe a little earlier) but I mostly played mordheim and hombrew games as we never had anough models. If any nostalgia is happining in my mind, it has nothing to do with rules.
Anyways im not saying the rules are the best, but they arent bad. Id say the 9/10 in my opinion. If thats not your opinion then so be it. I guess im lucky I can enjoy what I pay for with no issues. Luckily for me I dont have to whine until I get what I want (which will never happen guys...) because the game is already what i want. Maybe try playing and viewing the game in a different way and you will like it too. Maybe not but thats up to you.
I used to be like you guys and compain all the time about it, but then i thought about how stupid it is, and tried the game as it was designed and its far more enjoyable.
I think the clear problem is you guys cant enjoy the game. If you cant enjoy it thats fine. No need to make a huge noise about it.
What did you actually expect them to be doing, given the thread title? Surely, hey can make whatever noise about it they like, in a thread created to make a noise about it?
I think the clear problem is you guys cant enjoy the game. If you cant enjoy it thats fine. No need to make a huge noise about it.
What did you actually expect them to be doing, given the thread title? Surely, hey can make whatever noise about it they like, in a thread created to make a noise about it?
I expected them to go "well why not try doing this" and it will help fix a lot of problems. Rather than go "its bad" repeatedly. I chucked out suggestions to the OP and others agreed, others had suggestions, but its always the last few people who keep commenting about how its just plain bad. Generally the games are bad when they arent played properly.
So while I expect it, there are better ways of doing things, make useful noise that stands out from the rest, not useless noise drowned buy a crowd. You will get more that way.
But yes your righ. I shouldnt expect anything useful from a crowd like this.
Arms race: Sure, many new rules like to "ignore" certain elements of the rules (they plain do not happen, AP, double toughness) so it gets people upset.
The meta for this game is so high in variation and the ability to SPAM models that to win or lose largely rests on comparative selected army lists (rock, paper, scissors).
Think of what it would take to "balance" 40k and see if you would still want to play it.
I am long winded, having some mercy, if you are interested...
Spoiler:
Just take a troop squad of each race and try to get a squad equally deadly with the next.
Just do that and come back.
Each has some element of each phase they are better at.
Each has some "weathering" issues of toughness and armor.
Keep in mind weapons and AP that can ignore some armor over others.
I will give a hint, you have to get each army type make a matrix and have them run at each other through each phase.
Nasty.
Anything that gives a re-roll or ignores a phase of rolling is a huge destabilizer for figuring this out, ask the math-hammer people of how odds work with that.
Do not even think about any bonuses that models can add to a squad.
Models that shoot would have variations of line of sight and range...
Melee models would have variations of terrain, range and order of striking your opponent...
There are too many variables, so all they do is make cool models with cool rules and play a whole bunch of variations of armies and configurations.
Only the whole army played gives any idea of how nasty it is than trying out discrete parts.
Chess is great because it has no dice (variable outcomes) and EXACTLY the same opposing force and you absolutely cannot kill a piece in turn one.
I heard many comments of MTG being very balanced but the limitations on how much you can field at once and ability to activate cards lends that balance.
40k is setup everything and an entire side with all models get to go and any number of models get killed in the first player turn of shooting.
Picture if you activated models like in X-wing (I must also emphasize that "Han Solo always shoots first").
Battletech we would shuffle a card into a deck for each model and pull them out one at a time (was exciting all on it's own for that).
I really do love the game, my friends and reasonable people I have played against has ensured that BUT it is so easy to spend some money and make a truly nasty army.
Example of the concept of "handicap"...
Spoiler:
I used to play first person shooters a lot, would completely DESTROY my friends at it, gaming with them started to taper off.
New rule was made for me: could only use a pistol or close combat weapon = fun again.
Another friend was even better than me by a long shot.
He killed people by placing a teleporter at our feet and it would kill you when he teleported on top of you... he was scary.
I think just like in golf a "handicap" should personally imposed so the game is an even struggle for both sides.
I would take a close game over a slaughter on either side anytime.
I have found few games that you can configure your army ahead of time to be foolproof for balance.
I completely agree the game has lost it's touch for me I can't really play the game anymore seeing as the only guys I face are die hard gamers that won't take losing as a option well you know where I'm going but I try to play friendly and being blood angels it no fun to try and assault when a flyer is in the air or someone is running around with ap 1 or ap 2 gun that kills the majority of my list the first turn
I was unaware GW would show up at your house and confiscate your old books!
Edit: Simple question: Is a game that is unbalanced fun?
In this case. Yes. Chess is balanced. Do you find it fun?
Other games have better balance than 40k. Do I find them fun? No, I find them dull and uninspiring compared to 40k. And I'm not talking about the setting.
A game with perfect balance produces two kind of players: novices, and masters who achieve that mastery after years of hard slog. Such games do not breach the gap between competitive and casual players. Such games widen it. Only a game that lacks perfect balance can maintain the interest of a significant number of people for a significant period of time.
That is counter-intuitive, but it is not Bs*it.
That is, in fact, basic Game Design Theory. Tehory that any one with ambitions for a career in the gaming industry learns in their very first week of study.
I just play fluffy matches, my armies are built up of competitive built squads and units, with some "alright" units to offset, so i'll use mechvets with rough riders and ratlings. As well as chaos spawnKJAKJSAJDHAHSDASGAFLA......
Anyhow, i'm only after fun and tactical games, not the silliness where people throw 3 turkeys at me
40kReallySucks wrote: So let me get this straight, You're upset because a company has decided to satisfy the MAJORITY of their customers (a pillar business strategy of every successful business in the history of the world) instead of satisfying a minority of their customers (a strategy that is what usually causes companies to go under)... and you are mad at them for doing this?
Except they aren't choosing to satisfy the majority of their customers instead of the minority, they're producing garbage that a lot of people happen to find adequate (mostly because few of them actually play the game). The minority could be satisfied without costing the majority anything, the only reason GW doesn't do it is their unbelievable laziness and incompetence combined with their obsessive focus on their next financial report over the long-term health of the game.
Swastakowey wrote: So question, if the rules are so bad and imbalanced, why does most of the wargaming hobby play them?
Because of the fluff and models, and because GW's previous dominance of the retail business gave them a huge "critical mass" factor where everyone plays GW games, so if you're a miniature wargaming newbie you're probably going to play a GW game because it's what everyone else in your area is playing.
Swastakowey wrote: Its only broken if you choose to exploit it. Thats players unable to exercise self control and so forth. Not rules being poor.
Err, lol? If the rules are so easily exploited and you have to depend on "self control" to avoid breaking the whole game then the rules are utter garbage. And I really don't see how the current situation is better than a new version of the game which is much harder to exploit and produces a fun game even between "casual" and "competitive" players.
LeadLegion wrote: A game with perfect balance produces two kind of players: novices, and masters who achieve that mastery after years of hard slog. Such games do not breach the gap between competitive and casual players. Such games widen it. Only a game that lacks perfect balance can maintain the interest of a significant number of people for a significant period of time.
This is hilariously wrong. Having flawed balance makes the gap wider, not smaller, because now on top of the advantages of superior skill and understanding of the game the "master" also gets the advantage of exploiting the most overpowered rules. Your hypothetical narrowing of the gap only occurs if the novice always uses the most powerful rules, while the master always uses weaker rules. In reality that's not going to be the case, and the novice is going to get crushed even more thoroughly than in a balanced game. And it's even worse when balance is as bad as it is in 40k, since skill is pretty much reduced to "identify the balance mistakes and exploit them" and the game has very little depth to hold anyone's attention. Take away the awesome fluff and models and hardly anyone would play 40k because it just isn't an interesting game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ThunderFury 2575 wrote: I just play fluffy matches, my armies are built up of competitive built squads and units, with some "alright" units to offset, so i'll use mechvets with rough riders and ratlings.
That doesn't sound very fluffy at all. A fluffy mechanized infantry regiment would have lots of mechvets and no ratlings at all. It seems like you're making the popular mistake of assuming that a "fluffy" army is one that is bad at winning games, not one that accurately represents something from the background fiction.
Chess is one of the most balanced (not perfectly), popular and widely played games in the world. It has a range of official rankings to reflect skill level.
Bridge is one of the most balanced (not perfectly), popular and widely played games in the world. It has a range of official rankings to reflect skill level.
Obviously the people who designed those games failed their game design courses.
All the way back to the OP... Sir, if you think Imperial Knights are breaking the game, or are over powered, you really don't understand the game well enough to have credibility. I hope every opponent takes 3 of the things. While very cool, they're a waste of points.
Bizarrely enough, walking but weak baneblades drive you out, but you stuck around for Seer and Screamer Star?!
Kilkrazy wrote: Chess is one of the most balanced (not perfectly), popular and widely played games in the world. It has a range of official rankings to reflect skill level.
Bridge is one of the most balanced (not perfectly), popular and widely played games in the world. It has a range of official rankings to reflect skill level.
Obviously the people who designed those games failed their game design courses.
Indeed they probably did from a "fun" perspective. In chess terms at least, most serious players (Class E or Category 4 and above, depending on which rating system you are using) view chess as a recreational intellectual exercise than a game played for enjoyment (bear with me and I'll provide the reference once I can find it). Both games have declining player bases (in fact, the stats are taking a nosedive according to some studies released by FIDA, the Chess International Governing Body) and require decades to master due to the lack of variables.
In this respect, Chess has two kinds of players: casual players and masters. It has an enormous gap between the two. It does NOT close the gap between masters and novices. In fact, the term master is generally understood to be "someone unlikely to be beaten by an amateur[u]".
The DBE Congress ruled in 1896 that to become a master, a player had to win 1/3 of the games at a premiere tournament. Since then various other international and national rating systems have been used.
Additionally, chess and bridge are both viewed as games practiced by a relatively small "elite" body within the wider community. Neither are exactly accessible to the wider community in terms of tournament or competitive level play precisely because it requires decades or near mono-maniacal practice in order to be able to the play either game at a professional level. Decades the vast majority of people are not willing to devote to a hobby.
Now lets look at why both games are balanced. It's because they are symmetrical. In Chess, every player has the same forces deployed in the same fashion. No options. No upgrades. In Bridge, there are slightly more variables but the game is still balanced because the same pieces are included in every game (ie the same deck of cards).
To make 40K more balanced, you would need to reduce the number of variables (such as unit upgrades, codex entreies, equipment options etc) which are a fundamental part of the game and, frankly, one reason why I liked it so much. Warmachine is slightly better balanced than 40k (but still only slightly) in large part because it has far fewer variables for the designers to keep track off. It has fewer units on the whole, fewer upgrades, and no options to swap out weapons in the board. A unit of sword knights played a guy in Japan will have the same equipment as a unit of SwordKnights played by every other player around the world. It might have a unit attachment in the form of an officer/standard bearer, but that's about it.
This lack of variation is one reason why I find Wamachine as dull as a can of baked beans.
LeadLegion wrote: A game with perfect balance produces two kind of players: novices, and masters who achieve that mastery after years of hard slog. Such games do not breach the gap between competitive and casual players. Such games widen it. Only a game that lacks perfect balance can maintain the interest of a significant number of people for a significant period of time.
This is hilariously wrong. Having flawed balance makes the gap wider, not smaller, because now on top of the advantages of superior skill and understanding of the game the "master" also gets the advantage of exploiting the most overpowered rules. Your hypothetical narrowing of the gap only occurs if the novice always uses the most powerful rules, while the master always uses weaker rules. In reality that's not going to be the case, and the novice is going to get crushed even more thoroughly than in a balanced game. And it's even worse when balance is as bad as it is in 40k, since skill is pretty much reduced to "identify the balance mistakes and exploit them" and the game has very little depth to hold anyone's attention. Take away the awesome fluff and models and hardly anyone would play 40k because it just isn't an interesting game.
@Peregrine: You're basically just talking nonsense now mate. "Dozens of world reknowned game designers at dozens of software houses around the world are wrong and I'm right because I say I'm right" is essentially what you just said. Go read up on game design theory. Here's a couple of handy starting point for you that will point you in the right direction. If you invested a fraction of the time reading up on this as you do moaning about a game you don't even play, you'll be a kick-ass game designer in no time.
LeadLegion wrote: Now lets look at why both games are balanced. It's because they are symmetrical. In Chess, every player has the same forces deployed in the same fashion. No options. No upgrades. In Bridge, there are slightly more variables but the game is still balanced because the same pieces are included in every game (ie the same deck of cards).
Yes, you've identified the reason why they're balanced. The problem is that you jump from identifying the reason to assuming that this reason is also the reason why there's a gap between professionals and casual players. In reality that's absolutely false. Chess doesn't have a huge gap because it is a balanced game, it has a huge gap because it's a simple game. More precisely, it is a game that is simple enough that it has already been solved. Every conceivable position can be analyzed by a computer, and the result is an indisputable correct move. This means that the game no longer has much meaningful strategy, and high-level play is reduced to a test of how well you can execute the perfect sequence of moves without making any mistakes. And obviously this is a huge knowledge gap because only the most dedicated professionals have any chance of making it through the tedious memorization required to play without making any mistakes.
Now let's try to "improve" chess by the GW method: destroying balance. Let's make it so each player chooses their color, and both players can play the same color. White functions exactly as it does now, but the black king has an additional rule that black automatically wins the game if the other player doesn't also play black. According to your model this should reduce the skill gap, but in reality it doesn't. No player with more than a basic understanding of the game is ever going to play white, so all you've added is an additional opportunity for an inexperienced player to lose the game.
Contrast this with the method for improving chess that has been proposed by actual high-level chess players: add a new piece or two to each side (typically some combination of two existing pieces). The sides remain perfectly symmetrical, but the slightly larger board and more complex situations are just enough to make it so that the game is no longer solvable (at least for now) and return it to a game of strategy instead of simply memorizing the correct play in every situation.
To make 40K more balanced, you would need to reduce the number of variables (such as unit upgrades, codex entreies, equipment options etc) which are a fundamental part of the game and, frankly, one reason why I liked it so much.
That's not true at all. 40k's balance could be improved significantly by fixing point costs alone, without removing any noticeable number of options. Things like re-rollable 2++ saves might have to go, but those aren't really deliberate options anyway.
Also, let's be honest here: most of the broken options in 40k aren't really options at all. The line in the codex where it says that IG veteran squads can take grenade launchers might as well be blank paper because there's virtually no situation where you'd ever even think about taking the "option". That kind of stuff is just clutter, not real depth. Get rid of it entirely and nothing of value would be lost.
@Peregrine: You're basically just talking nonsense now mate. "Dozens of world reknowned game designers at dozens of software houses around the world are wrong and I'm right because I say I'm right" is essentially what you just said.
No it isn't. I said that YOU are wrong. You're making the common mistake of quoting "perfect imbalance" as if it refers to "make blatantly overpowered options because you don't care about playtesting" instead of a very carefully constructed system in which you get things reasonably balanced and then use the metagame to do the rest, with a strong emphasis on making sure that for every strategy A there's a counter-strategy B that will become effective if A becomes dominant in the metagame and bring A back down in power. GW doesn't do this, they just throw out rules as fast as they can write them with little more than a rough guess about what the appropriate point costs are. That isn't deliberate use of imbalance to make an interesting game, it's just incompetent game design.
40k has no balance what so ever. I don't think anyone is saying it does. I really think to keep playing 40k you have to influence your local community.
We agreed to no D weapons in non apoc games and no Void shield relays. That makes the games more enjoyable for us. The game really is well and truly broken.
Make what you want out of it and think it can still be fun. What is the alternative quit? I still enjoy the fluff, painting, and making custom models.
LeadLegion wrote: Now lets look at why both games are balanced. It's because they are symmetrical. In Chess, every player has the same forces deployed in the same fashion. No options. No upgrades. In Bridge, there are slightly more variables but the game is still balanced because the same pieces are included in every game (ie the same deck of cards).
Yes, you've identified the reason why they're balanced. The problem is that you jump from identifying the reason to assuming that this reason is also the reason why there's a gap between professionals and casual players. In reality that's absolutely false. Chess doesn't have a huge gap because it is a balanced game, it has a huge gap because it's a simple game. More precisely, it is a game that is simple enough that it has already been solved. Every conceivable position can be analyzed by a computer, and the result is an indisputable correct move. This means that the game no longer has much meaningful strategy, and high-level play is reduced to a test of how well you can execute the perfect sequence of moves without making any mistakes. And obviously this is a huge knowledge gap because only the most dedicated professionals have any chance of making it through the tedious memorization required to play without making any mistakes.
Now let's try to "improve" chess by the GW method: destroying balance. Let's make it so each player chooses their color, and both players can play the same color. White functions exactly as it does now, but the black king has an additional rule that black automatically wins the game if the other player doesn't also play black. According to your model this should reduce the skill gap, but in reality it doesn't. No player with more than a basic understanding of the game is ever going to play white, so all you've added is an additional opportunity for an inexperienced player to lose the game.
Contrast this with the method for improving chess that has been proposed by actual high-level chess players: add a new piece or two to each side (typically some combination of two existing pieces). The sides remain perfectly symmetrical, but the slightly larger board and more complex situations are just enough to make it so that the game is no longer solvable (at least for now) and return it to a game of strategy instead of simply memorizing the correct play in every situation.
To make 40K more balanced, you would need to reduce the number of variables (such as unit upgrades, codex entreies, equipment options etc) which are a fundamental part of the game and, frankly, one reason why I liked it so much.
That's not true at all. 40k's balance could be improved significantly by fixing point costs alone, without removing any noticeable number of options. Things like re-rollable 2++ saves might have to go, but those aren't really deliberate options anyway.
Also, let's be honest here: most of the broken options in 40k aren't really options at all. The line in the codex where it says that IG veteran squads can take grenade launchers might as well be blank paper because there's virtually no situation where you'd ever even think about taking the "option". That kind of stuff is just clutter, not real depth. Get rid of it entirely and nothing of value would be lost.
@Peregrine: You're basically just talking nonsense now mate. "Dozens of world reknowned game designers at dozens of software houses around the world are wrong and I'm right because I say I'm right" is essentially what you just said.
No it isn't. I said that YOU are wrong. You're making the common mistake of quoting "perfect imbalance" as if it refers to "make blatantly overpowered options because you don't care about playtesting" instead of a very carefully constructed system in which you get things reasonably balanced and then use the metagame to do the rest, with a strong emphasis on making sure that for every strategy A there's a counter-strategy B that will become effective if A becomes dominant in the metagame and bring A back down in power. GW doesn't do this, they just throw out rules as fast as they can write them with little more than a rough guess about what the appropriate point costs are. That isn't deliberate use of imbalance to make an interesting game, it's just incompetent game design.
QFT
Kilkrazy wrote:IDK about game theory but I've played many many games and they all have the concept of being balanced, even if they fail in the execution.
Perhaps we mean different things by the word balance.
Indeed.
I know I may be inviting flak by bringing this up, but there's plenty of examples of completely asymetrical factions being reasonably well balanced in various PC strategy games, and it's not as if we're demanding perfect balance here- we just want some effort to be put into making point values reflect in game value, some playtesting and some thought to be given to special rules and their interactions before they're published to prevent the more obvious rules exploits.
I don't expect them to find every rules exploit or anything, but some of the rules they release are so game breaking there's little doubt they don't really bother taking such things into consideration.
Also, FAQs fixing obviously broken rules that slipped past to release (rerollable 2++ saves for instance) would be nice.
LeadLegion wrote: One of the most deadly models in the game at one point was a space marine skimmer made out of airfix spares and (I am not kidding) a roll on deodorant bottle.
Wow! I had forgotten that!!
Those were the days...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Then you're ignorant. Say it to a cop or your grandmother.
Still waiting for the Great Wiener to take over the planet...
"Now let's try to "improve" chess by the GW method: destroying balance. Let's make it so each player chooses their color, and both players can play the same color. White functions exactly as it does now, but the black king has an additional rule that black automatically wins the game if the other player doesn't also play black. According to your model this should reduce the skill gap, but in reality it doesn't. No player with more than a basic understanding of the game is ever going to play white, so all you've added is an additional opportunity for an inexperienced player to lose the game."
Actually, un-balanced versions of chess are a far better, much more enjoyable and far more accessible for new players. Ever played battle chess? I'm not talking about the old PC game from the 90's. I'm talking about the huge variety of "variant" rules systems which exist that make Chess a better game in terms of enjoyment. I'm talking about, for example, the type of Chess Game that includes playing cards with one off optional rules. Such as "play this card on any pawn you control. That pawn may move backwards one square".
These cards introduce more, fresh variables into the game, shrinking the gulf between master and novice at the expense of balance and in turn making a staid, stuffy old game into something new and fundamentally fun.
Now that's an enjoyable game of chess. A FUN game of chess. Is it balanced? No, because certain card combinations allow a novice to win the game against a Chess Master in a half dozen turns. But is is more fun than normal Chess? Hell yes. So as long as you don't define having fun as "winning".
This illustrates the point I'm trying to make:
Better Balance does not necessarily make a game more enjoyable to play.
In fact, the opposite is often true. As I'm about to illustrate.
So why is the card-enhanced version of the game more enjoyable? It's because, as you say, Chess has been solved. So there are no more surprises. Nothing new to delight people that play chess.
Any Balanced Game can eventually be solved. Because any balanced game pays pays vey strict adherence to adherence a mathematical formula, whether intentionally built into the game or not. That being said, a game not intentionally built on a certain mathematical formula is unlikely to be balanced.
Peregrine goes on to say:
"That's not true at all. 40k's balance could be improved significantly by fixing point costs alone, without removing any noticeable number of options. Things like re-roll-able 2++ saves might have to go, but those aren't really deliberate options anyway. "
You mean, by fixing the point values. In other words, by having the point values adhere precisely to the strict mathematical formula that balances the game? The strict formula that will eventually lead to having to memorize an incredible number of strategies that will allow "List A" to win if it comes up against "List B".
There is a reason that Games Workshop does not adhere as strictly to the formula used to calculate a models points value that was actually published in the Rogue Trader edition of the game. For those of who who weren't around that far back, GW used to set out exactly what any given stat score was worth in terms of points. That formula has been refined very often since then and GW continues to use it with one very important exception:
They no longer apply it as strictly. They allow certain models to cost less (or more) than their stats, weapons, special rules and other equipment would actually cost if they adhered strictly to the formula. The factors we know (from observation) that they consider when altering the points cost from their mathematical model include:
How many of these models do we want to sell?
How does the point cost compare to the points cost of miniatures in other codices which perform a similar function?
How will this miniature at points value X work to shake up the current meta, forcing gamers to go out and buy more of our other models to counteract the presence of this new model?
Although these factors sound as though they are driven entirely by financially concerns, they are also good for the game. Every new release changes the meta game to some extent, keeping it fresh and interesting (unlike simple, solved, balanced games with no meta such as Chess) but these under-priced models change the meta more than most.
Even producers of more balanced wargames (such as Warmachine) understand this concept, and deliberately release over-powered models to shake up the meta from time to time.
In World of Warcraft, the designers shake up the meta even more often with patches. Wow is even less balanced than 40K because there are even more variables to take into account (such as the sheer number of items available to characters of different classes and levels). This requires even more patches for WOW than 40K has FAQ's. However, can anyone deny that WoW is a good game? Do you want to tell 7.7 million subscribers that they are idiots because they're playing a game that isn't balanced? They don't care if the game is balanced. If they did, they'd be part of the 2.3 million people who have already stopped playing Wow.
Clarification here: I'm not suggesting that all those 2.3 million gamers stopped playing WoW because they aren't happy with balance or have moved on to other games. And neither should anyone else, because without seeing info on an actual exit survey, that would be stupid.
Peregrine also said:
"You're making the common mistake of quoting "perfect imbalance" as if it refers to "make blatantly overpowered options because you don't care about playtesting" instead of a very carefully constructed system in which you get things reasonably balanced and then use the metagame to do the rest, with a strong emphasis on making sure that for every strategy A there's a counter-strategy B that will become effective if A becomes dominant in the metagame and bring A back down in power. GW doesn't do this, they just throw out rules as fast as they can write them with little more than a rough guess about what the appropriate point costs are. That isn't deliberate use of imbalance to make an interesting game, it's just incompetent game design."
Nope, Peregrine is making the common mistake of not understanding that the "metagame" concept is not exclusive to games systems that work on the theory of "perfect imbalance".
Perfect Imbalance is only one way to create a meta-game. It is, in fact, the method that Privateer Press choose to use. However, it is not the only way to make a meta-game. The example of Perfect Balance that Peregrine uses her (champion A versus champion B) works directly for Privateer Press where newly released Unit A is often a direct counter to the slightly older release of Unit B.
In the evolution of 40K we've seen this pattern crop up from time to time, but because GW practice is to publish books consisting of all the units for one army, rather than to release books that have a smaller number of new units for every army) the concept of Imperfect Balance does not apply so much because the release schedule does not allow it. We do see some elements of the Imperfect Balance crop up from time to time (as I've mentioned before in earlier posts) when one codex is clearly mean't as a counter to another., but the Imperfect Balance model is an imperfect model to apply to 40K. Which keeps the meta healthy in other ways.
Incidentally, the context in which I first raised "Imperfect Balance" way, way back was when I used a video link that explains the theory to illustrate why actual "balance" in a wargame is not necessarily a good thing.
Peregine is also making the common assumption that GW do not play-test their games. This is utterly incorrect. How do I know this to be the case? Because I and other former hosts of of the Chaos of the Warp podcast (as well as many of our guest hosts, listeners and interviewees) have been play-testers for GW. As have many of the players who regularly attended Chaos of the Warp tournaments.
At this point, Peregrine will probably trot out his usual argument about "anecdotal evidence" just as he already trotted out his usual argument of "one does not follow the other" whenever someone makes a point that he is incapable of explaining away through reasoned debate and discussion. In this case, the anecdotal evidence is valid because it is being used to identify a statement meant by Peregrine (that 40K is not play-tested) to be false. Effectively, this anecdotal evidence is a "witness statement" rather a personal observation meant to justify someones opinion on the reasons behind a statistical tend.
So I'll also point out that every single person who actually plays 40K 6th edition (which does not, alas, include Peregrine) is essentially a play-tester for the game, as the very fact that GW releases FAQ's will attest. Granted, it would be better if these issues were picked up well before release (or at least before the books went to print, so we didn't have so many release-day FAQs) but at least they are being picked up and dealt with.
By the way, many Wow updates are also accompanied by a patch released a few hours or a few days later. This is a simple consequence of the fact that the relative handful of people who test or proof-read a computer game, table-top wargame or even a novel cannot pick up on every error. It's not until release (when the number of eyes looking over a product rises exponentially) that some issues get noticed. GW is no different from anyone else in that regard.
Basically, it comes down to this:
Fewer Variables make for a more balanced game. More variables make for a much better gaming experience that will hold player interest for longer. The secret to making a good, enjoyable game that satisfies competitive and casual player alike is to find a happy medium between the two.
I personally believe that GW has found that medium with 6th edition 40K. Other people clearly do not. It's not possible for any game company to completely satisfy 100% of the people 100% of the time. Which is why I'm bemused that many gamers cannot accept that "good enough for most of us" is, in fact, good enough.
LeadLegion wrote: I personally believe that GW has found that medium with 6th edition 40K. Other people clearly do not. It's not possible for any game company to completely satsify 100% of the people 100% of the time. Which is why I'm bemused that many gamers cannot accept that "good enough for most of us" is, in fact, good enough.
You keep saying things along these lines. I don't think "most of us" means what you think it means...
From what I could see 8th ed WHFB saw a lot of emigration of the local player base in my area to 40K and 3rd party games (mostly Warmachine), but following the release of 6th ed 40K and its its more prominent codices there has been a similar emigration of players from 40K to WHFB and yet more 3rd party games, the end result being that right now neither WH40K nor WHFB have anywhere near as many players in the local gaming scene as they had when I first started playing less than 2 years ago. Last year we had simultaneous 40K and WHFB league campaigns that had well over a dozen players each, but this year the 40K league simply flopped (the WHFB league is doing ok though).
Just looking at the miniature community FB page you see almost as many posts about Infinity as you do 40K, and those about 40K are almost all about the Imperial Knights rumors/pics or pretty painjobs people saw on the net and decided to put up- only one guy actually uploaded pics of his own 40K modeling efforts in recent weeks and there's one battle report from a second dude, while the Infinity posts are almost entirely from modeling efforts (along with a couple of battle reports).
This is one week from the closing of the registration for our country's first ever official GW endorsed 40K tournament.
I've also been noticing a major decline in the frequency of 40K games in the FLGS over the last year or so. When I first started playing I would rarely need to set up a game in advance- I'd just drop by and play a pick up game with whoever was free at the time (and I rarely had to wait very long, though sometimes there was some delay due to lack of tables), nowdays however I don't bother coming if I don't find an opponent in advance via FB as I would most likely end up twiddling my thumbs for an hour or two before leaving (this even happened to me once during a special event day FFS! I ended up joining a MTG cube game instead to salvage what I could of my time...).
This is not a sign that the silent majority is perfectly fine with the state of WH40K...
No, but neither is it a sign that the silent majority isn't perfectly fine with the state of WH40K. Just as the loss of 2.3 million WoW players does not necessarily mean that 2.3 million players left Wow because they don't like the game balance.
There are many potential reasons why 40K numbers could be dropping in your area. In my area, they are once again increasing as players who have been dabbling in other games return to 40K . Neither observation -yours or mine, means a great deal in terms of analyzing why 40K numbers are dropping in a wider context.
Even GW's lower profits this year do not actually mean that GW is losing money because people are unhappy with game balance. There are many possible reasons why sales have dropped:
Here are a few:
*Greater exposure to alternate game systems resulting in a player leaving 40K for something they think is better.
*Greater exposure to alternate game systems, resulting in players splitting their disposable income between GW and other companies
*Rising cost of the models
*Rising import tax rates/inflation/ further increasing the cost of GW models in various countries.
*Increase in basic wage rates failing to match the cost of living increase, resulting in reduced capacity to purchase luxury items.
*Growth of (and indeed, saturation of) the second hand GW model market
*Availability of cheap counterfeit models from China
If you look at luxury hobbies across the board, many market leaders (including World of Warcraft, the big daddy of MMO's in the same way GW is the big daddy of tabletop wargames) are suffering in terms of numbers. Even Hasbro reported a net drop of $3.3million in sales in the first quarter of 2013 and disappointing sales over the Christmas period. It's necessary to look at these things in context. There's a great thread about GW's end of year report elsewhere in the 40K General Discussion forum that covers the potential factors involved.
LeadLegion wrote: If you look at luxury hobbies across the board, many market leaders (including World of Warcraft, the big daddy of MMO's in the same way GW is the big daddy of tabletop wargames) are suffering in terms of numbers. Even Hasbro reported a net drop of $3.3million in sales in the first quarter of 2013 and disappointing sales over the Christmas period. It's necessary to look at these things in context. There's a great thread about GW's end of year report elsewhere in the 40K General Discussion forum that covers the potential factors involved.
Yes, there is such a thread and it has been pointed out over and over again that miniature sales as a whole have not dropped and practically all of GW's competitors are showing monumental growth figures (not to mention the kickstarter numbers).
In which case, we can reduce the most likely factors to
*Greater exposure to alternate game systems resulting in a player leaving 40K for something they think is better.
*Greater exposure to alternate game systems, resulting in players splitting their disposable income between GW and other companies
*Rising cost of the models
*Growth of (and indeed, saturation of) the second hand GW model market
*Availability of cheap counterfeit models from China
The only factors that the growth of other miniature wargames company sales might eliminate from consideration are:
*Rising import tax rates/inflation/ further increasing the cost of GW models in various countries (even this this might still be a factor in countries with their own burgeoning domestic wargaming/miniatures industry)
*Increase in basic wage rates failing to match the cost of living increase, resulting in reduced capacity to purchase luxury items (again, this may still be a factor as many other games have much lower start-up costs and a meta than evolves more slowly than that of 40K)
So that still doesn't necessarily mean that the game rules are the major factor in the decline of sales
LeadLegion wrote: No, but neither is it a sign that the silent majority isn't perfectly fine with the state of WH40K. Just as the loss of 2.3 million WoW players does not necessarily mean that 2.3 million players left Wow because they don't like the game balance.
There are many potential reasons why 40K numbers could be dropping in your area. In my area, they are once again increasing as players who have been dabbling in other games return to 40K . Neither observation -yours or mine, means a great deal in terms of analyzing why 40K numbers are dropping in a wider context.
Even GW's lower profits this year do not actually mean that GW is losing money because people are unhappy with game balance. There are many possible reasons why sales have dropped:
Here are a few:
*Greater exposure to alternate game systems resulting in a player leaving 40K for something they think is better.
*Greater exposure to alternate game systems, resulting in players splitting their disposable income between GW and other companies
*Rising cost of the models
*Rising import tax rates/inflation/ further increasing the cost of GW models in various countries.
*Increase in basic wage rates failing to match the cost of living increase, resulting in reduced capacity to purchase luxury items.
*Growth of (and indeed, saturation of) the second hand GW model market
*Availability of cheap counterfeit models from China
If you look at luxury hobbies across the board, many market leaders (including World of Warcraft, the big daddy of MMO's in the same way GW is the big daddy of tabletop wargames) are suffering in terms of numbers. Even Hasbro reported a net drop of $3.3million in sales in the first quarter of 2013 and disappointing sales over the Christmas period. It's necessary to look at these things in context. There's a great thread about GW's end of year report elsewhere in the 40K General Discussion forum that covers the potential factors involved.
A perfectly logical post, containing many ideas and concepts I agree with.
However, when given the opportunity to explain the fall off in sales in the interim report, Mr Kirby cited the changeover to the one man store model and associated disruption and loss of store hours as the reason, and nothing else.
Now, I don't know about you, but while I perhaps wouldn't want to be attributing falling revenue to my competition or the counterfeit market running away from me (a problem of their own making, happy customers buying well priced goods don't generally go looking for knock offs, at least not in the numbers it would take to hurt your bottom line too much) I would certainly feel more comfortable pointing to wider economic trends and backing that up with similar companies in comparable market positions suffering similar down turns. (Let's not lose sight of the fact that GW are making less money, not losing any - while remarkable, and possibly telling, it isn't a disastrous situation, at least yet.)
The fact he didn't is perhaps telling in itself, although of what, I'm not 100% sure of just yet, I await the year end report with interest.
I agree that Mr Kirby is perhaps kidding himself here (or at least, trying to kid his shareholders). I also agree with you on why he wouldn't be willing to mention the other factors.
I'm very much looking forward to seeing the next financial report myself.
LeadLegion wrote: In which case, we can reduce the most likely factors to
*Greater exposure to alternate game systems resulting in a player leaving 40K for something they think is better.
*Greater exposure to alternate game systems, resulting in players splitting their disposable income between GW and other companies
*Rising cost of the models
*Growth of (and indeed, saturation of) the second hand GW model market
*Availability of cheap counterfeit models from China
The only factors that the growth of other miniature wargames company sales might eliminate from consideration are:
*Rising import tax rates/inflation/ further increasing the cost of GW models in various countries (even this this might still be a factor in countries with their own burgeoning domestic wargaming/miniatures industry)
*Increase in basic wage rates failing to match the cost of living increase, resulting in reduced capacity to purchase luxury items.
So that still doesn't necessarily mean that the game rules are the major factor in the decline of sales
* "Greater exposure to alternate game systems" is a direct result of people feeling the game is no longer "good enough" to keep them engaged. The primary driving force behind people switching over to other games is former 40K/WHFB players convincing them to try them, usually using "its a much better/more balanced/fun game" as their primary arguments.
* Something must be wrong if people are willing to shelve armies they've payed hundreds if not thousands of dollars for and invested untold hours of their time working on to spend yet more money and effort on starting a brand new army in an entirely different game, and "reduced capacity to purchase" does not make sense as an excuse.
* I don't know anyone who buys non-GW models for 40K or WHFB (in fact I know a Skaven player who ordered FWIG and Ork models for use in scratchbuilding Skaven war machines, and he's a well known 40K veteran who switched over to WHFB after shelving his DE army) and the FLGS allows only GW models or high quality scratchbuilds that makes use of GW bits in tournaments.
I have a friend who really loves painting GW models and had plans to start an Iron Hands army but then ended up starting a Warmachine army instead and does commission painting work to get his "painting GW minis" fix (he even volunteers to paint models he finds particularly awesome on occasion).
Try sugar coating it if you want, but I call'em as I see'em.
Me : "Did you see that ludicrous display last night? Attack"
RP : "Block. Totally, the problem with Arsenal is they always try and walk it in." *Marks life down*
I stopped reading after I saw this...
You, sir, win my internet today.
Have you tried turning it off and on again?
*Greater Exposure to Other Game Systems* is also due to the rising number of game companies, the increasing availability of cheap advertising and word of mouth via the internet, the ability to sell rules internationally and cheaply via Pdf's without having to pay expensive publishing costs and the current trend towards hard plastic/resin compounds that allow large production runs of relatively low quality models to be manufactured cheaply.
* People have been shelving armies to try something new for years. It's not a new phenomenon. Even historical gamers do it when they get bored with their current army or period or rules. I do it myself every now and again (as I mentioned in my post a few pages back where I explained my gaming background). Some gamers shelve a GW army and then go and buy another one. Other gamers shelve a GW army then go and play something else for a while. Some gamers shelve a GW army and never play a GW again. Others never play any wargame ever again. Just because some starts playing another game it doesn't necessarily mean they intend to stop playing 40K altogether. I have three 40K armies on my shelf at the moment: Dark Angels, Imperial Guard and Chaos Space Marines. They're sitting right next to my Warmachine, infinity, Malifaux, All Things Zombie, Noble Armada, Judge Dredd, Dark Ages, Wars of the Roses, Crusades, Chaos Warriors, Ork & Goblin and Seven Years War armies. Right now I'm playing Space Marines and working on my Eldar. Doesn't mean they other armies are never going to see the light of day again. Even the armies for other game systems tucked away in storage get brought out for a game every now and then.
Without more information (and a time machine) we can't know for certain if the guys shelving their 40K armies are gone for good or just playing something different for a change of pace.
*And now you do know someone who buys non-GW models for use in games of 40K. While I don't buy counterfiet GW models, I do use a lot of non-GW miniatures in my GW armies. For example, Copperstone Casting marines, USMC Marines from Defiance Games and a few figures from other companies here and there are sprinkled throughout my IG army.
Likewise, my Inquisitorial Detachment consists of Four Colour Figures miniatures that I use as Death Cult Assassins and Dreamforge Games Stormtroopers that I use as, well, Stormtroopers.
As for your friend who changed his mind about whether to buy a GW army or a Warmachine army, I wish him all the best. I wonder, does he still have a GW army, or did he sell all of his miniatures? Not that it affects the debate either way, I'm just curious.
LeadLegion wrote: *Greater Exposure to Other Game Systems* is also due to the rising number of game companies, the increasing availability of cheap advertising and word of mouth via the internet, the ability to sell rules internationally and cheaply via Pdf's without having to pay expensive publishing costs and the current trend towards hard plastic/resin compounds that allow large production runs of relatively low quality models to be manufactured cheaply.
* People have been buying and selling armies for years. It's not a new phenomenon. Even historical gamers do it when they get bored with their current army or period. In fact, your observation that people are selling armies shows that economic hardship might be more of a factor in GW sales dropping than you think. How many gamers are selling a GW army to buy another GW army? How many gamers are selling a GW army to buy an army for an another game system, while still retaining (and playing) at least one another GW army? Suddenly it' not so clean cut. Not everybody wants to keep an army they've gotten bored with on the shelf until they want to play it again. Especially if they can't afford to buy a whole new army outright.
*And now you do know someone who buys non-GW models for use in games of 40K. While I don't buy counterfiet GW models, I do use a lot of non-GW miniatures in my GW armies. For example, Copperstone Casting marines, USMC Marines from Defiance Games and a few figures from other companies here and there are sprinkled throughout my IG army.
Likewise, my Inquisitorial Detachment consists of Four Colour Figures miniatures that I use as Death Cult Assassins and Dreamforge Games Stormtroopers that I use as, well, Stormtroopers.
What gave you the idea the armies were sold?
A lot of these guys simply shelved them and started other armies, I can't think of anyone who actually got rid of his old models (at least not on a large scale, there was one guy who sold a portion of his 16k of nids to make room on the shelves for some more Tau, but he still has well over 10k of nids and hasn't left 40K so he's not really the "target demographic" we're talking about here). The DE veteran who switched over to WHFB still has all his amazingly painted DE models (you should see the basing of his whatsheicallit DE flier thingy, it's as if it flies around with a small residential area following it around ), he just got tired of getting wiped out by everyone he played against and moved on to greener pastures.
I'm sure he'd be willing to de-shelve that army if he thought he'd have a decent chance of winning the average game with it rather than just serving as a punching bag to the average opponent or playing second fiddle to a more powerful codex in a 2v2 match.
LeadLegion wrote: As for your friend who changed his mind about whether to buy a GW army or a Warmachine army, I wish him all the best. I wonder, does he still have a GW army, or did he sell all of his miniatures? Not that it affects the debate either way, I'm just curious.
He collected bits he planned on using for converting vanilla marines into Iron hands but he dropped the idea before making the actual purchases.
Sorry Galorian. I'd misread your post and went back to change the content, hoping I'd finish and re-post before you would have a chance to read it.
I'm afraid the old fingers weren't fast enough
I can completely empathise with the DA player. The DA codex was written before we'd had a chance to see just how much the new flier rules would upset the apple-cartl. It came out too soon after the edition change to properly take into account the new meta. Can I suggest he try using Mortis Dreadnaughts from Forgeworld? I used my Dark Angels right up until the Codex Space Marine release and did very well with them whenever I included A Dual Twin-Linked Lascannon Mortis or two in my army list. Dump Prescience on one and they clear the skies well enough (rivaled only by the likes of a Quad gun with a high BS character nursing it).
In World of Warcraft, the designers shake up the meta even more often with patches. Wow is even less balanced than 40K because there are even more variables to take into account (such as the sheer number of items available to characters of different classes and levels). This requires even more patches for WOW than 40K has FAQ's. However, can anyone deny that WoW is a good game? Do you want to tell 7.7 million subscribers that they are idiots because they're playing a game that isn't balanced? They don't care if the game is balanced. If they did, they'd be part of the 2.3 million people who have already stopped playing Wow.
I have to inject that this is incorrect. WoW is mostly balanced for PvE and has been for some time. PvP has never been very balanced and there have almost always been one or two horribly broken specs each patch or Arena season, but PvP has never been the game's focus.
I actually think that the turn sequence of 40K is only "bad" as a result of the GW viewpoint of making us field larger and larger armies for the same points builds. If you play a game of 2nd edition and then play a game of 6th edition, you will find things to be quite a bit different.
A 1500 point game of 2nd edition did not involve watching as an entire table edge of models got to take their turns whittling down your units before you even get a chance to respond, even with all the things in 2nd that improved shooting (like targeters all over the place). Armies were approx. 50% the size of modern 40K games of the same points level.
For instance, I play the game AT-43, which has alternating activations. When dealing with armies in that game that would rival what you can field with 2000pts of 6th edition, all that firepower coupled with an I go-You go turn sequence would end up exactly the same as 40K you watch as half your army is dead before you can even respond in kind, weakened, against an army that is completely untouched. It would suck tons of fun out of the game.
Modern-sized games of 40K would be quite a bit more tactical with alternating activations, but would require a large rewrite of that part of the game.
If you want to shake up 40K an easy way is to do a unit activation system using a pack of playing cards. There are all sorts of variations that can be done to the move/shoot/assault sequence without having to change any of the rest of the rules.
I agree with much of what you say. Back in 2nd ed a Devastator squad cost about 300pts. A landraider was still 220 points, but where vehicle costs have changed much (using Space Marines as a sample) infantry units tend to cost about 1/2 the base price. With the current number of models in a typical game, I think alternating unit activation or alternating phases would be a struggle. But I've no evidence to back that up. It's purely my gut feeling.
@taxmeyer: I never claimed that PVP was the games focus. But I disagree with you when you say that PVE is balanced. Certain classes are feeling the power creep more than others.
@killkrazy: A similar system works for bolt action. But I get then impression that many of the games critics want to reduce the random element in favour of player skill, so it might not be a popular move with the players who are already disgruntled with the degree that chance plays in determining the winner. Again, no evidence. Just a gut feeling.
To me, the ability to deal with random factors is one of the things that distinguishes a good player (general) from a bad one.
When you think of it, the chance to get a move first with your entire army on the basis of a single die roll is a lot more random than unit-by-unit activation by card draw.
Absolutely. Alternating activations destroy the concept of Alpha-strike armies. But (usually) other parts of the turn sequence are also altered from what a game would use if it had IGUGO when looking at games that use alternating activations.
The largest problem with GW's system is the demand for us to use such large armies just to push more models. The amount of fire(or hand to hand attacks) you can focus upon an opposing armies best units is drastically heightened with IGUGO.
Just played a 1500pt vs. 30 GK Terminators and a Librarian as Thousand Sons with Ahriman, 5 spawn, a Predator and a Helbrute.
I won, and I didn't need a Heldrake to do it. That's not saying that I'm some uber player- No, his terminators did roll a lot of 1's and I had lots of good psychic tests..
Tell me how the game is broken?
Players make choices. You CHOOSE to bring that Wraithknight/Riptide x3/Imperial Knight. I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said here, of course.. CHOOSE who and what YOU play against. Nothing wrong with that, friends. : ]
One game doesn't prove a point. The rules are shoddy, no amount of evidence of "But I won with <bad army here> against <good army here>" is going to change that.
I think my painting queue would not mind one whit.
-.- 
