Blastaar wrote: If specific issues are repeatedly brought up when discussing 40k, that is a sign that there are problems with the game.
Could you provide an example of such an issue that existed before the marine books? (Note: I'm not asserting issues dont exist)
I think the most agreed upon is the poor excuse for terrain rules in the core game. It also ties directly into the lack of game mechanics in the core rules as the core rules are extremely bare bones for a tactical table top war game.
That's a good one.
It's why I do ITC most often. Given a good number of people want competitive games where is the harm in having a separate body govern that? Especially when they're closely connected to GW.
I see a lot of people criticize ITC, but often they dont play it or they like to hate the personalities behind it.
I'd like to see something like forests give -1 to hit against units inside it, but is that fair for Orks if their opponent gets all the areas with forests?
A lighter touch with terrain could be the intention and we're left to get into weeds for more demanding games.
Telling GW "grey knights are bad, fix them!" Is perfectly adequate feedback. It is not the responsibility of the players to provide GW detailed information on the problems with a product they sell- that is Games Workshop's job. Were the rules team competent, they would investigate the complaints, and work to fix the army. But they haven't.
no actually io's crap feedback that will get ignored. because it provides no information, why are grey knights crap? the more feedback and info you provide GW the easier ti is to address it
It's why I do ITC most often. Given a good number of people want competitive games where is the harm in having a separate body govern that? Especially when they're closely connected to GW.
I see a lot of people criticize ITC, but often they dont play it or they like to hate the personalities behind it.
I'd like to see something like forests give -1 to hit against units inside it, but is that fair for Orks if their opponent gets all the areas with forests?
A lighter touch with terrain could be the intention and we're left to get into weeds for more demanding games.
Oh, I miss having cool terrain rules.
But as bad as it is that 40k doesn't have terrain rules- it's the fact that Kill Team doesn't.
KILL TEAM. You have all the opportunities in the world here, in a game where at a MAX someone puts down 20 miniatures (and that's really rare, and probably dumb). My Kill-Team is 5 dudes, unless I take a commander- and then I use 6. And we get terrain rules that are pretty much as weak as the 40k rules.
Yeah, Kill Team is one of those things I really complain about a lot. It was an absolute waste of paper. It seems like it was an afterthought to just throw it out there, and claiming it has a "campaign" is like calling McNuggets "Chicken". Sure, it kind of is. If you're playing real fast and loose with the words.
FFS, I wish they'd make a "Shadow War" type of add-on to Kill-Team, and take a bunch of cues from Necromunda.
It's why I do ITC most often. Given a good number of people want competitive games where is the harm in having a separate body govern that? Especially when they're closely connected to GW.
I see a lot of people criticize ITC, but often they dont play it or they like to hate the personalities behind it.
I'd like to see something like forests give -1 to hit against units inside it, but is that fair for Orks if their opponent gets all the areas with forests?
A lighter touch with terrain could be the intention and we're left to get into weeds for more demanding games.
Oh, I miss having cool terrain rules.
But as bad as it is that 40k doesn't have terrain rules- it's the fact that Kill Team doesn't.
KILL TEAM. You have all the opportunities in the world here, in a game where at a MAX someone puts down 20 miniatures (and that's really rare, and probably dumb). My Kill-Team is 5 dudes, unless I take a commander- and then I use 6. And we get terrain rules that are pretty much as weak as the 40k rules.
Yeah, Kill Team is one of those things I really complain about a lot. It was an absolute waste of paper. It seems like it was an afterthought to just throw it out there, and claiming it has a "campaign" is like calling McNuggets "Chicken". Sure, it kind of is. If you're playing real fast and loose with the words.
FFS, I wish they'd make a "Shadow War" type of add-on to Kill-Team, and take a bunch of cues from Necromunda.
I'm not really sure deep terrain belongs there either. The extra negatives to hit would only be exacerbated or good cover would force heavy weapon packing to the detriment of melee.
I mean I could be completely and totally wrong about that, but I never thought it was lacking in Kill Team.
40K has Cities of Death with lots of other terrain rules layers, but i'm still not sure that's exactly what the game needs for all varieties of armies to flourish.
I'm not really sure deep terrain belongs there either. The extra negatives to hit would only be exacerbated or good cover would force heavy weapon packing to the detriment of melee.
That's my other complaint. The absurd -1 to hit at half range. Why? Just... what the hell?
This is a dumb rule, IMHO. A lazy, slapped-together dumb rule. One that wouldn't exist if actual time was spent developing Kill-Team as a proper standalone game rather than a copy/paste of most of 40k's rules with useless fixes slapped on to make it hold together. I'd be shocked if KT saw support outside of White Dwarf magazine.
If it were my decision to make, they'd have "Combat Patrol" which would be a slightly-modified version of 40k for independent units, and then actual Kill-Team which would be a more altered version of the game, and "Shadow War" which would be a way to turn Kill Team into "Necromunda with 40k units".
I get most of my hobby enjoyment from building, painting and playing. I add to that with participation in on-line forums (fora?). There are several Youtube channels and FB pages that have a mostly positive spin while providing me with insights on the game. Perusing Dakka, on the other hand, gives me the recommended daily intake of "salt" for my on-line 40K diet. I think it's a good balance for the other sites I go through. As long as the half-dozen or so true hard-cases stick to General Discussion its OK, and even a broken clock is right twice a day (assuming its analog). When they invade Tactics threads it gets a little annoying, since Tactics is usually a mellow and helpful place. YMDC has turned into a bit of a farce due to a few folks, but it's amusing to read nonetheless.
I trust the Mods to look after the place on behalf of whoever pays the rent here. Its up to each of us to decide if we want to participate.
I'm not really sure deep terrain belongs there either. The extra negatives to hit would only be exacerbated or good cover would force heavy weapon packing to the detriment of melee.
That's my other complaint. The absurd -1 to hit at half range. Why? Just... what the hell?
This is a dumb rule, IMHO. A lazy, slapped-together dumb rule. One that wouldn't exist if actual time was spent developing Kill-Team as a proper standalone game rather than a copy/paste of most of 40k's rules with useless fixes slapped on to make it hold together. I'd be shocked if KT saw support outside of White Dwarf magazine.
If it were my decision to make, they'd have "Combat Patrol" which would be a slightly-modified version of 40k for independent units, and then actual Kill-Team which would be a more altered version of the game, and "Shadow War" which would be a way to turn Kill Team into "Necromunda with 40k units".
Kill team has seen a lot of support, and anecdotally it’s very popular. Is it perfect? No... but I enjoy it more than 40k for a lot of reasons. I also like it better than necromunda partly because it’s still fundamentally connected to full 40k. It makes it easier to play for any veteran player.
Kill team has seen a lot of support, and anecdotally it’s very popular. Is it perfect? No... but I enjoy it more than 40k for a lot of reasons. I also like it better than necromunda partly because it’s still fundamentally connected to full 40k. It makes it easier to play for any veteran player.
I honestly think it's more popular because, well, unlike Necromunda- you probably already have the models. Most people just pluck models out of their collection and use them. And the only support I've seen since Elites was in WD mags.
In terms of what is a better campaign game, Necromunda makes Kill Team look like a joke. As far as a game you can prep and play in a few minutes? Kill Team is the clear winner. Its rules are a bit stupid- I think they were trying way too hard to keep it as similar to 40k as possible (for people to transition, I suppose). Overall, Kill Team's capable of scratching an itch, but not a very big one for me. I think they're kind of wasting an opportunity by not building on to it and making it capable of being its own entity.
Kill team has seen a lot of support, and anecdotally it’s very popular. Is it perfect? No... but I enjoy it more than 40k for a lot of reasons. I also like it better than necromunda partly because it’s still fundamentally connected to full 40k. It makes it easier to play for any veteran player.
I honestly think it's more popular because, well, unlike Necromunda- you probably already have the models. Most people just pluck models out of their collection and use them. And the only support I've seen since Elites was in WD mags.
Elites was only 6 months ago. They can't be pumping stuff out constantly and honestly there is only so far to go until they're just doing unique specific kill teams like Rogue Trader.
Daedalus81 wrote: Elites was only 6 months ago. They can't be pumping stuff out constantly and honestly there is only so far to go until they're just doing unique specific kill teams like Rogue Trader.
Terrible things like... Inquisition, Arbites, and those other minor factions within and outside of the Imperium that would never otherwise see models on the tabletop- where something like Kill-Team would be the ideal place to showcase them?
That's exactly what Kill Team should be cranking out, IMHO.
BrianDavion wrote: making it too much it's own entity would be a mistake, kill team seems popular as a "building block" to 40k.
Which is why my idea would have been to make an expansion module to it, to further modify and add to the rules to turn it into more of a campaign-based game with deeper customization options.
Maybe, but I do feel like I'm demonstrating a way to be positive AND have a complaint by showing how you can offer a possible solution and ideas.
No one could faithfully argue that premise.
The problem is that some cant accomplish that. There were some humdingers on page 6/7, but the conversation has been more muted ever since those types of posts went away.
You can see that those with pejoratives involving "trash/rubbish/matt ward is the worst human being alive" etc usually never have anything to offer other than burn the conversation down.
Daedalus81 wrote: You can see that those with pejoratives involving "trash/rubbish/matt ward is the worst human being alive" etc usually never have anything to offer other than burn the conversation down.
"Matt Ward sucks" is an alternative version of "hey you remember squats?". It's just something people hear on the internet and like to repeat, most of the time.
There certainly are "white knights" or "shills" for GW. But TBH, even if there are people on a forum that plant their lips to GW's buttcheeks for every release that comes out and hurl their money at them and berate anyone who doesn't feel the same way, they're irrelevant. Or, maybe just that kind of person that likes Warhammer a lot and likes all the stuff. It's possible.
The "Shills" and "White Knights" I am more concerned about are the ones that do "reviews" and "unboxings". I'm not expecting flawless objectivity here, but if you're going to claim to review something- I think that you should be honest and at least point out the deficiencies and flaws in a product and not act like another advertisement for the product. Even some of my favorite things GW has made, I can easily be honest about their flaws. As seen below, if you care to look.
Spoiler:
Necromunda? Slow release schedule, and painfully so. Lack of FAQ. Boxes tend to lack the better weapons and the FW weapon kits are a bit pricey, especially since you probably only need one or two weapons in there. And the rules have a lot of flaws that need to be house-ruled, which can be done easily. Way too many hired guns that probably won't see models at this rate, would actually benefit from a reference guide for other kits to use for conversions. New boxed set is prohibitively overpriced. Game doesn't get the support it deserves, because with a little more hype it could be all the rage.
Blackstone Fortress? Overpriced expansions with a few cards and a couple of little models. Abominable Intellect only increases the difficulty by increasing the number of hostiles that spawn, which you can do without buying the cards if you're creative. Lacks the ability to do what Silver Tower did, which was allow a wide variety of characters from the range of models- so players could bring their own character and feel like it was truly their own. Genuinely needs a 'custom character' option.
Warhammer 40k? It has Tau, look at their stupid faces and dumb robots.
I've thought about doing reviews for their products myself, but chances are- I'd get squashed and no one would watch. Because I can't just shill, and the shills are the ones that get the products early and beat everyone else to the punch. Which, IMHO, is kinda lame.
Telling GW "grey knights are bad, fix them!" Is perfectly adequate feedback. It is not the responsibility of the players to provide GW detailed information on the problems with a product they sell- that is Games Workshop's job. Were the rules team competent, they would investigate the complaints, and work to fix the army. But they haven't.
no actually io's crap feedback that will get ignored. because it provides no information, why are grey knights crap? the more feedback and info you provide GW the easier ti is to address it
It is the responsibility of the people who write the rules to know enough about what they produce, and to look at the data from events like tournaments, to see that a problem exists, understand the cause, and fix it. Players are not always adept at diagnosing problems, let alone fixing them.
Blastaar wrote: It is the responsibility of the people who write the rules to know enough about what they produce, and to look at the data from events like tournaments, to see that a problem exists, understand the cause, and fix it. Players are not always adept at diagnosing problems, let alone fixing them.
This statement right here is in no way realistic and sensible. At all. It's absurd, and that's the nicest way to put it.
And if players aren't good at diagnosing a problem, then there's no assurance that there's a problem in the first place, right?
I don't know what you do as a job, but if your boss walked up to you and said "you screwed something up last month, fix it" and then walked away, leaving you to figure out what the hell he meant and sift through everything... you'd have a meltdown. Actually, your boss would probably get fired if you went to HR.
I've thought about doing reviews for their products myself, but chances are- I'd get squashed and no one would watch. Because I can't just shill, and the shills are the ones that get the products early and beat everyone else to the punch. Which, IMHO, is kinda lame.
If I may critique - the opinions you present are valid, but they're presented in a very bludgeoning manner.
Something like, "Necromunda's slow release schedule leaves me longing for more gangs to come out, or, at least a sprinkle of additional mercs."
Or "The standard boxes don't carry all the weapons you'll likely want to equip your gang so plan accordingly by cannibalizing other sprues or opening your wallet up to Forgeworld add-ons. Don't fret immediately though, because your gang will need to gain ground before it can deploy all the dirty tricks of the Underhive."
Or "GW has been slow to FAQ the game recently so be prepared to get your questions out and join a forum to find out the latest rulings until GW can produce an official response."
If I may critique - the opinions you present are valid, but they're presented in a very bludgeoning manner.
Something like, "Necromunda's slow release schedule leaves me longing for more gangs to come out, or, at least a sprinkle of additional mercs."
Or "The standard boxes don't carry all the weapons you'll likely want to equip your gang so plan accordingly by cannibalizing other sprues or opening your wallet up to Forgeworld add-ons. Don't fret immediately though, because your gang will need to gain ground before it can deploy all the dirty tricks of the Underhive."
Or "GW has been slow to FAQ the game recently so be prepared to get your questions out and join a forum to find out the latest rulings until GW can produce an official response."
Oh, that second one's not even accurate. Some of those weapons you'll want right off the bat, and you'll be baffled as to why you don't have them in the box.
If I may critique - the opinions you present are valid, but they're presented in a very bludgeoning manner.
Something like, "Necromunda's slow release schedule leaves me longing for more gangs to come out, or, at least a sprinkle of additional mercs."
Or "The standard boxes don't carry all the weapons you'll likely want to equip your gang so plan accordingly by cannibalizing other sprues or opening your wallet up to Forgeworld add-ons. Don't fret immediately though, because your gang will need to gain ground before it can deploy all the dirty tricks of the Underhive."
Or "GW has been slow to FAQ the game recently so be prepared to get your questions out and join a forum to find out the latest rulings until GW can produce an official response."
Oh, that second one's not even accurate. Some of those weapons you'll want right off the bat, and you'll be baffled as to why you don't have them in the box.
FFS, the Enforcers didn't come with shields.
Well, just examples. Change to reflect the accuracy as needed. Do they need to come with shields? If they're absolutely necessary I'd present them as being a more expensive faction to play.
Let the players decide if that's something they want to deal with or not and you get to dodge both ends of the spectrum.
Well, just examples. Change to reflect the accuracy as needed. Do they need to come with shields? If they're absolutely necessary I'd present them as being a more expensive faction to play.
Let the players decide if that's something they want to deal with or not and you get to dodge both ends of the spectrum.
Let's put it this way, there are two kind of enforcers in an Enforcer squad. Palatines and Subjugators. Subjugators are pretty effective, and you'll want to upgrade a couple of guys, at least one, to subjugator. Subjugators are the only guys that can take shields and grenade launchers (and I think the heavy weapons, but those are 'meh'). So basically one of the major things that Enforcers SHOULD be running with (shields) aren't available in the kit, and now it seems the Subjugators are a completely seperate release coming with the new box, blah blah blah.
Point is, I would make it known that if players are looking at a book or something to decide what faction they want, then they need to be aware that the core box doesn't give you all the starting basic weapons and you'll have to spend more money or do some creative conversions.
I'll let them decide if it's worth it or not, of course- but I will give my own opinion and alternative options.
I don't believe in sugar-coating. I'm not hyperbolic, but if something strikes me as scummy or lame I'm gonna make it clear.
And if people wanna get mad, they can be mad. I'm pushing out reviews and information, not trying to appease everyone.
Blastaar wrote: It is the responsibility of the people who write the rules to know enough about what they produce, and to look at the data from events like tournaments, to see that a problem exists, understand the cause, and fix it. Players are not always adept at diagnosing problems, let alone fixing them.
This statement right here is in no way realistic and sensible. At all. It's absurd, and that's the nicest way to put it.
And if players aren't good at diagnosing a problem, then there's no assurance that there's a problem in the first place, right?
I don't know what you do as a job, but if your boss walked up to you and said "you screwed something up last month, fix it" and then walked away, leaving you to figure out what the hell he meant and sift through everything... you'd have a meltdown. Actually, your boss would probably get fired if you went to HR.
Your example is flawed. The rules team are not the "employee" of the players. They are people who create a product, that is then sold. If it is faulty, it is their job to understand why and fix it.
Recognition of the existence of a problem comes before the diagnosis, ie, determining the nature and cause of said problem, and best way to solve that problem. Players aren't always the best at solutions. And this is in no way "unrealistic." This is what Wizards does with Magic. Wizards accumulates masses of data through organized events, particularly the win rates for certain cards, combos, or decks. If one is too dominant, something gets banned. One in particular is expected to be banned soon for taking up 57% of the meta, and showing in 7 of the top 8 decks at a recent tournament. Games Workshop, on the other hand, sends people to attend conventions and tournaments, who are shocked to hear players' complaints, because they were clueless that such problems even existed in the first place.
Your example is flawed. The rules team are not the "employee" of the players. They are people who create a product, that is then sold. If it is faulty, it is their job to understand why and fix it.
Recognition of the existence of a problem comes before the diagnosis, ie, determining the nature and cause of said problem, and best way to solve that problem. Players aren't always the best at solutions. And this is in no way "unrealistic." This is what Wizards does with Magic. Wizards accumulates masses of data through organized events, particularly the win rates for certain cards, combos, or decks. If one is too dominant, something gets banned. One in particular is expected to be banned soon for taking up 57% of the meta, and showing in 7 of the top 8 decks at a recent tournament. Games Workshop, on the other hand, sends people to attend conventions and tournaments, who are shocked to hear players' complaints, because they were clueless that such problems even existed in the first place.
You're not real good with metaphors.
I'll keep it simple.
If they aren't given feedback, with some degree of detail in where the problems are- then you can't expect any correction.
This is basic human interaction and I'm not sure why it eludes you.
Well, just examples. Change to reflect the accuracy as needed. Do they need to come with shields? If they're absolutely necessary I'd present them as being a more expensive faction to play.
Let the players decide if that's something they want to deal with or not and you get to dodge both ends of the spectrum.
Let's put it this way, there are two kind of enforcers in an Enforcer squad. Palatines and Subjugators. Subjugators are pretty effective, and you'll want to upgrade a couple of guys, at least one, to subjugator. Subjugators are the only guys that can take shields and grenade launchers (and I think the heavy weapons, but those are 'meh'). So basically one of the major things that Enforcers SHOULD be running with (shields) aren't available in the kit, and now it seems the Subjugators are a completely seperate release coming with the new box, blah blah blah.
Point is, I would make it known that if players are looking at a book or something to decide what faction they want, then they need to be aware that the core box doesn't give you all the starting basic weapons and you'll have to spend more money or do some creative conversions.
I'll let them decide if it's worth it or not, of course- but I will give my own opinion and alternative options.
I don't believe in sugar-coating. I'm not hyperbolic, but if something strikes me as scummy or lame I'm gonna make it clear.
And if people wanna get mad, they can be mad. I'm pushing out reviews and information, not trying to appease everyone.
The perception of scummy is subjective though. Whether or not it has value is determined by the purchaser. Whether or not they want Subjugators is their prerogative. If GW over-inflates too far they'll lose more customers.
You stand at a gateway that allows people to get accurate info so they can make better decisions. If you turn some away just by the dynamics of presentation you reach fewer people. I rarely watch unboxings, but when I do I'm more interested in knowing whats in it rather than why someone thinks it's good or bad.
Even codex reviews are risque, because they often don't have time to deep dive on some of the easy to miss changes so taking a hard opinion can bite them in viewership. "I think GW may have made this too strong" over "this is absolutely broken".
The perception of scummy is subjective though. Whether or not it has value is determined by the purchaser. Whether or not they want Subjugators is their prerogative. If GW over-inflates too far they'll lose more customers.
You stand at a gateway that allows people to get accurate info so they can make better decisions. If you turn some away just by the dynamics of presentation you reach fewer people. I rarely watch unboxings, but when I do I'm more interested in knowing whats in it rather than why someone thinks it's good or bad.
Even codex reviews are risque, because they often don't have time to deep dive on some of the easy to miss changes so taking a hard opinion can bite them in viewership. "I think GW may have made this too strong" over "this is absolutely broken".
Not to be insulting at all here, far from my intent- but I've written and done reviews for a wide variety of things over my years and I don't need tone coaching, but I appreciate your intent.
I can include facts- "this box has X, Y, and Z" and I can include opinion: "It's a pain in the ass that it doesn't come with A, or B, because they're effective as hell".
The perception of scummy is subjective though. Whether or not it has value is determined by the purchaser. Whether or not they want Subjugators is their prerogative. If GW over-inflates too far they'll lose more customers.
You stand at a gateway that allows people to get accurate info so they can make better decisions. If you turn some away just by the dynamics of presentation you reach fewer people. I rarely watch unboxings, but when I do I'm more interested in knowing whats in it rather than why someone thinks it's good or bad.
Even codex reviews are risque, because they often don't have time to deep dive on some of the easy to miss changes so taking a hard opinion can bite them in viewership. "I think GW may have made this too strong" over "this is absolutely broken".
Not to be insulting at all here, far from my intent- but I've written and done reviews for a wide variety of things over my years and I don't need tone coaching, but I appreciate your intent.
I can include facts- "this box has X, Y, and Z" and I can include opinion: "It's a pain in the ass that it doesn't come with A, or B, because they're effective as hell".
Sure, I didn't want to presume your experience. Sorry if it came off that way. I was just discussing it from the perspective on this end.
Your example is flawed. The rules team are not the "employee" of the players. They are people who create a product, that is then sold. If it is faulty, it is their job to understand why and fix it.
Recognition of the existence of a problem comes before the diagnosis, ie, determining the nature and cause of said problem, and best way to solve that problem. Players aren't always the best at solutions. And this is in no way "unrealistic." This is what Wizards does with Magic. Wizards accumulates masses of data through organized events, particularly the win rates for certain cards, combos, or decks. If one is too dominant, something gets banned. One in particular is expected to be banned soon for taking up 57% of the meta, and showing in 7 of the top 8 decks at a recent tournament. Games Workshop, on the other hand, sends people to attend conventions and tournaments, who are shocked to hear players' complaints, because they were clueless that such problems even existed in the first place.
You're not real good with metaphors.
I'll keep it simple.
If they aren't given feedback, with some degree of detail in where the problems are- then you can't expect any correction.
This is basic human interaction and I'm not sure why it eludes you.
But where are we supposed to post that feedback even? We dont even know where to go with it. Best approach we have os to "spam" complaints at as many GW related places as possible and hope they pick it up. And if they really are interested in finding out some of the problems then there sre many places of discussion where they could read. But you cant expect the players to spend the time to post good feedback without any response ever. Not our responsibility but theirs.
And its not like many of the issues are hard to spot if you really try. Especially on point cost oversights. Some of those you dont even need to understand the army to see that something is wrong. Like look on the Sanguinary Guard in Blood Angels. For 9 extra points, 2 for death masks and 7 for "upgraded weapons", per model(from 32 to 41pts) or 90pts for a unit they get actually worse in melee and get a 3" - 1 to LD aura that really do nothing for a killy elite unit that have monsters/vehicles as primary target and already crushes anything that ever uses a LD score.
Your example is flawed. The rules team are not the "employee" of the players. They are people who create a product, that is then sold. If it is faulty, it is their job to understand why and fix it.
Recognition of the existence of a problem comes before the diagnosis, ie, determining the nature and cause of said problem, and best way to solve that problem. Players aren't always the best at solutions. And this is in no way "unrealistic." This is what Wizards does with Magic. Wizards accumulates masses of data through organized events, particularly the win rates for certain cards, combos, or decks. If one is too dominant, something gets banned. One in particular is expected to be banned soon for taking up 57% of the meta, and showing in 7 of the top 8 decks at a recent tournament. Games Workshop, on the other hand, sends people to attend conventions and tournaments, who are shocked to hear players' complaints, because they were clueless that such problems even existed in the first place.
You're not real good with metaphors.
I'll keep it simple.
If they aren't given feedback, with some degree of detail in where the problems are- then you can't expect any correction.
This is basic human interaction and I'm not sure why it eludes you.
Stow the condescension. Not every cause is obvious. What if, as is the case with Grey Knights, an entire codex simply "sucks?" Do you expect players to write up a list of every problem with a codex that suffers from multiple systemic issues? I know this concept eludes you, but this is not their responsibility.
Player feedback is useful, to an extent, mostly to know that a problem exists. However, no amount of feedback from players can substitute for proactive and continuous gathering of information, and a rules team competent enough to interpret the data and make adjustments.
And what you gave was an example scenario, not a metaphor. A metaphor is when a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable.
Stow the condescension. Not every cause is obvious. What if, as is the case with Grey Knights, an entire codex simply "sucks?" Do you expect players to write up a list of every problem with a codex that suffers from multiple systemic issues? I know this concept eludes you, but this is not their responsibility.
I'm not sure how you believe you are entitled to be addressed, but I'm not sure it warrants me being super nice and positive. Rest assured, I'm being polite. Or at least restrained. Were I not, there'd be red letters here.
Part of me is curious about what makes a whole Codex "suck", but I'd rather ask someone else.
I'd say it's hard to explain why a whole Codex "sucks", and I highly doubt that's the case.
Blastaar wrote: Player feedback is useful, to an extent, mostly to know that a problem exists. However, no amount of feedback from players can substitute for proactive and continuous gathering of information, and a rules team competent enough to interpret the data and make adjustments.
Ah, I'm sure those big official events by GW that happen all the time in detail without rampant cheating and points fudging are just untapped data.
Blastaar wrote: And what you gave was an example scenario, not a metaphor. A metaphor is when a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable.
I'm glad you're lacking an actual argument so had to find this error.
Point still stands.
Either way, we're done here. If I wanted to have this experience, I'd just go and have a discussion with the wall.
Stow the condescension. Not every cause is obvious. What if, as is the case with Grey Knights, an entire codex simply "sucks?" Do you expect players to write up a list of every problem with a codex that suffers from multiple systemic issues? I know this concept eludes you, but this is not their responsibility.
I'm not sure how you believe you are entitled to be addressed, but I'm not sure it warrants me being super nice and positive. Rest assured, I'm being polite. Or at least restrained. Were I not, there'd be red letters here.
Part of me is curious about what makes a whole Codex "suck", but I'd rather ask someone else.
I'd say it's hard to explain why a whole Codex "sucks", and I highly doubt that's the case.
Blastaar wrote: Player feedback is useful, to an extent, mostly to know that a problem exists. However, no amount of feedback from players can substitute for proactive and continuous gathering of information, and a rules team competent enough to interpret the data and make adjustments.
Ah, I'm sure those big official events by GW that happen all the time in detail without rampant cheating and points fudging are just untapped data.
They are useful, to be sure, but GW's methodology, both in data collection as well as interpretation and applied solutions, leaves much to be desired.
Blastaar wrote: And what you gave was an example scenario, not a metaphor. A metaphor is when a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable.
I'm glad you're lacking an actual argument so had to find this error.
If you had read the entirety of my previous post, you would have seen my "argument" that GW can do a better job gathering information with regard to balance, and that it is not the responsibility of the players, the people who are paying GW for their products, to spend their precious time listing the finer points of the game's problems.
Point still stands.
Either way, we're done here. If I wanted to have this experience, I'd just go and have a discussion with the wall.
Thank you. It is tiring attempting to discuss player's complaints and the value of GW data collection with a crotchety old git determined to be "right."
Let's move back to the thread topic of "Hobby Positivity," shall we?
I can spell out where grey Knights suck easily eneugh myself. Allow me to state some succient details as to why Grey Knights suck.
1st: their high points cost coupled with their lack of durability means that grey knights simply are unable to hold their own in combat. This is doubly the case when grey knight units may have a host of abilities that don't always synergize partiuclarly well.
2nd: the Grey Knight smite nerf was clearly intended to keep grey knights from being too powerful, but with changes to the rules to prevent smite spam from other armies it simply weakens GKs unnesscarily.
3rd: A lack of heavy weapons in their armory makes grey knights struggle to deal with nemy heavies.
4th: the Grey Knights despite having their entire army be made up of psykers only has access to one disiplne, they need another much like 1k sons.
5th: with grey Knights now all being psykers capable of casting any spell there exists insufficant differance between some GK units, such as strike squads and purifier squads. this leads to an army with an already small roster feeling very "samey"
6th: grey Knight terminators feel over costed in comparison to custodes who deliver similer performance for a cheaper price points wise
these are just obvious ones I can point out off the top of my head.
Thank you. It is tiring attempting to discuss player's complaints and the value of GW data collection with a crotchety old git determined to be "right."
Let's move back to the thread topic of "Hobby Positivity," shall we?
I'll let the mods deal with you, because I don't like seeing red words in my own post.
And I'm not determined to be right, it just happens naturally.
Okay, its time to knock it off. Please remember all of the rules and stick to them when posting, ie. be polite and stay on topic, they are not optional.
Thanks,
ingtær.
AngryAngel80 wrote:How about we reach a happy medium of, letting people be positive, and letting people point out what is bad and not telling either side how to live. That is really the only thing I chimed in on.
Yeah, I can work with that. However, I'm sure you'll agree that there is a difference between "pointing out what is 'bad'" and "going into every thread with the same criticisms, even on otherwise unrelated or specifically optimistic threads".
I wouldn't have a problem with a "this is a rant thread, only rants and complaints here", but when it's nearly *every thread*? That's excessive.
I won't say why you shouldn't enjoy yourself, but please refrain from telling me why GW is amazing.
So, just to be clear, does this work the other way around? "I won't say why you should enjoy yourself, but please refrain from telling me why GW sucks"?
I would further add, if a handful of deemed negative posts on warhammer from some people online force people out of love of the hobby or the hobby in general, I'd say that person has bigger issues than not playing warhammer like inability of making choices for themselves.
Agreed, but so likewise, if people can't stand folks liking what GW do without calling them a shill or white knight, does that not also speak to their insecurity?
Again, just to clarify, it's not just "a handful of deemed negative posts" - it's a torrent of them on nearly every thread. And while criticism and discontent are all fine and dandy, when it's all you can see, surely you can see why that's a tad over-the-top?
I honestly don't see people not loving GW, or loving it all the time as an issue. I see the issue being when you can't accept that both those types actually tend to care about the hobby. Which is why you get the " negative " talk in a " positive " thread, turns out people don't like being told what to do in terms of how they view GW and what they do or don't like and why should always be " positive " otherwise they are " negative ".
But when the majority of posts and threads are telling people to view GW as this evil terrible can-do-no-good entity, that's okay?
You're absolutely right, people don't like to be told how to think and feel. So why is telling people to 'perhaps look on the bright side and find positives in their hobby' bad, but telling people that 'GW suck and you should hate them because they're a terrible company' okay?
There should be a balance, but right now, that's not what's going on.
I actually think we agree more than we disagree. One area we may agree in a round about way is I don't believe GW is malicious, they are not our enemy nor are they our friends. They are a company who wants our money and all they care about is profits. That said they are as good or bad as we allow them to be with our money being the swaying device to push them one way or the other.
I've accused them of being lazy, and dishonest in the pursuit of their profits. I don't think they are evil, nor is everyone involved with them bad. Some may just be awful at what they do and fail a lot, or just be put into a situation they can't come out clean in. Without being everywhere inside the company there is no way to know but for knowing people who typically aren't bad just self serving as is everyones nature.
This thread however wasn't made to just be positive, it was made to tell people who don't like it, they should be positive and list off ways they can fix their not happy with GW, that I disagree with. If it was made simply as, I am happy with GW, and this is how I stay that way. Anyone do that too ? I wouldn't have even said anything to that. As really that's totally cool. Then it went into " Dakka is awful, because people on Reddit say its bad, people can be negative, so we should stop being negative so people will love us more " That is hyperbole for comedy sake but basically it was that.
So if it was just a lets love GW thread, great, but it was a I love GW thread and heres why you should too and heres how you can correct your thoughts so you too can love GW. That was inevitably going to draw some hate. It was like blood in the water, and the sharks they be hungry.
I think GW are doing well despite a few mishaps. I love playing 40k and AoS these days and the hobby is alive and well where I live thanks to GW's new approach for the most part.
This thread however wasn't made to just be positive, it was made to tell people who don't like it, they should be positive and list off ways they can fix their not happy with GW, that I disagree with
besides being rich enough to just buy in to different armies or different games, I don't really see a way to be more positive to be honest. But be rich is hard to pull off well I think.
Ok, read the various walls of text in this topic, some rather lively "arguments" as well I will try to contribute meaningfully on topic.
Being "angry" seems to be how there are "missed opportunities" by a paid and traded company that is actually called "games workshop" to take the accessibility ease of play of their games and treating it ALL as an introduction to the hobby, typically people want more.
It was rightly pointed out that it should be presented as "modular", take the base rules and just add to them.
There has been huge dissatisfaction with terrain rules, it is unfortunate that the Chapter Approved / Cities of Death terrain rules were not made official for the detail wanted for things like KillTeam.
It IS rather funny how well the Armageddon Shadow War was utterly dropped with it's Necromunda / KillTeam (prior versions) rule origins.
Yes, the new model introductions are a fantastic opportunity to introduce them into other rule-sets: An Inquisitor in 40k with a few conscripted Arbites in his retinue would be thematic and cool.
Everything I mentioned above has a theme: GW actually dusted off old game systems, updated them but appeared to not quite make a "greatest hits" or apply a "lessons learned" from them, it seems so suspiciously "change for change's sake".
One thing that is a common theme in this modern age is everything should be modular: make it so things can seamlessly plug into another thing.
Updates, Mods, keep your core "operating system" and add your fun on top of it, that is already the relationship of an army Codex for an army to operate within the confines of the BRB game system: why not a "Codex" specific for terrain?
In the past we had "Death from the Skies" for dog-fighting so we have the precedence (heck, Armageddon wars was an add-on in the past not a different rule-set, this new version is a mish-mash of new and 40k).
Eventually an 8.5 edition could be made to compile it all into an even bigger BRB.
So again, the hobby anger is that those who are long-time fans of the game, we feel we can so clearly see an opportunity for an awesome golden age for this hobby they only have to look back take their hard-won lessons and make it happen.
GW does not need our non-critical acceptance of whatever they churn out, they need a bit of "tough-love" and helpful criticism which should give wider acceptance of their product, good reviews and ultimately profits.
I have HUGE patience with newer companies because they lack the experiece, GW has no such excuse so fairly or unfairly, they are held to a higher standard.
BrianDavion wrote: I can spell out where grey Knights suck easily eneugh myself. Allow me to state some succient details as to why Grey Knights suck.
1st: their high points cost coupled with their lack of durability means that grey knights simply are unable to hold their own in combat. This is doubly the case when grey knight units may have a host of abilities that don't always synergize partiuclarly well.
2nd: the Grey Knight smite nerf was clearly intended to keep grey knights from being too powerful, but with changes to the rules to prevent smite spam from other armies it simply weakens GKs unnesscarily.
3rd: A lack of heavy weapons in their armory makes grey knights struggle to deal with nemy heavies.
4th: the Grey Knights despite having their entire army be made up of psykers only has access to one disiplne, they need another much like 1k sons.
5th: with grey Knights now all being psykers capable of casting any spell there exists insufficant differance between some GK units, such as strike squads and purifier squads. this leads to an army with an already small roster feeling very "samey"
6th: grey Knight terminators feel over costed in comparison to custodes who deliver similer performance for a cheaper price points wise
these are just obvious ones I can point out off the top of my head.
This may seem like a derail, but its germaine to the topic.
GK is a super-elite, melee-oriented, psyker army. That alone makes them hard to balance, but I often find people are loathe to talk about their positives. Note to those reading this - don't get all rabble rabble and stop reading before the end. The general function of the army is to dakka chaff and smite and smash big stuff.
I send similar abbreviated thoughts to GW every few months.
The Good
- First, every single model in their army is capable of casting and denying as effectively as Ahriman. Perils also does not wipe out their casting ability. They do have buffs to their smite abilities to make them less weak and spammable, but that's a bit of a one-dimensional army. Note that GK are exempt from the smite restrictions like Thousand Sons.
- The high cost is buried in force weapons. Force weapons are not cheap. Getting +1A across the board was a bigger buff for GK than any other army. GK is also paying discount rates for the force weapon -- a marine used to be 13, force sword is 8, SS are 19 points (and then consider psychic abilities).
- The characters are well costed and effective.
- Every frikken infantry model can deepstrike (something that costs other marines 2 points per model)
The Bad
- The cost of their heavy weapons is a little obnoxious, because they have to "pay" for the force weapon, which is lost in the process. The design of those weapons are also not befitting the army's need to be up close. Also being forced into a force weapon will always make those models more expensive. The
- As you said, one lore for so many casters is just silly.
- Stratagems are too costly and too few.
The Fix
- Grant GK more lores to use. Lift the smite restriction and change the BC to some other ability. This will expand their functionality as well as getting them more tools to get into combat.
- Change all their man-portable heavy weapons to assault. The base cost for GK marines should be 18 (12 + 2 for force + 2 for psychic + 2 deepstrike) + 2 for storm bolter = 20 points. (slight point decreases for termies, too)
- Give GK a Super Doc that is S5 AP1 storm bolters in Tactical (or just all the time since they're not Codex Astartes). Change the stratagem to make them D2 on unmod 6s to wound.
- Modify their chapter bonus to include +1 to charges.
Jobs done. Still glass-cannon, but way more punch and utility.
Best that could be hoped for short-term without a codex though is a number of point drops and lores gained through the PA books.
BrianDavion wrote: I can spell out where grey Knights suck easily eneugh myself. Allow me to state some succient details as to why Grey Knights suck.
Spoiler:
1st: their high points cost coupled with their lack of durability means that grey knights simply are unable to hold their own in combat. This is doubly the case when grey knight units may have a host of abilities that don't always synergize partiuclarly well.
2nd: the Grey Knight smite nerf was clearly intended to keep grey knights from being too powerful, but with changes to the rules to prevent smite spam from other armies it simply weakens GKs unnesscarily.
3rd: A lack of heavy weapons in their armory makes grey knights struggle to deal with nemy heavies.
4th: the Grey Knights despite having their entire army be made up of psykers only has access to one disiplne, they need another much like 1k sons.
5th: with grey Knights now all being psykers capable of casting any spell there exists insufficant differance between some GK units, such as strike squads and purifier squads. this leads to an army with an already small roster feeling very "samey"
6th: grey Knight terminators feel over costed in comparison to custodes who deliver similer performance for a cheaper price points wise
these are just obvious ones I can point out off the top of my head.
Hey, I just want you to know- and this isn't at all a sarcastic comment- this actually is helpful. As someone who doesn't play GK (I find them boring overall, always have)- I think this actually helps understand the argument. It sounds less like pointless mewling "boo-hoo, my army sucks" and more like something I can understand and get behind. This actually makes the issue very clear, to a point where when someone says "Hey, Grey Knights need something adjusted" I can chime in with, "Oh, yeah- absolutely- there's quite a few problems with their rules and here are some of them...".
See how this is more helpful than just saying "It sucks" and hoping GW will eventually dedicate employees and time to trying to find the problem?
Remember that if you sit on the porch and beat on the door, complaining about how cold you are outside- don't be shocked if the smartass inside throws you a coat out the window instead of letting you in.
Not Online!!! wrote: Daedalus, because we all like alpha strike armies so much and it isn't allready a massive issue allready?
Well, they're not deep striking turn 1 nor do they carry massive guns. Not of that is out of bounds compared to recent marine changes, I think (and relatively tame in my opinion). The GK army has a character to it and that needs to be preserved.
BrianDavion wrote: I can spell out where grey Knights suck easily eneugh myself. Allow me to state some succient details as to why Grey Knights suck.
1st: their high points cost coupled with their lack of durability means that grey knights simply are unable to hold their own in combat. This is doubly the case when grey knight units may have a host of abilities that don't always synergize partiuclarly well.
2nd: the Grey Knight smite nerf was clearly intended to keep grey knights from being too powerful, but with changes to the rules to prevent smite spam from other armies it simply weakens GKs unnesscarily.
3rd: A lack of heavy weapons in their armory makes grey knights struggle to deal with nemy heavies.
4th: the Grey Knights despite having their entire army be made up of psykers only has access to one disiplne, they need another much like 1k sons.
5th: with grey Knights now all being psykers capable of casting any spell there exists insufficant differance between some GK units, such as strike squads and purifier squads. this leads to an army with an already small roster feeling very "samey"
6th: grey Knight terminators feel over costed in comparison to custodes who deliver similer performance for a cheaper price points wise
these are just obvious ones I can point out off the top of my head.
This may seem like a derail, but its germaine to the topic.
GK is a super-elite, melee-oriented, psyker army. That alone makes them hard to balance, but I often find people are loathe to talk about their positives. Note to those reading this - don't get all rabble rabble and stop reading before the end. The general function of the army is to dakka chaff and smite and smash big stuff.
I send similar abbreviated thoughts to GW every few months.
The Good
- First, every single model in their army is capable of casting and denying as effectively as Ahriman. Perils also does not wipe out their casting ability. They do have buffs to their smite abilities to make them less weak and spammable, but that's a bit of a one-dimensional army. Note that GK are exempt from the smite restrictions like Thousand Sons.
- The high cost is buried in force weapons. Force weapons are not cheap. Getting +1A across the board was a bigger buff for GK than any other army. GK is also paying discount rates for the force weapon -- a marine used to be 13, force sword is 8, SS are 19 points (and then consider psychic abilities).
- The characters are well costed and effective.
- Every frikken infantry model can deepstrike (something that costs other marines 2 points per model)
The Bad
- The cost of their heavy weapons is a little obnoxious, because they have to "pay" for the force weapon, which is lost in the process. The design of those weapons are also not befitting the army's need to be up close. Also being forced into a force weapon will always make those models more expensive. The
- As you said, one lore for so many casters is just silly.
- Stratagems are too costly and too few.
The Fix
- Grant GK more lores to use. Lift the smite restriction and change the BC to some other ability. This will expand their functionality as well as getting them more tools to get into combat.
- Change all their man-portable heavy weapons to assault. The base cost for GK marines should be 18 (12 + 2 for force + 2 for psychic + 2 deepstrike) + 2 for storm bolter = 20 points. (slight point decreases for termies, too)
- Give GK a Super Doc that is S5 AP1 storm bolters in Tactical (or just all the time since they're not Codex Astartes). Change the stratagem to make them D2 on unmod 6s to wound.
- Modify their chapter bonus to include +1 to charges.
Jobs done. Still glass-cannon, but way more punch and utility.
Best that could be hoped for short-term without a codex though is a number of point drops and lores gained through the PA books.
You know you're a white knight when you say a bunch of 1 attack models having force weapons is a bonus and that Grey Knight HQ units are well costed when the Librarian and Crowe exist. And no not every Grey Knight can just Deep Strike. Some of them actually need to pay a CP for that.
Not Online!!! wrote: Daedalus, because we all like alpha strike armies so much and it isn't allready a massive issue allready?
I'm not the most experienced player, but are alpha strikes really that bad? I agree that it is stupid when almost every game is decided in the first round, but shouldn't there be armies that excel in alpha strikes?
I mean, I played MtG casually and I hated getting my key spells countered, but still I needed to accept that counterspells are an almost defining factor of many control decks. Against some decks they are incredible powerfull against others they do almost nothing.
PS: I'm not saying that alpha strikes aren't too prevalent at the moment. I'm just trying to say that some armies should actully be better at alpha strikes than others.
AngryAngel80 wrote:I actually think we agree more than we disagree. One area we may agree in a round about way is I don't believe GW is malicious, they are not our enemy nor are they our friends. They are a company who wants our money and all they care about is profits. That said they are as good or bad as we allow them to be with our money being the swaying device to push them one way or the other.
I've accused them of being lazy, and dishonest in the pursuit of their profits. I don't think they are evil, nor is everyone involved with them bad. Some may just be awful at what they do and fail a lot, or just be put into a situation they can't come out clean in. Without being everywhere inside the company there is no way to know but for knowing people who typically aren't bad just self serving as is everyones nature.
Oh, absolutely. They might have some genuinely nice guys working for them, but their main priority is business.
This thread however wasn't made to just be positive, it was made to tell people who don't like it, they should be positive and list off ways they can fix their not happy with GW, that I disagree with. If it was made simply as, I am happy with GW, and this is how I stay that way. Anyone do that too ? I wouldn't have even said anything to that. As really that's totally cool. Then it went into " Dakka is awful, because people on Reddit say its bad, people can be negative, so we should stop being negative so people will love us more " That is hyperbole for comedy sake but basically it was that.
Nah, I can see what you mean, but I do feel that the sheer amount of threads simply devolving into complaining was something that needed to be called out. I don't agree with "you need to be positive, you're wrong for complaining!", but I do think that things could be toned down a tad, simply out of avoiding repetition.
So if it was just a lets love GW thread, great, but it was a I love GW thread and heres why you should too and heres how you can correct your thoughts so you too can love GW. That was inevitably going to draw some hate. It was like blood in the water, and the sharks they be hungry.
Absolutely.
Karol wrote:
This thread however wasn't made to just be positive, it was made to tell people who don't like it, they should be positive and list off ways they can fix their not happy with GW, that I disagree with
besides being rich enough to just buy in to different armies or different games, I don't really see a way to be more positive to be honest. But be rich is hard to pull off well I think.
You don't need to be rich to be positive. I'm unemployed, burning through whatever I have left until I can find a job, but I'm still happy with my hobby. I don't chase the meta, I don't collect units to win, and I don't play particularly powerful lists. I just really like the models being put out, I enjoy the ruleset of the game, and I'm enjoying myself with the hobby.
I'm not saying that you should be more positive yourself, or that your own experiences are invalid, but just to counter the idea that 'you need to be rich to enjoy the hobby'.
Not Online!!! wrote: Daedalus, because we all like alpha strike armies so much and it isn't allready a massive issue allready?
Well, they're not deep striking turn 1 nor do they carry massive guns. Not of that is out of bounds compared to recent marine changes, I think (and relatively tame in my opinion). The GK army has a character to it and that needs to be preserved.
So basically due to that it fine that i play with 2000 pts against 1000, Butcher 500 then 1000 show up from Reserve and somehow manage to kill 1000 in order to regain lost first turn capacity and then proceeds to outdamage a normal army statistically?
I mean as you said balancing them is a massive issue, due to their nature.
Also if you say recent marine changes, which range from well done and thought out to outright questionable bs, don't you think that merits a discussion about the power standard?
You know you're a white knight when you say a bunch of 1 attack models having force weapons is a bonus and that Grey Knight HQ units are well costed when the Librarian and Crowe exist. And no not every Grey Knight can just Deep Strike. Some of them actually need to pay a CP for that.
You know someone spent no time considering the points when they post a disingenuous, half-assed "white-knight" dismissal.
- They're 3 force weapon attacks with falchions now.
- Crowe is 80 points - 2+/4++, reroll all hits and wounds in melee (S4 AP0 attacks), wounds grant an additional attack, 3" smite @ D6 all the time, cast and deny two, and fight again when he dies - what the hell is a better price for that, really? You might not like that he's a chaff killer with essentially 10 to 12 or more attacks against T4 or worse, but that doesn't mean he isn't good at his job. Give him D2 and call it good.
- The librarian is a terminator that gets +1/+1 and +2 to deny w/i 12", a 4++ in melee, and is a base of 113 compared to mine at 102 with no bonuses to cast or deny, worse BS/WS, and one fewer denial.
The units that can't deepstrike that you might want to:
Crowe / BC Purifiers
Purgs
Dreadnoughts
So, yes, I am incorrect to state every infantry model could deepstrike without mentioning the additional cost 1 measly CP per unit regardless of unit including dreadnoughts whereas other armies are limited up to two units with PL restrictions and increased CP cost.
Not Online!!! wrote: Daedalus, because we all like alpha strike armies so much and it isn't allready a massive issue allready?
I'm not the most experienced player, but are alpha strikes really that bad? I agree that it is stupid when almost every game is decided in the first round, but shouldn't there be armies that excel in alpha strikes?
I mean, I played MtG casually and I hated getting my key spells countered, but still I needed to accept that counterspells are an almost defining factor of many control decks. Against some decks they are incredible powerfull against others they do almost nothing.
PS: I'm not saying that alpha strikes aren't too prevalent at the moment. I'm just trying to say that some armies should actully be better at alpha strikes than others.
I agree on the PS.
I disagree however on the conclusion.
See, normally Shocktroops live and die by their momentum and the use of either infiltration tactics or mobility tactics. (Also known as Initiative) , the issue is unlike IRL your troops can't react propperly react due to the turn based structure, (unless you are some armies with a certain stratagem type but these are rare only once and wholly dependant on subfactions) which basically allows initiative to be given to a whole army of shoock troops for in essence free, which will make them overefficent, which was also ONE of the reasons why in 7th Ed, Null deployment was so liked.
ATM there is no disadvantage to stack up on these units due to Los and terrain rules not allowing for effective Deep battle tactics, meaning that key units can just be targeted villy nilly by the shock troops which are often there to make the chaff actual capable to fight back (thanks aurahammer) .
Edit: in a way, they exemplify the core issues the strongest, by virtue of either beeing too strong or too weak.
So basically due to that it fine that i play with 2000 pts against 1000, Butcher 500 then 1000 show up from Reserve and somehow manage to kill 1000 in order to regain lost first turn capacity and then proceeds to outdamage a normal army statistically?
I mean as you said balancing them is a massive issue, due to their nature.
Also if you say recent marine changes, which range from well done and thought out to outright questionable bs, don't you think that merits a discussion about the power standard?
Out damaging isn't necessary. You play to block or clear objectives. As long as you have capacity to do that clearing off an equal number of points isn't a relevant measure of success.
A strong deepstriking force necessitates DZ spreading by the opponent, which weakens their forward position - and not all armies carry enough chaff for that purpose. Running a stormtalon to clear drop zones helps. The other end of the problem is making the charges after deepstrike, which is currently too difficult.
TLDR... I can't believe that people are still complaining about Terrain. I'll type here the same things that I tell everyone who makes this false complaint.
We have the clearest terrain rules we've ever had. Read the rule book! Read CA:2018! Apply the same abstractions we've always needed to for every edition and calm down!
Also, in my experience the people I've met face-to-face who complain about terrain always fall into one or both of the following categories.
1. They never bothered to read the terrain rules in the BRB or CA:2018.
2. They do not own the BRB and do not own CA:2018.
It's alarming how many people do not actually own the needed material or just flat out haven't bothered to read it and so don't even know the rules exist.
Also, a lot of players are treating some battlefield elements (e.g. bastions, bunkers, etc.) as terrain. These things are not terrain, not anymore. They are now, for all intents and purposes, Units, specifically Transports, just like your SM Rhino, with their own datasheets, stats and rules on how to use them in-game.
Lastly, Nova and other tournaments are altering how we think of and approach terrain in our games and in a vert detrimental way. A plethora of terrain elements with rules that can be used advantageously in-game are disappearing from tabletops everywhere (e.g. craters, barricades, tank traps, etc.).
So basically due to that it fine that i play with 2000 pts against 1000, Butcher 500 then 1000 show up from Reserve and somehow manage to kill 1000 in order to regain lost first turn capacity and then proceeds to outdamage a normal army statistically?
I mean as you said balancing them is a massive issue, due to their nature.
Also if you say recent marine changes, which range from well done and thought out to outright questionable bs, don't you think that merits a discussion about the power standard?
Out damaging isn't necessary. You play to block or clear objectives. As long as you have capacity to do that clearing off an equal number of points isn't a relevant measure of success.
A strong deepstriking force necessitates DZ spreading by the opponent, which weakens their forward position - and not all armies carry enough chaff for that purpose. Running a stormtalon to clear drop zones helps. The other end of the problem is making the charges after deepstrike, which is currently too difficult.
That is maybe possible with the new armies. a big unit of buffed centurions can kill many things when it lands, same with devastators in drop pods. But if your weapon is a bolter, then 10 or 20 of them are hardly clearing objectives, if you also don't have access to rules buffing your bolter shoting or something like doctrins.
So, yes, I am incorrect to state every infantry model could deepstrike without mentioning the additional cost 1 measly CP per unit regardless of unit including dreadnoughts whereas other armies are limited up to two units with PL restrictions and increased CP cost.
how do you get crow in to charge range, when almost all marines run 12" push backers, and he can't charge flyers? Also all the marines that can take primaris have access to very good dreadnoughts that can deploy at point blank range, with no CP cost.
You don't need to be rich to be positive. I'm unemployed, burning through whatever I have left until I can find a job, but I'm still happy with my hobby. I don't chase the meta, I don't collect units to win, and I don't play particularly powerful lists. I just really like the models being put out, I enjoy the ruleset of the game, and I'm enjoying myself with the hobby.
I'm not saying that you should be more positive yourself, or that your own experiences are invalid, but just to counter the idea that 'you need to be rich to enjoy the hobby'.
I liked how the army looked. It is unfun to play with, I never played in a tournament, and never chased the meta, chasing meta with GK is not possible. I don't think there are many armies that are less powerful and with fewer options then my army. GW also is not puting out any GK models. I don't think our situations are very similar. I mean I get someone buying in to a Inari or castellan list, and then getting salty. It can be bit annoying right now, considering how much fun they had a few months ago. I think the only fun I had with my list was durning the first 2-3 demo games. then I played a few normal games, didn't understand why my army did not work. Asked on polish forums,and got laughed at, asked on 4chan and got laughed and insulted, and then came here . Which means the most fun I have playing w40k was before I actualy bought my army.
That is maybe possible with the new armies. a big unit of buffed centurions can kill many things when it lands, same with devastators in drop pods. But if your weapon is a bolter, then 10 or 20 of them are hardly clearing objectives, if you also don't have access to rules buffing your bolter shoting or something like doctrins.
We're talking 40 S5 AP1 shots for 200 points (in this theoretical buff experiment). Dakka Cents are 210 points with 36 S4 AP0 and 18 S5 AP2 turn 1, but then the SS can deepstrike and are psykers, and have better melee.
how do you get crow in to charge range, when almost all marines run 12" push backers, and he can't charge flyers?
At SoCal the first marine player to take Infiltrators was 20th or so. Infiltrators are great. Everyone has to deal with that issue should it arise, but it seems to me that most marine players would rather be on offensive footing and scorch anyone foolish enough to get close with assault centurions or other stuff.
You don't need to be rich to be positive. I'm unemployed, burning through whatever I have left until I can find a job, but I'm still happy with my hobby. I don't chase the meta, I don't collect units to win, and I don't play particularly powerful lists. I just really like the models being put out, I enjoy the ruleset of the game, and I'm enjoying myself with the hobby.
I'm not saying that you should be more positive yourself, or that your own experiences are invalid, but just to counter the idea that 'you need to be rich to enjoy the hobby'.
I liked how the army looked. It is unfun to play with, I never played in a tournament, and never chased the meta, chasing meta with GK is not possible. I don't think there are many armies that are less powerful and with fewer options then my army. GW also is not puting out any GK models. I don't think our situations are very similar.
You know I also have Grey Knights, right? They're not my main army, but I do have Grey Knights as a long term support for my larger collections.
And for what it's worth, I enjoy using them still, because we clearly have different ways of enjoying ourselves: I'm not saying you're wrong for not enjoying GK right now, but I just want to oppose the idea of "you can only enjoy 40k if you're rich and can afford to buy hot new models".
I mean I get someone buying in to a Inari or castellan list, and then getting salty. It can be bit annoying right now, considering how much fun they had a few months ago. I think the only fun I had with my list was durning the first 2-3 demo games. then I played a few normal games, didn't understand why my army did not work. Asked on polish forums,and got laughed at, asked on 4chan and got laughed and insulted, and then came here . Which means the most fun I have playing w40k was before I actualy bought my army.
Okay, if I were in this situation, I'd be asking myself a few questions: - Is there another way I can find enjoyment from my models, such as playing in non-competitive environments, painting, modelling, or collecting? - Do I think that things will change relatively soon so that I will start to enjoy myself? Should I hold onto my models in case the hobby becomes more receptive to my tastes? - Is it worth continuing to engage in any hobby related activity if it reinforces an emotionally negative cycle?
If all of the above answer 'no', then I honestly have to question why anyone would continue to engage in the hobby.*
*That's not intended as some kind of "GTFO" comment, that's a "please look after your mental wellbeing, and try and break reaffirming negative loops for your own good" comment.
Daedalus81 wrote: At SoCal the first marine player to take Infiltrators was 20th or so. Infiltrators are great. Everyone has to deal with that issue should it arise, but it seems to me that most marine players would rather be on offensive footing and scorch anyone foolish enough to get close with assault centurions or other stuff.
The data still suggests marines (esp IH) are still almost incomparably top-tier.
Likely, but i'm also waiting for more tournaments. This is the first time in 8th that multiple max squads of centurions hit the table. I'm guessing a lot of people had little time to trial their submitted lists against the very recent supplements.
oni wrote: We have the clearest terrain rules we've ever had. Read the rule book! Read CA:2018! Apply the same abstractions we've always needed to for every edition and calm down!
Also, in my experience the people I've met face-to-face who complain about terrain always fall into one or both of the following categories.
1. They never bothered to read the terrain rules in the BRB or CA:2018.
2. They do not own the BRB and do not own CA:2018.
Does CA18's terrain rules change that, per the BRB, a unit standing in a forest gets cover, but a unit completely on the other side of the forest with just a foot exposed can be shot at full effectiveness and receives no benefit from cover? Genuine question, haven't checked in a while, I know Cities of Death adds an obscuring penalty but most people don't play CoD-suitable boards.
Don't forget that the biggest tournament network straight up had to houserule the game's line of sight rules in order to make it playable.
And getting into arguments over whether a vehicle is half obscured or not isn't terribly user-friendly.
I mean, you're not wrong, the rules are clear. They're clear by virtue of being simplistic and inadequate. Better terrain and cover rules are my #1 wishlist for this game.
Daedalus81 wrote: Likely, but i'm also waiting for more tournaments.
How many?
Eleventy.
But in all seriousness with CA around the corner I'd probably be withholding judgement until early February (especially with Sallies and IF yet to really hit the scene). Then the next best hope for a correction would be end of March if we put in enough effort to get their attention.
BrianDavion wrote: I can spell out where grey Knights suck easily eneugh myself. Allow me to state some succient details as to why Grey Knights suck.
Spoiler:
1st: their high points cost coupled with their lack of durability means that grey knights simply are unable to hold their own in combat. This is doubly the case when grey knight units may have a host of abilities that don't always synergize partiuclarly well.
2nd: the Grey Knight smite nerf was clearly intended to keep grey knights from being too powerful, but with changes to the rules to prevent smite spam from other armies it simply weakens GKs unnesscarily.
3rd: A lack of heavy weapons in their armory makes grey knights struggle to deal with nemy heavies.
4th: the Grey Knights despite having their entire army be made up of psykers only has access to one disiplne, they need another much like 1k sons.
5th: with grey Knights now all being psykers capable of casting any spell there exists insufficant differance between some GK units, such as strike squads and purifier squads. this leads to an army with an already small roster feeling very "samey"
6th: grey Knight terminators feel over costed in comparison to custodes who deliver similer performance for a cheaper price points wise
these are just obvious ones I can point out off the top of my head.
Hey, I just want you to know- and this isn't at all a sarcastic comment- this actually is helpful. As someone who doesn't play GK (I find them boring overall, always have)- I think this actually helps understand the argument. It sounds less like pointless mewling "boo-hoo, my army sucks" and more like something I can understand and get behind. This actually makes the issue very clear, to a point where when someone says "Hey, Grey Knights need something adjusted" I can chime in with, "Oh, yeah- absolutely- there's quite a few problems with their rules and here are some of them...".
See how this is more helpful than just saying "It sucks" and hoping GW will eventually dedicate employees and time to trying to find the problem?
Remember that if you sit on the porch and beat on the door, complaining about how cold you are outside- don't be shocked if the smartass inside throws you a coat out the window instead of letting you in.
People need to make those style of complaints more often, because if all you say is "it sucks" people tune you out.
That is maybe possible with the new armies. a big unit of buffed centurions can kill many things when it lands, same with devastators in drop pods. But if your weapon is a bolter, then 10 or 20 of them are hardly clearing objectives, if you also don't have access to rules buffing your bolter shoting or something like doctrins.
We're talking 40 S5 AP1 shots for 200 points (in this theoretical buff experiment). Dakka Cents are 210 points with 36 S4 AP0 and 18 S5 AP2 turn 1, but then the SS can deepstrike and are psykers, and have better melee.
how do you get crow in to charge range, when almost all marines run 12" push backers, and he can't charge flyers?
At SoCal the first marine player to take Infiltrators was 20th or so. Infiltrators are great. Everyone has to deal with that issue should it arise, but it seems to me that most marine players would rather be on offensive footing and scorch anyone foolish enough to get close with assault centurions or other stuff.
yeah Infiltrators CAN shut down deep strike armies but I'm not seeing a lot of massive demand for them on Marine Tactica forums, they are, the most expensiuve troop choice. So unless you have the luxery of tailoring your list to shut down a deep striker army (I DO wonder if Karol is facing tailored lists when he plays given how toxic the polish community sounds it'd not suprise me) you're proably going to take intercessors
AngryAngel80 wrote:I actually think we agree more than we disagree. One area we may agree in a round about way is I don't believe GW is malicious, they are not our enemy nor are they our friends. They are a company who wants our money and all they care about is profits. That said they are as good or bad as we allow them to be with our money being the swaying device to push them one way or the other.
I've accused them of being lazy, and dishonest in the pursuit of their profits. I don't think they are evil, nor is everyone involved with them bad. Some may just be awful at what they do and fail a lot, or just be put into a situation they can't come out clean in. Without being everywhere inside the company there is no way to know but for knowing people who typically aren't bad just self serving as is everyones nature.
Oh, absolutely. They might have some genuinely nice guys working for them, but their main priority is business.
This thread however wasn't made to just be positive, it was made to tell people who don't like it, they should be positive and list off ways they can fix their not happy with GW, that I disagree with. If it was made simply as, I am happy with GW, and this is how I stay that way. Anyone do that too ? I wouldn't have even said anything to that. As really that's totally cool. Then it went into " Dakka is awful, because people on Reddit say its bad, people can be negative, so we should stop being negative so people will love us more " That is hyperbole for comedy sake but basically it was that.
Nah, I can see what you mean, but I do feel that the sheer amount of threads simply devolving into complaining was something that needed to be called out. I don't agree with "you need to be positive, you're wrong for complaining!", but I do think that things could be toned down a tad, simply out of avoiding repetition.
So if it was just a lets love GW thread, great, but it was a I love GW thread and heres why you should too and heres how you can correct your thoughts so you too can love GW. That was inevitably going to draw some hate. It was like blood in the water, and the sharks they be hungry.
Absolutely.
Karol wrote:
This thread however wasn't made to just be positive, it was made to tell people who don't like it, they should be positive and list off ways they can fix their not happy with GW, that I disagree with
besides being rich enough to just buy in to different armies or different games, I don't really see a way to be more positive to be honest. But be rich is hard to pull off well I think.
You don't need to be rich to be positive. I'm unemployed, burning through whatever I have left until I can find a job, but I'm still happy with my hobby. I don't chase the meta, I don't collect units to win, and I don't play particularly powerful lists. I just really like the models being put out, I enjoy the ruleset of the game, and I'm enjoying myself with the hobby.
I'm not saying that you should be more positive yourself, or that your own experiences are invalid, but just to counter the idea that 'you need to be rich to enjoy the hobby'.
A large quote for a simple response, I think we can agree even if I'm a touch more on the critical side than yourself. Thank you for the time in the talk, and I hope people can see disagreement can sometimes lead to a positive outcome. I'll attempt to be sure I call out when GW does the good stuff more often, to maybe add some levity to the situation, for folk like yourself. I'll further add that yes, we need to not rush to attacking each other as haters or knights when I feel like it's more in the middle ground for everyone.
Just try not to judge me if someone posts a baiting topic to draw some ire and I arise, I'll try and refrain but you know the net, people love the conflict and sometimes it drags me in too.
For all the pearl clutching that's been going on lately on Dakka about how we're all meanie neckbeards with nothing nice to say, I actually believe that not only Dakkadakka, but the 40k community in general IS exceptionally positive.
When someone paints something - especially a newbie - and posts it, we nearly always pat them on the back. The P&M sections are FULL of this, and it's great. When people want feedback or tips, we mostly scramble to do our darndest to give 'em what they're asking for. There are quite a lot of older members of the community who are really good at handing out their wisdom, rather than sequestering it away and never letting anyone have a piece of the smartypants pie. I think we'd all accept that, even for all the 'thin your paints' memes, actively smack talking someone's paintjob is really really frowned upon. That in and of itself is really something that we seem to have an unspoken rule about, and personally, I think it's something to be proud of. All of you, pat yourselves on the back.
Additionally, when it comes to our local scenes, from what I've seen, people care about fostering good relations with the players they play. I always check out threads about rookie players having a bad time, or dealing with 'TFG-ish' behavior - rarely are the answers about just excluding or cutting the person out, rather people always suggest ways of talking to and explaining the problem to the member of the group who is causing upset, in a way which is kind, not confrontational.
Yeah, people get heated about rules, and new stuff GW puts out. But I think that's broadly because we're so invested in the hobby, not only in a financial way *looks at the horde of unfinished minis and weeps* (oh god, such a financial way), but emotionally, too. People who critique left right and center, are, in my opinion, usually doing so because they really really want GW to be better. You'd be daft to say GW are perfect. They goof all the time. Some people are prepared to forgive this, others, hold GW to a higher standard. I don't think either approach is necessarily wrong, but of like the two tribes are clashing more, and it's not hard to see why. A lot of GW's lines have made unusual aesthetic changes, and rulesets they said they would keep simple and unbloated, with a fixation on balance have rapidly wound up bloated and unbalanced. However, they aren't doing everything wrong - they have an ambitious release schedule, their community outreach is at the very least there, and they've been resurrecting old fan favorites.
Not everyone is always going to be perfectly happy. But like, everyone toeing the same exact line? Creepy. Gross. I don't want it. Dissent is the sign of a healthy society.
That's not to say we don't get bonkers threads from time to time (that one guy who thought he could use telepathy to influence his dice rolls, anyone?) at the end of the day, we're all grown men who play with little toy soldiers, I think it's safe to say we weren't the captain of the football team, telling Stacy "sorry babe, can't come over tonight, gotta defend Ultramar", and probably get a bit more out of our prams than is necessary, but I think there's a lot of disingenuous mischaracterization of the-side-you-don't-agree-with being either 'ravening basement troglodyte angry at everything' or 'actual GW employee paid to lie about how great their products are anonymously'*
*I do find it funny to accuse people of working for GW, sue me.
Conversely, let's look at some other hobbies/communities.
Before I was a wargaming nerd, I was a punk rock nerd. While 99% of people in punk are lovely and kind, there are also some insufferable gak heads. Youth Crew kids (when I was a wee lad, I actually like quite a bit of Youth Crew) literally mobbing people from being out of town or liking the wrong band, straight edge and its reputation for violence and hypocrisy (again, for a drinker, I love straight edge to bits, and actually agree with a lot of it) there are a whole host of radical peripheries "Oh, you eat meat? I guess you hate women and minorities and want a nuclear war", "Oh, you support bands from london, get out of here you thatcherite nazi" "I love screwdriver and never learned to read" and other self-righteous silliness, who are not only insufferable, but actively confrontational. Tribalism runs rife, and while there's a lot of positive (that in my eyes outweighs the negative mindset of a minority who embrace the above), there isn't that same positivity we have in this hobby, where certain boundaries are, by some unwritten rule, inviolable.
Similarly, I have a friend out here who is into Japanese Lolita fashion (no real relation to the Nabokov novel), where toxicity is really a mainstay. Fights break out constantly as most people don't really seem to agree on standards (and get really poisonous about what bodytype, race etc should be allowed to wear lolita clothing) leaving individuals to gatekeep to their own standards. Positivity is often thinly-masked bitchiness, people are reluctant to help others and on whole, the community seems exists to the detriment of the hobby.
ohh I agree, the community by and large is pretty positive, . sometimes people get bummed about rules X but that's useally temporary. There are however a half dozen to a dozen people here who basicly hate everything and won't shut up about it. these people also think they don't need to be polite etc.
For all the pearl clutching that's been going on lately on Dakka about how we're all meanie neckbeards with nothing nice to say, I actually believe that not only Dakkadakka, but the 40k community in general IS exceptionally positive.
Spoiler:
When someone paints something - especially a newbie - and posts it, we nearly always pat them on the back. The P&M sections are FULL of this, and it's great. When people want feedback or tips, we mostly scramble to do our darndest to give 'em what they're asking for. There are quite a lot of older members of the community who are really good at handing out their wisdom, rather than sequestering it away and never letting anyone have a piece of the smartypants pie. I think we'd all accept that, even for all the 'thin your paints' memes, actively smack talking someone's paintjob is really really frowned upon. That in and of itself is really something that we seem to have an unspoken rule about, and personally, I think it's something to be proud of. All of you, pat yourselves on the back.
Additionally, when it comes to our local scenes, from what I've seen, people care about fostering good relations with the players they play. I always check out threads about rookie players having a bad time, or dealing with 'TFG-ish' behavior - rarely are the answers about just excluding or cutting the person out, rather people always suggest ways of talking to and explaining the problem to the member of the group who is causing upset, in a way which is kind, not confrontational.
Yeah, people get heated about rules, and new stuff GW puts out. But I think that's broadly because we're so invested in the hobby, not only in a financial way *looks at the horde of unfinished minis and weeps* (oh god, such a financial way), but emotionally, too. People who critique left right and center, are, in my opinion, usually doing so because they really really want GW to be better. You'd be daft to say GW are perfect. They goof all the time. Some people are prepared to forgive this, others, hold GW to a higher standard. I don't think either approach is necessarily wrong, but of like the two tribes are clashing more, and it's not hard to see why. A lot of GW's lines have made unusual aesthetic changes, and rulesets they said they would keep simple and unbloated, with a fixation on balance have rapidly wound up bloated and unbalanced. However, they aren't doing everything wrong - they have an ambitious release schedule, their community outreach is at the very least there, and they've been resurrecting old fan favorites.
Not everyone is always going to be perfectly happy. But like, everyone toeing the same exact line? Creepy. Gross. I don't want it. Dissent is the sign of a healthy society.
That's not to say we don't get bonkers threads from time to time (that one guy who thought he could use telepathy to influence his dice rolls, anyone?) at the end of the day, we're all grown men who play with little toy soldiers, I think it's safe to say we weren't the captain of the football team, telling Stacy "sorry babe, can't come over tonight, gotta defend Ultramar", and probably get a bit more out of our prams than is necessary, but I think there's a lot of disingenuous mischaracterization of the-side-you-don't-agree-with being either 'ravening basement troglodyte angry at everything' or 'actual GW employee paid to lie about how great their products are anonymously'*
*I do find it funny to accuse people of working for GW, sue me.
Conversely, let's look at some other hobbies/communities.
Before I was a wargaming nerd, I was a punk rock nerd. While 99% of people in punk are lovely and kind, there are also some insufferable gak heads. Youth Crew kids (when I was a wee lad, I actually like quite a bit of Youth Crew) literally mobbing people from being out of town or liking the wrong band, straight edge and its reputation for violence and hypocrisy (again, for a drinker, I love straight edge to bits, and actually agree with a lot of it) there are a whole host of radical peripheries "Oh, you eat meat? I guess you hate women and minorities and want a nuclear war", "Oh, you support bands from london, get out of here you thatcherite nazi" "I love screwdriver and never learned to read" and other self-righteous silliness, who are not only insufferable, but actively confrontational. Tribalism runs rife, and while there's a lot of positive (that in my eyes outweighs the negative mindset of a minority who embrace the above), there isn't that same positivity we have in this hobby, where certain boundaries are, by some unwritten rule, inviolable.
Similarly, I have a friend out here who is into Japanese Lolita fashion (no real relation to the Nabokov novel), where toxicity is really a mainstay. Fights break out constantly as most people don't really seem to agree on standards (and get really poisonous about what bodytype, race etc should be allowed to wear lolita clothing) leaving individuals to gatekeep to their own standards. Positivity is often thinly-masked bitchiness, people are reluctant to help others and on whole, the community seems exists to the detriment of the hobby.
Peace.
I have to say, this is a rather unexpected really well said piece on positivity.
We have our own form of "tribalism" but I think many of us do not like to scare off the fledgling gamer/hobbyists: the more of us, the better.
Encouragement seems like the right thing to do and I personally feel pretty protective of the new people.
Some friends of mine prefer the "gothic" version of Lolita so I too have seen the interesting arguments that go on, it is like 40k players and Magic the Gathering players in my area.
The good thing about going deep down the creative hobby path, I had made connections with folk at "Anime North" and helped out with costume build and design (i have some materials engineering background so that helps).
I have had to explain (ahead of time) a few times to my wife my correspondence with some rather pretty cosplay people... so diversify, I think I actually HAVE done better than our football team captain from high school.
I love models (plastic ones... erhm, "not living", no, the ones you put together... no., forget it ). I love gaming. I like rules that make sense and are clear, I do some of that as my job making procedures that define the company I work in. I am committed to the GW "brand" but want to give them the best feedback I can an hope they use even 10% of it.
For all the pearl clutching that's been going on lately on Dakka about how we're all meanie neckbeards with nothing nice to say, I actually believe that not only Dakkadakka, but the 40k community in general IS exceptionally positive.
Spoiler:
When someone paints something - especially a newbie - and posts it, we nearly always pat them on the back. The P&M sections are FULL of this, and it's great. When people want feedback or tips, we mostly scramble to do our darndest to give 'em what they're asking for. There are quite a lot of older members of the community who are really good at handing out their wisdom, rather than sequestering it away and never letting anyone have a piece of the smartypants pie. I think we'd all accept that, even for all the 'thin your paints' memes, actively smack talking someone's paintjob is really really frowned upon. That in and of itself is really something that we seem to have an unspoken rule about, and personally, I think it's something to be proud of. All of you, pat yourselves on the back.
Additionally, when it comes to our local scenes, from what I've seen, people care about fostering good relations with the players they play. I always check out threads about rookie players having a bad time, or dealing with 'TFG-ish' behavior - rarely are the answers about just excluding or cutting the person out, rather people always suggest ways of talking to and explaining the problem to the member of the group who is causing upset, in a way which is kind, not confrontational.
Yeah, people get heated about rules, and new stuff GW puts out. But I think that's broadly because we're so invested in the hobby, not only in a financial way *looks at the horde of unfinished minis and weeps* (oh god, such a financial way), but emotionally, too. People who critique left right and center, are, in my opinion, usually doing so because they really really want GW to be better. You'd be daft to say GW are perfect. They goof all the time. Some people are prepared to forgive this, others, hold GW to a higher standard. I don't think either approach is necessarily wrong, but of like the two tribes are clashing more, and it's not hard to see why. A lot of GW's lines have made unusual aesthetic changes, and rulesets they said they would keep simple and unbloated, with a fixation on balance have rapidly wound up bloated and unbalanced. However, they aren't doing everything wrong - they have an ambitious release schedule, their community outreach is at the very least there, and they've been resurrecting old fan favorites.
Not everyone is always going to be perfectly happy. But like, everyone toeing the same exact line? Creepy. Gross. I don't want it. Dissent is the sign of a healthy society.
That's not to say we don't get bonkers threads from time to time (that one guy who thought he could use telepathy to influence his dice rolls, anyone?) at the end of the day, we're all grown men who play with little toy soldiers, I think it's safe to say we weren't the captain of the football team, telling Stacy "sorry babe, can't come over tonight, gotta defend Ultramar", and probably get a bit more out of our prams than is necessary, but I think there's a lot of disingenuous mischaracterization of the-side-you-don't-agree-with being either 'ravening basement troglodyte angry at everything' or 'actual GW employee paid to lie about how great their products are anonymously'*
*I do find it funny to accuse people of working for GW, sue me.
Conversely, let's look at some other hobbies/communities.
Before I was a wargaming nerd, I was a punk rock nerd. While 99% of people in punk are lovely and kind, there are also some insufferable gak heads. Youth Crew kids (when I was a wee lad, I actually like quite a bit of Youth Crew) literally mobbing people from being out of town or liking the wrong band, straight edge and its reputation for violence and hypocrisy (again, for a drinker, I love straight edge to bits, and actually agree with a lot of it) there are a whole host of radical peripheries "Oh, you eat meat? I guess you hate women and minorities and want a nuclear war", "Oh, you support bands from london, get out of here you thatcherite nazi" "I love screwdriver and never learned to read" and other self-righteous silliness, who are not only insufferable, but actively confrontational. Tribalism runs rife, and while there's a lot of positive (that in my eyes outweighs the negative mindset of a minority who embrace the above), there isn't that same positivity we have in this hobby, where certain boundaries are, by some unwritten rule, inviolable.
Similarly, I have a friend out here who is into Japanese Lolita fashion (no real relation to the Nabokov novel), where toxicity is really a mainstay. Fights break out constantly as most people don't really seem to agree on standards (and get really poisonous about what bodytype, race etc should be allowed to wear lolita clothing) leaving individuals to gatekeep to their own standards. Positivity is often thinly-masked bitchiness, people are reluctant to help others and on whole, the community seems exists to the detriment of the hobby.
Peace.
Dude. I love this post to bits.
I'll readily admit that sometimes I get a little heated talking about toy soldiers. But I have to say, this is still one of the most welcoming and generally positive hobbies I've participated in. I play airsoft, and it's incredibly toxic by comparison- there's a lot of animosity between different playstyles that makes Warhammer's casual vs competitive look downright benign. Sometimes players will circumvent the safety limits on their equipment so that they can 'make sure' the other team is acknowledging their hits. I've seen players literally come to blows on the field.
I also do competitive shooting, and while I've never seen a physical altercation (for... obvious reasons), the degree of condescension and vitriol there is huge. There's tribalism over brands, over particular competitive venues, over calibers, over techniques, over what people use. Personally I collect vintage and exotic firearms, and I regularly get negative comments about how impractical or out of date some of it is. Post about looking for affordable equipment on a Facebook group, because we're not all made of money, and you're virtually guaranteed to get a reply along the lines of 'looks like the poors are at it again'.
I personally might not like Space Marines and I might have a lot of issues with 40K as a game system, but I'm never going to talk gak about someone's army or call someone an idiot for liking the game. I have never seen a fight break out over 40K, nor do I see people regularly telling others that their paintjobs suck. When someone is asking about proxy conversions for a model that is prohibitively expensive, I've never seen 'stop being poor' as a response.
Ultimately this is a fairly tame hobby. And I appreciate that.
oni wrote: We have the clearest terrain rules we've ever had. Read the rule book! Read CA:2018! Apply the same abstractions we've always needed to for every edition and calm down!
Also, in my experience the people I've met face-to-face who complain about terrain always fall into one or both of the following categories.
1. They never bothered to read the terrain rules in the BRB or CA:2018.
2. They do not own the BRB and do not own CA:2018.
Does CA18's terrain rules change that, per the BRB, a unit standing in a forest gets cover, but a unit completely on the other side of the forest with just a foot exposed can be shot at full effectiveness and receives no benefit from cover? Genuine question, haven't checked in a while, I know Cities of Death adds an obscuring penalty but most people don't play CoD-suitable boards.
Don't forget that the biggest tournament network straight up had to houserule the game's line of sight rules in order to make it playable.
And getting into arguments over whether a vehicle is half obscured or not isn't terribly user-friendly.
I mean, you're not wrong, the rules are clear. They're clear by virtue of being simplistic and inadequate. Better terrain and cover rules are my #1 wishlist for this game.
A lot of the terrain rules have changed from the BRB to CA:2018, yes. Your specific example regarding Woods however has not. I understand it feel odd, I've had this exact example mentioned to me quite a bit, but the oddities often need to be ignored in order to facilitate good game play. Your definition of 'good game play' may differ, but we have agreed that the terrain rules are clear and clarity means that there will not be any disagreements on how to apply the rules. That counts for a lot in my book. I've been in this hobby for a very long time; terrain and cover has always been a point of contention. At least now, despite ones own opinion, the terrain rules are crystal clear in their application & benefit(s).
Without derailing the topic too much... The ITC (and Nova) did not house-rule LoS per-say; they house-ruled Ruins, but don't get it twisted, this was not done to fix a rule that was poor or broken. The problem is that these formats foster a specific style of play and favor a specific style of army build. The ITC and Nova created a play-ability problem where LoS and terrain became the scapegoat.
oni wrote: [A lot of the terrain rules have changed from the BRB to CA:2018, yes. Your specific example regarding Woods however has not. I understand it feel odd, I've had this exact example mentioned to me quite a bit, but the oddities often need to be ignored in order to facilitate good game play. Your definition of 'good game play' may differ, but we have agreed that the terrain rules are clear and clarity means that there will not be any disagreements on how to apply the rules. That counts for a lot in my book. I've been in this hobby for a very long time; terrain and cover has always been a point of contention. At least now, despite ones own opinion, the terrain rules are crystal clear in their application & benefit(s).
Without derailing the topic too much... The ITC (and Nova) did not house-rule LoS per-say; they house-ruled Ruins, but don't get it twisted, this was not done to fix a rule that was poor or broken. The problem is that these formats foster a specific style of play and favor a specific style of army build. The ITC and Nova created a play-ability problem where LoS and terrain became the scapegoat.
My issue is that you say to apply the same abstractions we have every edition, but I don't think that's true at all.
Before TLOS, the abstractions involved in line of sight were baked into the rules, rather than something players have to work out for themselves on the fly. Line of sight goes through an area of woods? Can't see through it. No arguing over whether the target's foot is exposed, no arguing over what parts of the model count for LOS purposes, no arguing over whether a vehicle is 50% obscured or not.
The rules may be clear, in that they are easy to understand, but their application leads to disagreements and arguments. GW tells you that weapons and details like banners don't count for LOS, but then leaves it up to the players to work out exactly what does and doesn't count. They provide simple guidelines like '50% obscured', but there's no easy way to determine that on the fly. IMO it delivers a generally unsatisfying experience that needs to be kludged into working by the players.
Worse, they actively detract from my hobbying experience, because now the actual physical configuration of terrain is paramount. Something as simple as putting a window on a building can render it worthless for the LOS-blocking role I had intended for it, and dynamic posing can render units more vulnerable.
Per the current terrain/LOS rules, my prone and crouching heavy weapons teams can't see anything while behind a chest-high sandbag line intended to provide cover for infantry. Simple? Sure. Fun? Not in the slightest. Improving that experience requires house-ruling and abstraction, and then we're not following those simple, clean, rules-as-written anymore.
oni wrote: [A lot of the terrain rules have changed from the BRB to CA:2018, yes. Your specific example regarding Woods however has not. I understand it feel odd, I've had this exact example mentioned to me quite a bit, but the oddities often need to be ignored in order to facilitate good game play. Your definition of 'good game play' may differ, but we have agreed that the terrain rules are clear and clarity means that there will not be any disagreements on how to apply the rules. That counts for a lot in my book. I've been in this hobby for a very long time; terrain and cover has always been a point of contention. At least now, despite ones own opinion, the terrain rules are crystal clear in their application & benefit(s).
Without derailing the topic too much... The ITC (and Nova) did not house-rule LoS per-say; they house-ruled Ruins, but don't get it twisted, this was not done to fix a rule that was poor or broken. The problem is that these formats foster a specific style of play and favor a specific style of army build. The ITC and Nova created a play-ability problem where LoS and terrain became the scapegoat.
My issue is that you say to apply the same abstractions we have every edition, but I don't think that's true at all.
Before TLOS, the abstractions involved in line of sight were baked into the rules, rather than something players have to work out for themselves on the fly. Line of sight goes through an area of woods? Can't see through it. No arguing over whether the target's foot is exposed, no arguing over what parts of the model count for LOS purposes, no arguing over whether a vehicle is 50% obscured or not.
The rules may be clear, in that they are easy to understand, but their application leads to disagreements and arguments. GW tells you that weapons and details like banners don't count for LOS, but then leaves it up to the players to work out exactly what does and doesn't count. They provide simple guidelines like '50% obscured', but there's no easy way to determine that on the fly. IMO it delivers a generally unsatisfying experience that needs to be kludged into working by the players.
Worse, they actively detract from my hobbying experience, because now the actual physical configuration of terrain is paramount. Something as simple as putting a window on a building can render it worthless for the LOS-blocking role I had intended for it, and dynamic posing can render units more vulnerable.
Per the current terrain/LOS rules, my prone and crouching heavy weapons teams can't see anything while behind a chest-high sandbag line intended to provide cover for infantry. Simple? Sure. Fun? Not in the slightest. Improving that experience requires house-ruling and abstraction, and then we're not following those simple, clean, rules-as-written anymore.
Well said, vomit of feline. This is the problem with GW's casual, imprecise writing style. They need to begin writing rules in the office, not down at Bugman's.........
oni wrote: [A lot of the terrain rules have changed from the BRB to CA:2018, yes. Your specific example regarding Woods however has not. I understand it feel odd, I've had this exact example mentioned to me quite a bit, but the oddities often need to be ignored in order to facilitate good game play. Your definition of 'good game play' may differ, but we have agreed that the terrain rules are clear and clarity means that there will not be any disagreements on how to apply the rules. That counts for a lot in my book. I've been in this hobby for a very long time; terrain and cover has always been a point of contention. At least now, despite ones own opinion, the terrain rules are crystal clear in their application & benefit(s).
Without derailing the topic too much... The ITC (and Nova) did not house-rule LoS per-say; they house-ruled Ruins, but don't get it twisted, this was not done to fix a rule that was poor or broken. The problem is that these formats foster a specific style of play and favor a specific style of army build. The ITC and Nova created a play-ability problem where LoS and terrain became the scapegoat.
My issue is that you say to apply the same abstractions we have every edition, but I don't think that's true at all.
Before TLOS, the abstractions involved in line of sight were baked into the rules, rather than something players have to work out for themselves on the fly. Line of sight goes through an area of woods? Can't see through it. No arguing over whether the target's foot is exposed, no arguing over what parts of the model count for LOS purposes, no arguing over whether a vehicle is 50% obscured or not.
The rules may be clear, in that they are easy to understand, but their application leads to disagreements and arguments. GW tells you that weapons and details like banners don't count for LOS, but then leaves it up to the players to work out exactly what does and doesn't count. They provide simple guidelines like '50% obscured', but there's no easy way to determine that on the fly. IMO it delivers a generally unsatisfying experience that needs to be kludged into working by the players.
Worse, they actively detract from my hobbying experience, because now the actual physical configuration of terrain is paramount. Something as simple as putting a window on a building can render it worthless for the LOS-blocking role I had intended for it, and dynamic posing can render units more vulnerable.
Per the current terrain/LOS rules, my prone and crouching heavy weapons teams can't see anything while behind a chest-high sandbag line intended to provide cover for infantry. Simple? Sure. Fun? Not in the slightest. Improving that experience requires house-ruling and abstraction, and then we're not following those simple, clean, rules-as-written anymore.
This isn't my experience at all. I remember a lot of LOS arguments in old editions, and they faded to practically none (barring TFG) after TLOS rules were introduced. People just shrugged and said 'sure, you can shoot.'
I was beginning to think I was the one there was something wrong with. I am that one player in my local klub that takes the hobby the LEAST serious. I have a 5000 point imperial guard army painted as the troops from Spaceballs, the movie… I get a lot of gripe about that, because the army is not "fluff" enough. have even gotten points taken of for painting at tournaments for that, even though I never paint with unpainted models.
I have several armies, both loyalist and... not, and my main goal is for at least two people at the gaming table to have fun. (one on each side). This often means that I get my backside handed to me by two space marine hovertanks and such, but hey, fun is the name of the game. (Or, rather, it should be.)
If your army is less power mad than the opponents army, just have fun with it. Are the units in your army useless? Field them ALL!!! They can't shoot all of us! Have fun, even if you dont think you have a chance of winning. Is your imperial guard sergeant about to charge 30 hormagaunts alone? Give him a backstory and start quoting "army of darkness".
Have to paint a lot of night goblins? Paint the ENTIRE army as smurfs!!!
A game of warhammer is not a competition. It is a fun time with a fun hobby and hopefully a pleasant opponent who enjoys the hobby as much as you do. Min maxing units to try to ensure a win is for tournaments, where those players you dont want to face congregate. Leave them to it. Play YOUR game.
I was beginning to think I was the one there was something wrong with. I am that one player in my local klub that takes the hobby the LEAST serious. I have a 5000 point imperial guard army painted as the troops from Spaceballs, the movie… I get a lot of gripe about that, because the army is not "fluff" enough. have even gotten points taken of for painting at tournaments for that, even though I never paint with unpainted models.
I have several armies, both loyalist and... not, and my main goal is for at least two people at the gaming table to have fun. (one on each side). This often means that I get my backside handed to me by two space marine hovertanks and such, but hey, fun is the name of the game. (Or, rather, it should be.)
If your army is less power mad than the opponents army, just have fun with it. Are the units in your army useless? Field them ALL!!! They can't shoot all of us! Have fun, even if you dont think you have a chance of winning. Is your imperial guard sergeant about to charge 30 hormagaunts alone? Give him a backstory and start quoting "army of darkness".
Have to paint a lot of night goblins? Paint the ENTIRE army as smurfs!!!
A game of warhammer is not a competition. It is a fun time with a fun hobby and hopefully a pleasant opponent who enjoys the hobby as much as you do. Min maxing units to try to ensure a win is for tournaments, where those players you dont want to face congregate. Leave them to it. Play YOUR game.
People enjoy the hobby in different ways. Some people want the competition even in a casual setting. And sometimes they see players as goofing off when they commit to something more serious.
Its the same with narrative games, if i put in the effort to get set up for a narrative game. And someone turns up with there hello kitty army, they wont be invited again. The player that does not want to be part of the narrative will get the same treatment.
Sometimes its about communication, or attitude being in line for the environment.
As above, you could be perfectly legit in a weird response to your army. Or you could be breaking a rule that is set up to keep the setting in mind for the tournament games they are wanting to promote. They let you play, Rather than tell you outright they do not want to play with you.
Just sorta throwing it out there as thoughts after reading it
I've heard of 40k for a long time and followed it on and off. Never really got too serious into it until recently about 5 months or so ago. I haven't had a proper game going yet as I don't have a full army(I prefer using painted minis personally) but that will be soon hopefully.
So far the community feels good from forums and facebook groups and such. I know there are toxic people now and then, every hobby has them, but on the whole I find the 40k community really nice. People always welcome you and are willing to help you out especially if you are new. The amount of toxicity flowing around the hobby is way less than even an online game like WoW or LoL or DotA.
I am truly looking forward to play some games soon and I'm pretty sure the people will be just as nice IRL at the FLGS as they are around here
If your army is less power mad than the opponents army, just have fun with it. Are the units in your army useless? Field them ALL!!! They can't shoot all of us! Have fun, even if you dont think you have a chance of winning. Is your imperial guard sergeant about to charge 30 hormagaunts alone? Give him a backstory and start quoting "army of darkness".
Have to paint a lot of night goblins? Paint the ENTIRE army as smurfs!!!
A game of warhammer is not a competition. It is a fun time with a fun hobby and hopefully a pleasant opponent who enjoys the hobby as much as you do. Min maxing units to try to ensure a win is for tournaments, where those players you dont want to face congregate. Leave them to it. Play YOUR game.
everything is a competition, even a narrative game is a competition of who is going to get the best narrative out of the game. That is why there are poetry prizes, nobles for literature, BAFTAs etc
Also the can't shot part, seems true only for armies with 4 pts models. When your basic troop option cost around 40pts, you would be suprised how fast armies nowadays can kill t4 2W models.
If your army is less power mad than the opponents army, just have fun with it. Are the units in your army useless? Field them ALL!!! They can't shoot all of us! Have fun, even if you dont think you have a chance of winning. Is your imperial guard sergeant about to charge 30 hormagaunts alone? Give him a backstory and start quoting "army of darkness".
Have to paint a lot of night goblins? Paint the ENTIRE army as smurfs!!!
A game of warhammer is not a competition. It is a fun time with a fun hobby and hopefully a pleasant opponent who enjoys the hobby as much as you do. Min maxing units to try to ensure a win is for tournaments, where those players you dont want to face congregate. Leave them to it. Play YOUR game.
everything is a competition, even a narrative game is a competition of who is going to get the best narrative out of the game. That is why there are poetry prizes, nobles for literature, BAFTAs etc
Also the can't shot part, seems true only for armies with 4 pts models. When your basic troop option cost around 40pts, you would be suprised how fast armies nowadays can kill t4 2W models.
what is an "army of darkness" ?
I have to disagree with the bold part...you can MAKE everything into a competition if you WANT to. But not everything is a competition, at least to a lot of people it isn't. If I'll play a game of W40k with the goal of maximising the fun for me and my mate it becomes a cooperative undergoing. I don't need to "compare" results, etc. to anyone so by nature it is not a competition.
In the same vain I can write a poem strictly out of self-therapy or to impress a loved one, which is no competition either.
That is not how human brains work, we compare stuff to other stuff all the time. When we see someone for the first time we judge them under 1 sec, and we judge people by comparing them to other people we met and seen before.
And as no one wants to come out bad in the eyes fo others, humans are in a competition with other humans no stop, since the day they are born, when as a child they fight for parents attention over other siblings to the day they die.
Karol wrote: That is not how human brains work, we compare stuff to other stuff all the time. When we see someone for the first time we judge them under 1 sec, and we judge people by comparing them to other people we met and seen before.
And as no one wants to come out bad in the eyes fo others, humans are in a competition with other humans no stop, since the day they are born, when as a child they fight for parents attention over other siblings to the day they die.
Of course we compare ourselves to others, but as thinking, self-reflecting beings we can stop that (at least in certain fields to a certain degree).
EDIT: Also, I can compare events as well, so one game I try to fight against my opponent, the other game I try some cooperative approach to the game and see that it holds more pleasurable results for me and my opponent ("no one wants to come out bad in the eyes of others").
I was beginning to think I was the one there was something wrong with. I am that one player in my local klub that takes the hobby the LEAST serious. I have a 5000 point imperial guard army painted as the troops from Spaceballs, the movie… I get a lot of gripe about that, because the army is not "fluff" enough. have even gotten points taken of for painting at tournaments for that, even though I never paint with unpainted models.
I have several armies, both loyalist and... not, and my main goal is for at least two people at the gaming table to have fun. (one on each side). This often means that I get my backside handed to me by two space marine hovertanks and such, but hey, fun is the name of the game. (Or, rather, it should be.)
If your army is less power mad than the opponents army, just have fun with it. Are the units in your army useless? Field them ALL!!! They can't shoot all of us! Have fun, even if you dont think you have a chance of winning. Is your imperial guard sergeant about to charge 30 hormagaunts alone? Give him a backstory and start quoting "army of darkness".
Have to paint a lot of night goblins? Paint the ENTIRE army as smurfs!!!
A game of warhammer is not a competition. It is a fun time with a fun hobby and hopefully a pleasant opponent who enjoys the hobby as much as you do. Min maxing units to try to ensure a win is for tournaments, where those players you dont want to face congregate. Leave them to it. Play YOUR game.
A game of warhammer is not a competition when you play, by your choice. Some of us enjoy competition outside of tournaments.(nice jab at those "awful" tournament players, the gaming "other.") A tight ruleset facilitates all approaches to the game. Maybe I want the army and characters I give backstories to to win a good portion of their games? Maybe I play and enjoy games for their mechanics, not (solely) to play pretend with action figures?
even a narrative game is a competition of who is going to get the best narrative out of the game.
Sounds like you've never played a narrative game before. Like, seriously? A narrative game is about making a narrative *between* eachother, there isn't a "best narrative", only "A narrative".
Say we have two people, one with guardsmen, one with Chaos. They play a bunch of narrative games, not to win or have the "best narrative", but to let a story develop, to build character and flavour and small sagas of glory for their models. It's not about winning or losing. It's telling a story.
That is why there are poetry prizes, nobles for literature, BAFTAs etc
Nonsense. So you're saying that there's no point in writing a book or doing a piece of art unless you're trying to beat someone else?
Absolutely not.
Those prizes and awards exist, yes, for those people who are rewarded for telling stories that encapsulate the human spirit, for making touching and relevant and important pieces of art, or showcase masterful performances or techniques, but that is a celebration of art. Which is why I think that those who create things just to tick boxes and do things purely to win awards are the complete antithesis of what their art should be. It's not about making "the best poetry" or "the best films", it's about making ones that speak to the human condition, to express a perspective on the world or a message.
But hey, I guess if you're not an Oscar-winning actor, you're just a failure, because you haven't "won" the "competition".
even a narrative game is a competition of who is going to get the best narrative out of the game.
Sounds like you've never played a narrative game before. Like, seriously? A narrative game is about making a narrative *between* eachother, there isn't a "best narrative", only "A narrative".
Say we have two people, one with guardsmen, one with Chaos. They play a bunch of narrative games, not to win or have the "best narrative", but to let a story develop, to build character and flavour and small sagas of glory for their models. It's not about winning or losing. It's telling a story.
That is why there are poetry prizes, nobles for literature, BAFTAs etc
Nonsense. So you're saying that there's no point in writing a book or doing a piece of art unless you're trying to beat someone else?
Absolutely not.
Those prizes and awards exist, yes, for those people who are rewarded for telling stories that encapsulate the human spirit, for making touching and relevant and important pieces of art, or showcase masterful performances or techniques, but that is a celebration of art. Which is why I think that those who create things just to tick boxes and do things purely to win awards are the complete antithesis of what their art should be. It's not about making "the best poetry" or "the best films", it's about making ones that speak to the human condition, to express a perspective on the world or a message.
But hey, I guess if you're not an Oscar-winning actor, you're just a failure, because you haven't "won" the "competition".
Absolutely incredible post. If we ever meet IRL the beers are on me.
Ishagu wrote: The people who complain about the hobby online a small, vocal minority.
It follows the old rule: 5% of customers make 95% of all complaints lol
It's a combination of unrealistic expectations, lack of experience, and in some cases people simply get a kick out of complaining.
The hobby is indeed the best it has ever been, this is a golden age and it's amazing to see how far it has risen.
I only have 14-15 years of experience as a 29 year old. If half my life isnt enough then I dont know what.
I have slightly higher expectations on GW than their competitors. If I had 0 experience I would have expected much more due to their size and experience but due to how I kmow they are inept already I have set the bar quite low and yet they fail to reach it after 30+ years. Experience only counts sometimes it seems.
For me the hobby was at its best 5-8 years ago. Mk 2 warmachine if I wanted a good game and 40k if I just wanted to move some marines around at a casual team tournament. Now warmachine is dead around here and 40k rules deadliness makes it super competetive since if you dont bring your A game the game is over turn 1. In older editions you at least felt you had some chance even with a more casual list due to dying slower.
GW produces much more content and if that is the only metrix that counts then it is a golden age but I prefer quality over quantity. GW already has a huge line up, especially for 40k,that we need quality stuff only. They could take it slower and focus on quality but they dont.
Ishagu wrote: The people who complain about the hobby online a small, vocal minority.
It follows the old rule: 5% of customers make 95% of all complaints lol
It's a combination of unrealistic expectations, lack of experience, and in some cases people simply get a kick out of complaining.
The hobby is indeed the best it has ever been, this is a golden age and it's amazing to see how far it has risen.
Ishagu wrote: The people who complain about the hobby online a small, vocal minority.
It follows the old rule: 5% of customers make 95% of all complaints lol
It's a combination of unrealistic expectations, lack of experience, and in some cases people simply get a kick out of complaining.
The hobby is indeed the best it has ever been, this is a golden age and it's amazing to see how far it has risen.
I only have 14-15 years of experience as a 29 year old. If half my life isnt enough then I dont know what.
I have slightly higher expectations on GW than their competitors. If I had 0 experience I would have expected much more due to their size and experience but due to how I kmow they are inept already I have set the bar quite low and yet they fail to reach it after 30+ years. Experience only counts sometimes it seems.
For me the hobby was at its best 5-8 years ago. Mk 2 warmachine if I wanted a good game and 40k if I just wanted to move some marines around at a casual team tournament. Now warmachine is dead around here and 40k rules deadliness makes it super competetive since if you dont bring your A game the game is over turn 1. In older editions you at least felt you had some chance even with a more casual list due to dying slower.
GW produces much more content and if that is the only metrix that counts then it is a golden age but I prefer quality over quantity. GW already has a huge line up, especially for 40k,that we need quality stuff only. They could take it slower and focus on quality but they dont.
GW produces content at a break neck pace, and it still seems to be rising in price. With boxes less to get players in and buying, but to get as much money as possible. The necromunder box is the second going from a almost certain purchase to a no way am I paying that on price alone. I not sure if I will be playing GW games in the near future on price alone.
If your army is less power mad than the opponents army, just have fun with it. Are the units in your army useless? Field them ALL!!! They can't shoot all of us! Have fun, even if you dont think you have a chance of winning. Is your imperial guard sergeant about to charge 30 hormagaunts alone? Give him a backstory and start quoting "army of darkness".
Have to paint a lot of night goblins? Paint the ENTIRE army as smurfs!!!
A game of warhammer is not a competition. It is a fun time with a fun hobby and hopefully a pleasant opponent who enjoys the hobby as much as you do. Min maxing units to try to ensure a win is for tournaments, where those players you dont want to face congregate. Leave them to it. Play YOUR game.
everything is a competition, even a narrative game is a competition of who is going to get the best narrative out of the game. That is why there are poetry prizes, nobles for literature, BAFTAs etc
Also the can't shot part, seems true only for armies with 4 pts models. When your basic troop option cost around 40pts, you would be suprised how fast armies nowadays can kill t4 2W models.
As for everything being a compeition, that's only true if you're a sociopath. well adjusted sane rational individuals can sit down and work together on things.
If your army is less power mad than the opponents army, just have fun with it. Are the units in your army useless? Field them ALL!!! They can't shoot all of us! Have fun, even if you dont think you have a chance of winning. Is your imperial guard sergeant about to charge 30 hormagaunts alone? Give him a backstory and start quoting "army of darkness".
Have to paint a lot of night goblins? Paint the ENTIRE army as smurfs!!!
A game of warhammer is not a competition. It is a fun time with a fun hobby and hopefully a pleasant opponent who enjoys the hobby as much as you do. Min maxing units to try to ensure a win is for tournaments, where those players you dont want to face congregate. Leave them to it. Play YOUR game.
everything is a competition, even a narrative game is a competition of who is going to get the best narrative out of the game. That is why there are poetry prizes, nobles for literature, BAFTAs etc
Also the can't shot part, seems true only for armies with 4 pts models. When your basic troop option cost around 40pts, you would be suprised how fast armies nowadays can kill t4 2W models.
As for everything being a compeition, that's only true if you're a sociopath. well adjusted sane rational individuals can sit down and work together on things.
You're not "working together" in a game of 40k anymore than you're working together in a game of Othello or Chess or even Space Hulk.
If you want to work together with people look at games like Mansions of Madness or Arkham Horror (both fantastic for their own reasons but I lean towards Mansions because miniatures).
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You're not "working together" in a game of 40k anymore than you're working together in a game of Othello or Chess or even Space Hulk.
If you want to work together with people look at games like Mansions of Madness or Arkham Horror (both fantastic for their own reasons but I lean towards Mansions because miniatures).
I am most certainly working together with my opponent(s) towards the goal of "let's all have fun playing this game" - it'd be a dick move on my paft were that not the case (terminology aside, that's what Brian's getting at with the sociopath, above). The finer parameters (points, scenario, house rules, narrative, snacks, drinks, composition) are all part of the social exchange that so confounds our more self-focused counterparts.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You're not "working together" in a game of 40k anymore than you're working together in a game of Othello or Chess or even Space Hulk.
If you want to work together with people look at games like Mansions of Madness or Arkham Horror (both fantastic for their own reasons but I lean towards Mansions because miniatures).
I am most certainly working together with my opponent(s) towards the goal of "let's all have fun playing this game" - it'd be a dick move on my paft were that not the case (terminology aside, that's what Brian's getting at with the sociopath, above). The finer parameters (points, scenario, house rules, narrative, snacks, drinks, composition) are all part of the social exchange that so confounds our more self-focused counterparts.
Now, this isn't helpful. There is nothing "self-focused" about enjoying a challenging game, where all involved accept that not everyone enjoys the same things they do, or plays a given game for the same reasons.
If your army is less power mad than the opponents army, just have fun with it. Are the units in your army useless? Field them ALL!!! They can't shoot all of us! Have fun, even if you dont think you have a chance of winning. Is your imperial guard sergeant about to charge 30 hormagaunts alone? Give him a backstory and start quoting "army of darkness".
Have to paint a lot of night goblins? Paint the ENTIRE army as smurfs!!!
A game of warhammer is not a competition. It is a fun time with a fun hobby and hopefully a pleasant opponent who enjoys the hobby as much as you do. Min maxing units to try to ensure a win is for tournaments, where those players you dont want to face congregate. Leave them to it. Play YOUR game.
everything is a competition, even a narrative game is a competition of who is going to get the best narrative out of the game. That is why there are poetry prizes, nobles for literature, BAFTAs etc
Also the can't shot part, seems true only for armies with 4 pts models. When your basic troop option cost around 40pts, you would be suprised how fast armies nowadays can kill t4 2W models.
As for everything being a compeition, that's only true if you're a sociopath. well adjusted sane rational individuals can sit down and work together on things.
Army of Darkness is the 3rd movie in the greatest horror/comedy trilogy in history. It introduced the world to the chainfist. Watch it, its groovy.
You're not "working together" in a game of 40k anymore than you're working together in a game of Othello or Chess or even Space Hulk.
If you want to work together with people look at games like Mansions of Madness or Arkham Horror (both fantastic for their own reasons but I lean towards Mansions because miniatures).
Sure you are. Just because the win conditions of the game is adversarial doesn't mean players don't or can't work together. Though there is overlap, There is an amount of daylight between players working together and 'cooperative games'. Even the most cut throats tournament players will agree to a basic set of standards and parameters to 'build' a game, even if it's just x points, mission y.
Beyond that, there are those of us (a lot of narrative players, and a hell of a lot of historical playersin my experience) who view aspects of the game like 'game-building' and 'relative-list-building' as more important than things like 'list-building-for-advantage', 'blind' match-ups and the 'competitive-at-all-cost' approach, (which probably differs markedly from how folks like you and Blastaar seem to approach it, not that there is anything wrong with how you see it either...) and also tend to put a lot more emphasis on working together to build interesting games first, then play them and try and feed the other guy his own army.
Personally, I prefer the latter attitude and approach to the game, but like I said, I don't see either approach as specifically 'wrong'.
Now, this isn't helpful. There is nothing "self-focused" about enjoying a challenging game, where all involved accept that not everyone enjoys the same things they do, or plays a given game for the same reasons.
It's got nothing to do with enjoying a challenging game. Most people enjoy a challenging game (where I will disagree is specifically linking 'playing with/against the best-lists-possible' with being 'challenging games', but let's leave talk of 'relative-list building' to another thread).
It's 'self focused' in the sense that it's you versus the other guy, you want to win at his expense, and you are not going out of your way to help him. It's him versus you, and may the best man win. He makes a mistake, its on him. He builds a bad list, it's on him. Etcetera. Two boxers in a ring. It's on them, no one else. Which is fair. Strictly fair. There is a level of 'honesty' in that approach that I find hard to disagree with or to hold myself against it. It has a certain appeal. That said, i would argue it also has a cost. Too much 'self focus' and too much Competitive-at-the-expense-of-the-other -persons-enjoyment causes damage to a community, if you ask me at least.
Similarly, it's not 'dishonest' or wrong to approach a game differently, where you like to talk it through and 'mutually match it up' rather than blind list-build and focus on list-building-for-advantage, and where you value the enjoyment of the other guy as much as you value a challenging game or wanting to try and beat him.
As you say, not everyone enjoys the same things or plays for the same reasons.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You're not "working together" in a game of 40k anymore than you're working together in a game of Othello or Chess or even Space Hulk.
If you want to work together with people look at games like Mansions of Madness or Arkham Horror (both fantastic for their own reasons but I lean towards Mansions because miniatures).
I am most certainly working together with my opponent(s) towards the goal of "let's all have fun playing this game" - it'd be a dick move on my paft were that not the case (terminology aside, that's what Brian's getting at with the sociopath, above). The finer parameters (points, scenario, house rules, narrative, snacks, drinks, composition) are all part of the social exchange that so confounds our more self-focused counterparts.
My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue. The only social exchange I require before the game is:
1. Points
2. Mission
3. ITC, ETC, or GWs terrain rules
That's it. Whatever happens after the game in terms of friendliness is good and all, but that's not the goal of the game itself. I should just be able to a basic pickup with random people at various point levels and have a 50/50 shot with my TAC list, and they should expect the same.
That can't happen if you don't balance the armies. So why am I doing GWs job?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You're not "working together" in a game of 40k anymore than you're working together in a game of Othello or Chess or even Space Hulk.
If you want to work together with people look at games like Mansions of Madness or Arkham Horror (both fantastic for their own reasons but I lean towards Mansions because miniatures).
I am most certainly working together with my opponent(s) towards the goal of "let's all have fun playing this game" - it'd be a dick move on my paft were that not the case (terminology aside, that's what Brian's getting at with the sociopath, above). The finer parameters (points, scenario, house rules, narrative, snacks, drinks, composition) are all part of the social exchange that so confounds our more self-focused counterparts.
My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue. The only social exchange I require before the game is:
1. Points
2. Mission
3. ITC, ETC, or GWs terrain rules
That's it. Whatever happens after the game in terms of friendliness is good and all, but that's not the goal of the game itself. I should just be able to a basic pickup with random people at various point levels and have a 50/50 shot with my TAC list, and they should expect the same.
That can't happen if you don't balance the armies. So why am I doing GWs job?
I genuinely feel sad for your local play group if thats your mentality, assuming you have one. the point of a game is to have fun. not to win (although thats nice) but to have FUN.
Now, this isn't helpful. There is nothing "self-focused" about enjoying a challenging game, where all involved accept that not everyone enjoys the same things they do, or plays a given game for the same reasons.
It's got nothing to do with enjoying a challenging game. Most people enjoy a challenging game (where I will disagree is specifically linking 'playing with/against the best-lists-possible' with being 'challenging games', but let's leave talk of 'relative-list building' to another thread).
It's 'self focused' in the sense that it's you versus the other guy, you want to win at his expense, and you are not going out of your way to help him. It's him versus you, and may the best man win. He makes a mistake, its on him. He builds a bad list, it's on him. Etcetera. Two boxers in a ring. It's on them, no one else. Which is fair. Strictly fair. There is a level of 'honesty' in that approach that I find hard to disagree with or to hold myself against it. It has a certain appeal. That said, i would argue it also has a cost. Too much 'self focus' and too much Competitive-at-the-expense-of-the-other -persons-enjoyment causes damage to a community, if you ask me at least.
Similarly, it's not 'dishonest' or wrong to approach a game differently, where you like to talk it through and 'mutually match it up' rather than blind list-build and focus on list-building-for-advantage, and where you value the enjoyment of the other guy as much as you value a challenging game or wanting to try and beat him.
As you say, not everyone enjoys the same things or plays for the same reasons.
I'm not disagreeing with you- not by much, at any rate. (I still find "self-focused" a misnomer- doing all one can to win does not necessarily diminish the fun of one's opponent) Yes, I prefer "strictly fair" games, because I enjoy them, win or lose.
GW is terrible at balance, creating extremes- "strictly fair" lists will handily defeat suboptimal ones, which isn't fun for the person playing the suboptimal list.
This is not a matter of player behavior. This is a game design issue. A tight, balanced ruleset would eliminate these disputes.
...and that would be what I'd characterise as "a dick move" y'know, acting like somebody who's focused on themselves rather than on making the funsies with another human being. It's a critical failure of empathy and respect that is a serious barrier to even communicating basic social functions. Cue up the Voight-Kampff machine.
...and that would be what I'd characterise as "a dick move" y'know, acting like somebody who's focused on themselves rather than on making the funsies with another human being. It's a critical failure of empathy and respect that is a serious barrier to even communicating basic social functions. Cue up the Voight-Kampff machine.
Why what was said could be harsh, I think you are missing two parts of what’s said there. Being friendly and fun does not have to get in the way of competition and that shouldn’t it be GW job be to provide a fun game under those rules. If a player cannot turn up with a chance at winning, and concessions to the game itself need to be made for it to be fun. It may come back again to GW just not holding up there side.
...and that would be what I'd characterise as "a dick move" y'know, acting like somebody who's focused on themselves rather than on making the funsies with another human being. It's a critical failure of empathy and respect that is a serious barrier to even communicating basic social functions. Cue up the Voight-Kampff machine.
Why what was said could be harsh, I think you are missing two parts of what’s said there. Being friendly and fun does not have to get in the way of competition and that shouldn’t it be GW job be to provide a fun game under those rules. If a player cannot turn up with a chance at winning, and concessions to the game itself need to be made for it to be fun. It may come back again to GW just not holding up there side.
You could have a perfectly balanced system and people could still be dicks to each other. Let's not place blame on GW for personal actions towards other people.
'I had to be a dick, because GW didn't do their job' just isn't a good reason to be a dick.
In a perfect world the game would be properly balanced so you don't have to do anything more than plop down models, pick your mission, and get to having fun. Real world has GW as the company making this game and they understand game balance like the average American understands the metric system. Because of that it often falls upon the community to self regulate the game when needed and maybe follow a social contract of sorts to help ensure a remotely fair game. Stuff like maybe not plopping down a top tier tournament net list against an inefficient fluffy list or against a very weak codex. This isn't a pass on GW to continue to produce this slop (seriously stop buying their overpriced patches and supplements) but it does mean we have to be mindful of others in the community and work towards an enjoyable experience for everyone (or at least try).
...and that would be what I'd characterise as "a dick move" y'know, acting like somebody who's focused on themselves rather than on making the funsies with another human being. It's a critical failure of empathy and respect that is a serious barrier to even communicating basic social functions. Cue up the Voight-Kampff machine.
Why what was said could be harsh, I think you are missing two parts of what’s said there. Being friendly and fun does not have to get in the way of competition and that shouldn’t it be GW job be to provide a fun game under those rules. If a player cannot turn up with a chance at winning, and concessions to the game itself need to be made for it to be fun. It may come back again to GW just not holding up there side.
You could have a perfectly balanced system and people could still be dicks to each other. Let's not place blame on GW for personal actions towards other people.
'I had to be a dick, because GW didn't do their job' just isn't a good reason to be a dick.
Well yes, and I was not addressing that part. But I think GW promotes just that attitude. not deliberately but as a side effect.
...and that would be what I'd characterise as "a dick move" y'know, acting like somebody who's focused on themselves rather than on making the funsies with another human being. It's a critical failure of empathy and respect that is a serious barrier to even communicating basic social functions. Cue up the Voight-Kampff machine.
Why what was said could be harsh, I think you are missing two parts of what’s said there. Being friendly and fun does not have to get in the way of competition and that shouldn’t it be GW job be to provide a fun game under those rules. If a player cannot turn up with a chance at winning, and concessions to the game itself need to be made for it to be fun. It may come back again to GW just not holding up there side.
You could have a perfectly balanced system and people could still be dicks to each other. Let's not place blame on GW for personal actions towards other people.
'I had to be a dick, because GW didn't do their job' just isn't a good reason to be a dick.
I'm not the dick for my opponent not choosing or creating a good army. GW is at fault for that, simple.
I'm not the dick for my opponent not choosing or creating a good army. GW is at fault for that, simple.
There's more to a fun game than just "it was balanced."
I assure you, the game could be perfectly balanced, and that wouldn't guarantee the game would be enjoyable for either player. Or the game could be crazily imbalanced and yet great fun, if the players lean into it.
And it is absolutely the responsibility of each player to make sure they don't ruin the other person's enjoyment. That's basically the entire social construct underpinning the concept of a game.
While to some degree the player can lower himself to make sure it's more of a balanced game, the system itself and armies within should be better balanced to make that less of an issue from the start.
While the player could be reasonably considered to hold some of this burden, GW needs to do a much better job of finding parity between choices in books as well as between other armies.
If they can't balance allies, CPs and as well as all the units in the books they need to dial it back some so they can more easily find that parity. As is some armies are so much better that even in a casual sense it can be hard to plan out a pick up game because of the poor army design by unit selection.
For instance, it's hard for me to make a reasonable match up vs Grey Knights when the knights are so meh, unless I make a choice to take nothing but the worst things it's going to be a rough match up.
Point to this, GW needs to do a much better job on their end and we can all do our part as well but it isn't exactly just the players fault, that is silly to imagine. We pay a lot for this company to have its act together.
I’ve spent thousands of pounds on GW products over the course of my life. My current army (that I’ve spent countless hours assembling, converting, painting, basing and even rebasing) is a ‘fluffy’ Evil Sunz mechanised list. I have no desire to take the flavour of the month units or faction, nor do I have the time to paint and model another army. Not to mention the financial investment. I try my best to make my list as competitive as possible but in the face of recent codexes and tournament lists it just doesn’t compete. My opponents have had to ‘tone down’ their lists for us to both have a fun game and it’s great that they’re willing to do so but it feels bad that they can’t take all the stuff they want so I’ve largely stopped playing. It also seems really stupid playing a competitive game where one player has a hand tied behind their back because you both know if they used their full strength they’d crush you.
GW have created this game and the rules around it. They have made my army very difficult to play effectively. Not me. Not my opponents. GW. GW also stated at the start of the edition that they would be trying to avoid this exact situation I now find myself in. That all factions would have a variety of competitive play styles common to their archetypes and most importantly depending on what the player wanted to take. Unless you play muMarines, this has been a complete and utter load of gak. Most codexes have one or two competitive builds and that’s it.
So yes, I’m pretty down on the hobby at the moment - largely because of marketing spiel that GW just didn’t follow up on, because my interactions in games are starting to become less and less interesting (picking up models sure gets old, fast) and most importantly because GW don’t even seem to recognise that this as an issue at all and in my opinion actually believe it to be a good thing for their profit margins. Compound these issues around playing the game with the unending marine releases, the huge discrepancy between releases for different factions and the general lack of support for factions not in power armour and I think you have a perfect storm of negative sentiment that has already driven people away from the hobby and that will continue to drive more away if things don’t change.
Trust me when I say that some negativity can be construed as a good thing, because those negative people are still invested in the hobby. Those who have already left the hobby simply don’t care and so don’t state their opinion at all.
Now, this isn't helpful. There is nothing "self-focused" about enjoying a challenging game, where all involved accept that not everyone enjoys the same things they do, or plays a given game for the same reasons.
It's got nothing to do with enjoying a challenging game. Most people enjoy a challenging game (where I will disagree is specifically linking 'playing with/against the best-lists-possible' with being 'challenging games', but let's leave talk of 'relative-list building' to another thread).
It's 'self focused' in the sense that it's you versus the other guy, you want to win at his expense, and you are not going out of your way to help him. It's him versus you, and may the best man win. He makes a mistake, its on him. He builds a bad list, it's on him. Etcetera. Two boxers in a ring. It's on them, no one else. Which is fair. Strictly fair. There is a level of 'honesty' in that approach that I find hard to disagree with or to hold myself against it. It has a certain appeal. That said, i would argue it also has a cost. Too much 'self focus' and too much Competitive-at-the-expense-of-the-other -persons-enjoyment causes damage to a community, if you ask me at least.
Similarly, it's not 'dishonest' or wrong to approach a game differently, where you like to talk it through and 'mutually match it up' rather than blind list-build and focus on list-building-for-advantage, and where you value the enjoyment of the other guy as much as you value a challenging game or wanting to try and beat him.
As you say, not everyone enjoys the same things or plays for the same reasons.
I'm not disagreeing with you- not by much, at any rate. (I still find "self-focused" a misnomer- doing all one can to win does not necessarily diminish the fun of one's opponent) Yes, I prefer "strictly fair" games, because I enjoy them, win or lose.
GW is terrible at balance, creating extremes- "strictly fair" lists will handily defeat suboptimal ones, which isn't fun for the person playing the suboptimal list.
This is not a matter of player behavior. This is a game design issue. A tight, balanced ruleset would eliminate these disputes.
BTW you wanna know another word ofr "self focused" Selfish.
I have found similar issues with my Eldar, i have had 3 that i have updated over the years.
Some have been better than others, but it was always built to a theme.
I have had the, you play eldar why you complaining. You could just not play those units, Or you should just be happy with what you have. All from people who tell me that its great right now.
As soon as my army gets a random boost, and hey new minis. Suddenly its all complaints and tone your army down. We do not play competitive lists, And you only have that since its best.
One player even said to me that i must be that kind of person when i mention i play eldar. All why he had big Words about positivity and creating a fun and fair environment.
GW has a lot of the blame for this environment, and players do as well. But i think that when issues are just brushed away, that is what creates such hostility and toxicity.
I am very Hobby positive, I am enjoying the hobby more than ever before. But its mostly at ignoring GW more than actuly being that positive about there games
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You're not "working together" in a game of 40k anymore than you're working together in a game of Othello or Chess or even Space Hulk.
If you want to work together with people look at games like Mansions of Madness or Arkham Horror (both fantastic for their own reasons but I lean towards Mansions because miniatures).
I am most certainly working together with my opponent(s) towards the goal of "let's all have fun playing this game" - it'd be a dick move on my paft were that not the case (terminology aside, that's what Brian's getting at with the sociopath, above). The finer parameters (points, scenario, house rules, narrative, snacks, drinks, composition) are all part of the social exchange that so confounds our more self-focused counterparts.
My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue. The only social exchange I require before the game is:
1. Points
2. Mission
3. ITC, ETC, or GWs terrain rules
That's it. Whatever happens after the game in terms of friendliness is good and all, but that's not the goal of the game itself. I should just be able to a basic pickup with random people at various point levels and have a 50/50 shot with my TAC list, and they should expect the same.
That can't happen if you don't balance the armies. So why am I doing GWs job?
The factions might be balanced as a whole, but your relative selections therefrom might not be.
This is why random hookups don't work UNLESS you and your opponent are superoptimizing min maxxers to the max.
And, it is too much to expect GW or any parent company to manage gameplay like this, at this micro level...
Maybe we will get this, sort of CA army lists as balance points, with deviations therefrom costing CP or something else, but as for a points based system like this one the balancing on the table is largely up to the players at said table.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
An Actual Englishman wrote: I’ve spent thousands of pounds on GW products over the course of my life. My current army (that I’ve spent countless hours assembling, converting, painting, basing and even rebasing) is a ‘fluffy’ Evil Sunz mechanised list. I have no desire to take the flavour of the month units or faction, nor do I have the time to paint and model another army. Not to mention the financial investment. I try my best to make my list as competitive as possible but in the face of recent codexes and tournament lists it just doesn’t compete. My opponents have had to ‘tone down’ their lists for us to both have a fun game and it’s great that they’re willing to do so but it feels bad that they can’t take all the stuff they want so I’ve largely stopped playing. It also seems really stupid playing a competitive game where one player has a hand tied behind their back because you both know if they used their full strength they’d crush you.
GW have created this game and the rules around it. They have made my army very difficult to play effectively. Not me. Not my opponents. GW. GW also stated at the start of the edition that they would be trying to avoid this exact situation I now find myself in. That all factions would have a variety of competitive play styles common to their archetypes and most importantly depending on what the player wanted to take. Unless you play muMarines, this has been a complete and utter load of gak. Most codexes have one or two competitive builds and that’s it.
So yes, I’m pretty down on the hobby at the moment - largely because of marketing spiel that GW just didn’t follow up on, because my interactions in games are starting to become less and less interesting (picking up models sure gets old, fast) and most importantly because GW don’t even seem to recognise that this as an issue at all and in my opinion actually believe it to be a good thing for their profit margins. Compound these issues around playing the game with the unending marine releases, the huge discrepancy between releases for different factions and the general lack of support for factions not in power armour and I think you have a perfect storm of negative sentiment that has already driven people away from the hobby and that will continue to drive more away if things don’t change.
Trust me when I say that some negativity can be construed as a good thing, because those negative people are still invested in the hobby. Those who have already left the hobby simply don’t care and so don’t state their opinion at all.
Bravo.
Exalted.
Added realism, tone down killiness at range, increase terrain/board interactions with intuitive rules for cover and movement, allow for meta level restrictions on things like aircraft, be serious about flyers and table shrinkage... make all marines both sides 2 wounds, give Primaris a flaw like blood angels where they turn to chaos as certainly they are heresy, and so on...
But, GW looks from the outside just like any other bubble fiefdom blown up to inspire shareholder investment and immediate returns on said investment, which as we look around the world with big and little financial bubbles bursting everywhere, well... GW is like Nurgle, in a way, and about to pop oozy goo all over.
My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue.
I'm not the dick for my opponent not choosing or creating a good army. GW is at fault for that, simple.
What? Good god if everyone in this hobby adopted this mindset it would be an awful place!
If you approach a game and know how unbalanced the lists are before playing, you ARE the dick and will just look like a seal clubber to everyone. It is a casual game and GW have never made it otherwise, hell I remember games having a GM and rules for that! Fun is achieved with co-operation and mutual understanding between both players, your attitude spits in the face of that and puts yourself first and deflect the fact behind 'Hey don't blame me, GW says I can do this so I can! Not having fun playing against me? Too bad!"
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You're not "working together" in a game of 40k anymore than you're working together in a game of Othello or Chess or even Space Hulk.
If you want to work together with people look at games like Mansions of Madness or Arkham Horror (both fantastic for their own reasons but I lean towards Mansions because miniatures).
I am most certainly working together with my opponent(s) towards the goal of "let's all have fun playing this game" - it'd be a dick move on my paft were that not the case (terminology aside, that's what Brian's getting at with the sociopath, above). The finer parameters (points, scenario, house rules, narrative, snacks, drinks, composition) are all part of the social exchange that so confounds our more self-focused counterparts.
My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue. The only social exchange I require before the game is:
1. Points
2. Mission
3. ITC, ETC, or GWs terrain rules
That's it. Whatever happens after the game in terms of friendliness is good and all, but that's not the goal of the game itself. I should just be able to a basic pickup with random people at various point levels and have a 50/50 shot with my TAC list, and they should expect the same.
That can't happen if you don't balance the armies. So why am I doing GWs job?
The factions might be balanced as a whole, but your relative selections therefrom might not be.
This is why random hookups don't work UNLESS you and your opponent are superoptimizing min maxxers to the max.
And, it is too much to expect GW or any parent company to manage gameplay like this, at this micro level...
Maybe we will get this, sort of CA army lists as balance points, with deviations therefrom costing CP or something else, but as for a points based system like this one the balancing on the table is largely up to the players at said table.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
An Actual Englishman wrote: I’ve spent thousands of pounds on GW products over the course of my life. My current army (that I’ve spent countless hours assembling, converting, painting, basing and even rebasing) is a ‘fluffy’ Evil Sunz mechanised list. I have no desire to take the flavour of the month units or faction, nor do I have the time to paint and model another army. Not to mention the financial investment. I try my best to make my list as competitive as possible but in the face of recent codexes and tournament lists it just doesn’t compete. My opponents have had to ‘tone down’ their lists for us to both have a fun game and it’s great that they’re willing to do so but it feels bad that they can’t take all the stuff they want so I’ve largely stopped playing. It also seems really stupid playing a competitive game where one player has a hand tied behind their back because you both know if they used their full strength they’d crush you.
GW have created this game and the rules around it. They have made my army very difficult to play effectively. Not me. Not my opponents. GW. GW also stated at the start of the edition that they would be trying to avoid this exact situation I now find myself in. That all factions would have a variety of competitive play styles common to their archetypes and most importantly depending on what the player wanted to take. Unless you play muMarines, this has been a complete and utter load of gak. Most codexes have one or two competitive builds and that’s it.
So yes, I’m pretty down on the hobby at the moment - largely because of marketing spiel that GW just didn’t follow up on, because my interactions in games are starting to become less and less interesting (picking up models sure gets old, fast) and most importantly because GW don’t even seem to recognise that this as an issue at all and in my opinion actually believe it to be a good thing for their profit margins. Compound these issues around playing the game with the unending marine releases, the huge discrepancy between releases for different factions and the general lack of support for factions not in power armour and I think you have a perfect storm of negative sentiment that has already driven people away from the hobby and that will continue to drive more away if things don’t change.
Trust me when I say that some negativity can be construed as a good thing, because those negative people are still invested in the hobby. Those who have already left the hobby simply don’t care and so don’t state their opinion at all.
Bravo.
Exalted.
Added realism, tone down killiness at range, increase terrain/board interactions with intuitive rules for cover and movement, allow for meta level restrictions on things like aircraft, be serious about flyers and table shrinkage... make all marines both sides 2 wounds, give Primaris a flaw like blood angels where they turn to chaos as certainly they are heresy, and so on...
But, GW looks from the outside just like any other bubble fiefdom blown up to inspire shareholder investment and immediate returns on said investment, which as we look around the world with big and little financial bubbles bursting everywhere, well... GW is like Nurgle, in a way, and about to pop oozy goo all over.
I not sure anyone really ever thinks of perfect balance, Nor should they. Unit choice and how they effect the battlefield and the play style is great way to make the game fun.
One of the issues with that is GW does not really think about the game being fun, They think about how they can make it Cool.
THey will present army as COOL, when really under the rule set the only conclusion would be the command has no other option, or is not very smart. Which undermines marines a lot.
I often think this is the bigist issue they have with ballance, they do not want to concede the battle scale and where some things sit. But still want things to Be Cool on the battlefield :( With so little thought to how to achieve that well.
In the end we end up with massive power issues, where just forethought in the design would have pushed the game along a much better path.
Otherwise i agree like 98%
An Actual Englishman wrote: I’ve spent thousands of pounds on GW products over the course of my life. My current army (that I’ve spent countless hours assembling, converting, painting, basing and even rebasing) is a ‘fluffy’ Evil Sunz mechanised list. I have no desire to take the flavour of the month units or faction, nor do I have the time to paint and model another army. Not to mention the financial investment. I try my best to make my list as competitive as possible but in the face of recent codexes and tournament lists it just doesn’t compete. My opponents have had to ‘tone down’ their lists for us to both have a fun game and it’s great that they’re willing to do so but it feels bad that they can’t take all the stuff they want so I’ve largely stopped playing. It also seems really stupid playing a competitive game where one player has a hand tied behind their back because you both know if they used their full strength they’d crush you.
GW have created this game and the rules around it. They have made my army very difficult to play effectively. Not me. Not my opponents. GW. GW also stated at the start of the edition that they would be trying to avoid this exact situation I now find myself in. That all factions would have a variety of competitive play styles common to their archetypes and most importantly depending on what the player wanted to take. Unless you play muMarines, this has been a complete and utter load of gak. Most codexes have one or two competitive builds and that’s it.
So yes, I’m pretty down on the hobby at the moment - largely because of marketing spiel that GW just didn’t follow up on, because my interactions in games are starting to become less and less interesting (picking up models sure gets old, fast) and most importantly because GW don’t even seem to recognise that this as an issue at all and in my opinion actually believe it to be a good thing for their profit margins. Compound these issues around playing the game with the unending marine releases, the huge discrepancy between releases for different factions and the general lack of support for factions not in power armour and I think you have a perfect storm of negative sentiment that has already driven people away from the hobby and that will continue to drive more away if things don’t change.
Trust me when I say that some negativity can be construed as a good thing, because those negative people are still invested in the hobby. Those who have already left the hobby simply don’t care and so don’t state their opinion at all.
See underlined part.
Ditto.
I don't agree often with you englishmen but that is pretty much it. It was also that promise that drew me and my friends back in after 7th , and preety much kicked us out again now
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue.
...
I'm not the dick for my opponent not choosing or creating a good army. GW is at fault for that, simple.
My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue.
I'm not the dick for my opponent not choosing or creating a good army. GW is at fault for that, simple.
What? Good god if everyone in this hobby adopted this mindset it would be an awful place!
If you approach a game and know how unbalanced the lists are before playing, you ARE the dick and will just look like a seal clubber to everyone. It is a casual game and GW have never made it otherwise, hell I remember games having a GM and rules for that! Fun is achieved with co-operation and mutual understanding between both players, your attitude spits in the face of that and puts yourself first and deflect the fact behind 'Hey don't blame me, GW says I can do this so I can! Not having fun playing against me? Too bad!"
There are fluffy armies like a well built Imperial Guard or Eldar that completely destroy other fluffy built armies like Grey Knights + Inquisitors or AdMech.
So please tell me, oh wise one, whose fault is it there?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You're not "working together" in a game of 40k anymore than you're working together in a game of Othello or Chess or even Space Hulk.
If you want to work together with people look at games like Mansions of Madness or Arkham Horror (both fantastic for their own reasons but I lean towards Mansions because miniatures).
I am most certainly working together with my opponent(s) towards the goal of "let's all have fun playing this game" - it'd be a dick move on my paft were that not the case (terminology aside, that's what Brian's getting at with the sociopath, above). The finer parameters (points, scenario, house rules, narrative, snacks, drinks, composition) are all part of the social exchange that so confounds our more self-focused counterparts.
My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue. The only social exchange I require before the game is:
1. Points
2. Mission
3. ITC, ETC, or GWs terrain rules
That's it. Whatever happens after the game in terms of friendliness is good and all, but that's not the goal of the game itself. I should just be able to a basic pickup with random people at various point levels and have a 50/50 shot with my TAC list, and they should expect the same.
That can't happen if you don't balance the armies. So why am I doing GWs job?
The factions might be balanced as a whole, but your relative selections therefrom might not be.
This is why random hookups don't work UNLESS you and your opponent are superoptimizing min maxxers to the max.
And, it is too much to expect GW or any parent company to manage gameplay like this, at this micro level...
Maybe we will get this, sort of CA army lists as balance points, with deviations therefrom costing CP or something else, but as for a points based system like this one the balancing on the table is largely up to the players at said table.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
An Actual Englishman wrote: I’ve spent thousands of pounds on GW products over the course of my life. My current army (that I’ve spent countless hours assembling, converting, painting, basing and even rebasing) is a ‘fluffy’ Evil Sunz mechanised list. I have no desire to take the flavour of the month units or faction, nor do I have the time to paint and model another army. Not to mention the financial investment. I try my best to make my list as competitive as possible but in the face of recent codexes and tournament lists it just doesn’t compete. My opponents have had to ‘tone down’ their lists for us to both have a fun game and it’s great that they’re willing to do so but it feels bad that they can’t take all the stuff they want so I’ve largely stopped playing. It also seems really stupid playing a competitive game where one player has a hand tied behind their back because you both know if they used their full strength they’d crush you.
GW have created this game and the rules around it. They have made my army very difficult to play effectively. Not me. Not my opponents. GW. GW also stated at the start of the edition that they would be trying to avoid this exact situation I now find myself in. That all factions would have a variety of competitive play styles common to their archetypes and most importantly depending on what the player wanted to take. Unless you play muMarines, this has been a complete and utter load of gak. Most codexes have one or two competitive builds and that’s it.
So yes, I’m pretty down on the hobby at the moment - largely because of marketing spiel that GW just didn’t follow up on, because my interactions in games are starting to become less and less interesting (picking up models sure gets old, fast) and most importantly because GW don’t even seem to recognise that this as an issue at all and in my opinion actually believe it to be a good thing for their profit margins. Compound these issues around playing the game with the unending marine releases, the huge discrepancy between releases for different factions and the general lack of support for factions not in power armour and I think you have a perfect storm of negative sentiment that has already driven people away from the hobby and that will continue to drive more away if things don’t change.
Trust me when I say that some negativity can be construed as a good thing, because those negative people are still invested in the hobby. Those who have already left the hobby simply don’t care and so don’t state their opinion at all.
Bravo.
Exalted.
Added realism, tone down killiness at range, increase terrain/board interactions with intuitive rules for cover and movement, allow for meta level restrictions on things like aircraft, be serious about flyers and table shrinkage... make all marines both sides 2 wounds, give Primaris a flaw like blood angels where they turn to chaos as certainly they are heresy, and so on...
But, GW looks from the outside just like any other bubble fiefdom blown up to inspire shareholder investment and immediate returns on said investment, which as we look around the world with big and little financial bubbles bursting everywhere, well... GW is like Nurgle, in a way, and about to pop oozy goo all over.
No it is NOT too much to manage. Why do other games not have pickup issues but 40k does?
It's the laziness and bad ideas behind it. Pure and simple.
I'm not the dick for my opponent not choosing or creating a good army. GW is at fault for that, simple.
There's more to a fun game than just "it was balanced."
I assure you, the game could be perfectly balanced, and that wouldn't guarantee the game would be enjoyable for either player. Or the game could be crazily imbalanced and yet great fun, if the players lean into it.
And it is absolutely the responsibility of each player to make sure they don't ruin the other person's enjoyment. That's basically the entire social construct underpinning the concept of a game.
"Social Construct" for 40k was just some crap sold to you by a company that can't properly do what they're saying they do. When you have to do their job for them (balanced armies and units), that's absurd.
I think Slayer-Fan is coming off as extra harsh, but the gist of it is right: 40k is a wargame, so the goal is to win. Now, part of that is also to have fun, but it's not like you go into the game wanting to lose. That said while I hate the idea of "It's not my fault if my opponent likes weak units" because picking what you like the look/background/etc. of is meant to be 1/3 of the Warhammer hobby (i.e. Collecting, Painting, Playing) but yeah, it is sort of GW's fault for having such awful balance that someone can screw themselves if they like a certain unit and want to take it, and someone else only looks at power and ignores anything deemed "subpar". For a pickup game, you SHOULD only need to ask points/mission/etc. and there's nothing wrong or "dickish" about that. Sure the person can end up being a jerk during the game (cheating, rules lawyering, nitpicking, etc.) but that's not the fault of the game. Showing up with a particular army and, due to the design, it's 10x more powerful than the army your opponent brought for seemingly no reason at all, however, IS a problem with the game and makes it even less conducive to a pickup game style of play because it requires additional "paperwork" as it were before playing to ensure a fun game. In a well-designed game, you can have a fun game without needing to do that first.
I feel that a game needs a social construct by virtue of being played against another person but the Warhammer social construct is a joke and used far too often to cover up design issues that should be way bigger deals than they are. You shouldn't need to have a social construct to hash out what units/lists are acceptable or not.
Wayniac wrote: 40k is a wargame, so the goal is to win. Now, part of that is also to have fun, but it's not like you go into the game wanting to lose.
Personally I find that winning or losing a close match is far more fun than getting stomped (obviously) or stomping the opponent. If the game isn't a challenge and your making your opponent feel bad because of how one sided the game is going then its not very fun even if your winning.
With that context the whole bit of social construct is important to make sure the matchup is fair. It matters with army balance (again GW sucks at this) but it also matters to your opponent's capabilities. You sorta need to put on the kiddy gloves when your up against a newer player or a younger player that doesn't quite grasp complex strategy and tactical decision making. If you regularly play with the same people you can sorta learn how well a matchup will go and I find it important to match your lists to your opponents abilities. You field a certain strength list against the more tournament minded player while you play different kinds of lists against the person who is either less skilled, going for more theme over function, or is playing the underpowered faction.
Again stomping somebody into the ground (or getting stomped) isn't any fun so it seems reasonable to make that extra bit of effort to establish a more level playing field. Zero excuse for GW's rule write inability but even in a well balanced game, you still need to be mindful of your opponent's enjoyment.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That can't happen if you don't balance the armies. So why am I doing GWs job?
It's your job too?
Blastaar wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with you- not by much, at any rate. (I still find "self-focused" a misnomer- doing all one can to win does not necessarily diminish the fun of one's opponent) Yes, I prefer "strictly fair" games, because I enjoy them, win or lose.
GW is terrible at balance, creating extremes- "strictly fair" lists will handily defeat suboptimal ones, which isn't fun for the person playing the suboptimal list.
This is not a matter of player behavior. This is a game design issue. A tight, balanced ruleset would eliminate these disputes.
With respect, you are wrong. 'Self-focused' is the perfect misnomer.
Doing all one can to win can diminish the fun of ones opponent. Have you never heard of 'win at all costs' or 'competitive at all costs'? But self focused means you playing the game for you, only considering a game in terms of youand not being interested or having any considerations for them.
My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue.
Very much on the selfish/independent spectrum (actual terms depending on ones own perception/predjudice).
And yes, it is a matter of player behaviour as well, and not just game design. They're both sides of the very same coin. Gw, or Corvus belli, or privateer press, warlord or wyrd could (or have) let any amount of howlers through the gates. The players are the ones taking eight of them and inflicting them on their peers, and shrugging their shoulders and denying all responsibility for their own actions that come at the expense of every one else.
You speak of a tight well balanced ruleset that would eliminate these disputes. That game sir, is a unicorn. It does not exist. and what she more, it's a deflection. And in the meantime, and in the absence of this unicorn, other things need done instead. They msy not be perfect, but they help.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm not the dick for my opponent not choosing or creating a good army. GW is at fault for that, simple.
Classic transference. Firstly, it has nothing to do with 'fault'.
The decision to take a top tier list against that person who didn't create a 'good' army (and how exactly are we defining 'good', in this case anyway?), or to seek to exploit what they have, whilst knowing theirs doesn't match yours is a decision that is. On. You. Not gw. That, combined with 'My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue.' is what puts these things into penile territory.
Apple fox wrote:
I not sure anyone really ever thinks of perfect balance, Nor should they.
No. You often get talk that they 'are not speaking about perfect balance' but instead they always speak instead of the 'better balance' unicorn, or grudgingly the 'good enough' unicorn, whilst convieniently never stating how far short of 'perfect balance unicorn' they are willing to accept 'better balanced unicorn' to be, in the limited systems that are ttgs, what sacrifices to balance they are willing to make/accept, how many issues or how many problems or inaccuracies that will be acceptable for it to be counted as a 'better balanced' game. Seems to me it's a moving target, what's expected is always that little bit more that what can be provided by the writers, it's always on someone else to 'do something', so the players themselves conveniently never have to be responsible for inflicting the jagged edges of a system on each other or ever have to step up and show some personal responsibility, and there is always just about enough room to keep complain about things whilst simultaneously doing nothing about them.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
No it is NOT too much to manage. Why do other games not have pickup issues but 40k does?
It's the laziness and bad ideas behind it. Pure and simple.
"Social Construct" for 40k was just some crap sold to you by a company that can't properly do what they're saying they do. When you have to do their job for them (balanced armies and units), that's absurd.
You don't want to hear it but it's the truth.
Rubbish. I've never come across a game that didn't have pick up issues. Let's not pretend this is a gw thing (but let's be fair, gw and 'balance' should never be uttered together. Theirs is a game with plenty bad ideas but they are far from alone in this)I played warmachine since mk1, there's no end of silver bullets/hard counters and 'dead choices' in that game- take the wrong caster, bad synergy or whatever, and it's far from unheard of to simply be shut down and cut out of the game by what the other guy brings. I've seen enough chatter on other games, including infinity, malifaux, heck even x-wing about the dichotomy between competitive and casual lists and matxh up issues that pop up in pick up game culture as a result of these balance issues.
And a thought. Maybe if all these issues pop up in pick up game culture, but those of us in the 'talk-it-out-and-collaborate' are able to avoid those pitfalls, maybe it's suggestive at at least some of the fault likes with pick up gaming culture itself?
Social contract is a thing. Building relationships and maintaining them is a thing. It leads to a stronger, healthier community. If I treated my wife in the way you treat your opponents - 'My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue', my marriage would not be a long one. If I treated my friends in this way, pretty soon I wouldn't have friends. There are limits to what the writers can realistically acheive in a rules set, and I genuinely don't think, for all the talk, that people would be happy with having to shoulder the consequences of the design sacrifices needed in order to push balance more to the front.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Sorry, but I don't have to be "friends" with my opponent during a game anymore than I have to be "friends" with my coworkers on the clock.
No, but if you don't fit the culture at work you're going to wind up be adversarial with co-workers and management or burnt out.
Slayer I get what you're saying and I agree for the most part but you really are coming off like a selfish ass who doesn't care about anything but your own enjoyment with the way you're wording some of those statements...
Social contract is a thing. Building relationships and maintaining them is a thing. It leads to a stronger, healthier community. If I treated my wife in the way you treat your opponents - 'My opponent finding joy at the end is none of my issue', my marriage would not be a long one. If I treated my friends in this way, pretty soon I wouldn't have friends. There are limits to what the writers can realistically acheive in a rules set, and I genuinely don't think, for all the talk, that people would be happy with having to shoulder the consequences of the design sacrifices needed in order to push balance more to the front.
Bingo... looks like we have found a winner.
I will take "What's the source of negativity in hobby community today?" for 10,000 Alex.
To be fair, it is just plain harder to build, to reconcile and compromise... to anticipate, to be charitable, to be generous...
Wayniac wrote: Slayer I get what you're saying and I agree for the most part but you really are coming off like a selfish ass who doesn't care about anything but your own enjoyment with the way you're wording some of those statements...
I play the game to relax, not to negotiate with my opponent on what's okay and what's not. Only 40k has THAT many issues for a pickup game and the fact that people are DEFENDING this is inexcusable.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Sorry, but I don't have to be "friends" with my opponent during a game anymore than I have to be "friends" with my coworkers on the clock.
I agree with Deadnight and find it to be a weak defense of your own position to just give a one liner saying "I don't want to be friends, duh"
Out of curiosity: How did you feel about yourself in the past when you were at the receiving end because the army you picked had weak rules and your co-player brought a tournament list?
Edit: Everybody here is admitting that the game got issues and needs work/talk beforehand. Nobody is denying that. People say that with a different attitude you can circumvent specific problems.
"If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem". Ever heard of that?
Wayniac wrote: Slayer I get what you're saying and I agree for the most part but you really are coming off like a selfish ass who doesn't care about anything but your own enjoyment with the way you're wording some of those statements...
If we take slayer at his word thats because he IS. given his words it's pretty clear to me he plays EXCLUSIVLY at tournies if he plays at all, and does NOT have a local play group
Wayniac wrote: Slayer I get what you're saying and I agree for the most part but you really are coming off like a selfish ass who doesn't care about anything but your own enjoyment with the way you're wording some of those statements...
If we take slayer at his word thats because he IS. given his words it's pretty clear to me he plays EXCLUSIVLY at tournies if he plays at all, and does NOT have a local play group
Its certainly his choice and his opinion on the subject. And those who follow his choices and opinion will continue to be dissatisfied with what GW is offering.
he really only has two options. to change or to gak on GW to continue to galvanize his own play style. he will just need to accept that forum goers will get pretty tired of his gaking of a topic many people enjoy in many different ways.
Wayniac wrote: Slayer I get what you're saying and I agree for the most part but you really are coming off like a selfish ass who doesn't care about anything but your own enjoyment with the way you're wording some of those statements...
I play the game to relax, not to negotiate with my opponent on what's okay and what's not. Only 40k has THAT many issues for a pickup game and the fact that people are DEFENDING this is inexcusable.
Dude every game has that problem. If one person brings a strong tournament list, deck etc and the other person brings a weak list, deck etc the second person gets stomped. That is true for 40k, MTG, warmahordes, infinity, AOS, etc.
Talking to your opponent before a pick up game is important for all these games.
I play the game to relax, not to negotiate with my opponent on what's okay and what's not. Only 40k has THAT many issues for a pickup game and the fact that people are DEFENDING this is inexcusable.
Dude every game has that problem. If one person brings a strong tournament list, deck etc and the other person brings a weak list, deck etc the second person gets stomped. That is true for 40k, MTG, warmahordes, infinity, AOS, etc.
This is why I've always felt competitive is the most casual way to approach a game. I bring a tournament list; I can play a game with anyone; there's no negotiation; my opponent and I both play to the best of our abilities; someone wins; someone loses; fun is had regardless. That's always been my idea of casual. That doesn't mean I have to run only the most competitive list possible; it just means that if I want to run something less I'm more likely to lose and that's okay too.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Sorry, but I don't have to be "friends" with my opponent during a game anymore than I have to be "friends" with my coworkers on the clock.
Indeed, you don't have to be friends with coworkers. You don't have to lift a finger. You can be all about you, all of the time and not give one iota for anyone else. But I'll tell you a secret though - it bloody well helps being friends with your colleagues, collaborating and being accomodating, and talking things through with them to get the work of the day done and to 'firefight' and deal with all of the problems that arise. Shockingly, this is also true for your gaming community. Treating everyone else as a step up from an npc that you don't have actually to care about is one long winding road to nowhere if you ask me. You wouldn't treat your friends or your partner this way, would you?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wayniac wrote: Slayer I get what you're saying and I agree for the most part but you really are coming off like a selfish ass who doesn't care about anything but your own enjoyment with the way you're wording some of those statements...
I play the game to relax, not to negotiate with my opponent on what's okay and what's not. Only 40k has THAT many issues for a pickup game and the fact that people are DEFENDING this is inexcusable.
I also play the game to relax. Do you know what stresses me out? Broken games and players that insist on wielding those jagged edges as weapons because 'the win' is all important and shrugging their shoulders at the impossibility of their own responsibility or ownership of their own gaming.
I'll be honest - like I said, like you, I also play wargames to relax. I'm happy to talk things out and game-build. To me, it doesn't take away from the hobby. I find it helps to make better, more enjoyable and often, interesting games (and not just for gw games- we've probably homebrewed and houserules nearly every game we have played). Your mileage may vary, and that is perfectly fair. But don't dismiss it with such contempt.
And I am not 'defending' that 40k has issues(every game does. As a pick up game, warmachine was extremely open to issues. Heck, every game is). I'm offering a different approach to gaming, that at least for me, has reinvigorated and rejuvenated my hobby immensely over the last five years. It's far from 'inexcuseable'. You sir, need to get some perspective.
Wayniac wrote: Slayer I get what you're saying and I agree for the most part but you really are coming off like a selfish ass who doesn't care about anything but your own enjoyment with the way you're wording some of those statements...
I play the game to relax, not to negotiate with my opponent on what's okay and what's not. Only 40k has THAT many issues for a pickup game and the fact that people are DEFENDING this is inexcusable.
Dude every game has that problem. If one person brings a strong tournament list, deck etc and the other person brings a weak list, deck etc the second person gets stomped. That is true for 40k, MTG, warmahordes, infinity, AOS, etc.
Talking to your opponent before a pick up game is important for all these games.
Sorry but MtG and Warmahordes/Machine at minimum do not have that issue. That's basically lying, even WITH the multiple formats MtG has.
I can't speak for Infinity but based on what I've seen in the SF bay area this issue doesn't apply to AoS. So no, you don't know what you're talking about.
Sorry but MtG and Warmahordes/Machine at minimum do not have that issue. That's basically lying, even WITH the multiple formats MtG has.
Eh, no. Warmachine, for all that it's balance was pretty decent, it was very much prone to match up issues. A lot of casters were flat out hard counters to others, almost to the point of NPE. Similarly, Bring a strong tourney list versus a weak one, you are pretty much guaranteed a stomping. This was especially exacerbated at lower points levels.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Sorry, but I don't have to be "friends" with my opponent during a game anymore than I have to be "friends" with my coworkers on the clock.
Indeed, you don't have to be friends with coworkers. You don't have to lift a finger. You can be all about you, all of the time and not give one iota for anyone else. But I'll tell you a secret though - it bloody well helps being friends with your colleagues, collaborating and being accomodating, and talking things through with them to get the work of the day done and to 'firefight' and deal with all of the problems that arise. Shockingly, this is also true for your gaming community. Treating everyone else as a step up from an npc that you don't have actually to care about is one long winding road to nowhere if you ask me. You wouldn't treat your friends or your partner this way, would you?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wayniac wrote: Slayer I get what you're saying and I agree for the most part but you really are coming off like a selfish ass who doesn't care about anything but your own enjoyment with the way you're wording some of those statements...
I play the game to relax, not to negotiate with my opponent on what's okay and what's not. Only 40k has THAT many issues for a pickup game and the fact that people are DEFENDING this is inexcusable.
I also play the game to relax. Do you know what stresses me out? Broken games and players that insist on wielding those jagged edges as weapons because 'the win' is all important and shrugging their shoulders at the impossibility of their own responsibility or ownership of their own gaming.
I'll be honest - like I said, like you, I also play wargames to relax. I'm happy to talk things out and game-build. To me, it doesn't take away from the hobby. I find it helps to make better, more enjoyable and often, interesting games (and not just for gw games- we've probably homebrewed and houserules nearly every game we have played). Your mileage may vary, and that is perfectly fair. But don't dismiss it with such contempt.
And I am not 'defending' that 40k has issues(every game does. As a pick up game, warmachine was extremely open to issues. Heck, every game is). I'm offering a different approach to gaming, that at least for me, has reinvigorated and rejuvenated my hobby immensely over the last five years. It's far from 'inexcuseable'. You sir, need to get some perspective.
It's not my job to accommodate my coworkers and "be friends". I have friends already. I don't have time for that kind of garbage. I'm there to make sure things in my department are done correctly and when other departments try to get in the way? I tell them to bugger off. This is why I'm great at admitting patients because I don't let the drama happen in the first place.
Any issues with the building aren't supposed to go through coworkers. They go through the higher admins and even the state as necessary. Obviously we don't want subpar care for our family members. Why do you support subpar rules for our instead of taking it to GW instead of DOING THEIR JOB FOR THEM?
I've sent multiple emails. The game deserves better, and you deserve better, even if you're delusional and don't see it yet. As of now, until we get the changes we actually deserve, GW will never get money from me directly ever again.
Sorry but MtG and Warmahordes/Machine at minimum do not have that issue. That's basically lying, even WITH the multiple formats MtG has.
Eh, no. Warmachine was very prone to match up issues. Bring a strong tourney list versus a weak one, you are pretty much guaranteed a stomping.
Mean while in magic there is like 1-2 maybe 3 archetypes at most that tend to dominate in standard alone. it becomes horrifically apparent how unbalanced that game gets once you look at modern. and the literal endless complaining about the secondary market for broken and reserve list cards.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Sorry, but I don't have to be "friends" with my opponent during a game anymore than I have to be "friends" with my coworkers on the clock.
I agree with Deadnight and find it to be a weak defense of your own position to just give a one liner saying "I don't want to be friends, duh"
Out of curiosity: How did you feel about yourself in the past when you were at the receiving end because the army you picked had weak rules and your co-player brought a tournament list?
Edit: Everybody here is admitting that the game got issues and needs work/talk beforehand. Nobody is denying that. People say that with a different attitude you can circumvent specific problems.
"If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem". Ever heard of that?
Actually part of the problem is the players talking, because this doesn't actually change the state of the rules. The more the game is pushed to the limits, the more problems can be found and reported to GW.
The problem is people like you just sitting there and not going to GW with said problems.
Sorry but MtG and Warmahordes/Machine at minimum do not have that issue. That's basically lying, even WITH the multiple formats MtG has.
Eh, no. Warmachine was very prone to match up issues. Bring a strong tourney list versus a weak one, you are pretty much guaranteed a stomping.
Mean while in magic there is like 1-2 maybe 3 archetypes at most that tend to dominate in standard alone. it becomes horrifically apparent how unbalanced that game gets once you look at modern. and the literal endless complaining about the secondary market for broken and reserve list cards.
Yeah that's just how card games work, and yes people should be punished for making terrible choices in their decks like choosing a card because "it's got neat artwork" or "that's my waifu". There's always 3-4 decks that dominate a season/format. At least MtG does better than Yugioh for that kind of balancing.
Ohhh boiiii.
I mean i understand you Slayer-Fan but you don't need to fething let your frustration out on your fellow hobbiests.
There are few enough of us.
And yes i am very much in the Camp that regards gw rulewriting as a shame.
That doesn't mean i need to be a prick about it with Franz at the hobby store now does it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: Lol it's hilarious when people get upset that the hobby might require a level of social restraint or aptitude.
Considering that it is pretty Safe to say that society as a whole has certain social contracts at play yes it is indeed hillarious.
Yeah that's just how card games work, and yes people should be punished for making terrible choices in their decks like choosing a card because "it's got neat artwork" or "that's my waifu". There's always 3-4 decks that dominate a season/format. At least MtG does better than Yugioh for that kind of balancing.
Its not a choice when 4 of the 60 cards required would cost more a 2000 point 40k army.
anyway the point was mtg does have the same problems per the original chain. and while its not exactly the rules causing the problems (unless it is) the individual pieces cause an unbelievable amount of unbalance that shifts and pushes many people out of the game and starts all the same pattern of complaining that GW receives.
Wotc also has similar if not worse predatory sales tactic than GW.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Actually part of the problem is the players talking, because this doesn't actually change the state of the rules. The more the game is pushed to the limits, the more problems can be found and reported to GW.
The problem is people like you just sitting there and not going to GW with said problems.
What I did when the game did not suit me anymore, was to take a break from the hobby for several years where I neither played it, nor spend any money on GW products.
You can write an essay to GW every day about your perceived problems with the game (and that you do it is a good thing, honestly), but a solution for it won't come tomorrow. You can be nice to the guy you are going to play with tomorrow at your local store immediately, though. Does not make the rules better, but the game more enjoyable.
Not Online!!! wrote: Ohhh boiiii.
I mean i understand you Slayer-Fan but you don't need to fething let your frustration out on your fellow hobbiests.
There are few enough of us.
And yes i am very much in the Camp that regards gw rulewriting as a shame.
That doesn't mean i need to be a prick about it with Franz at the hobby store now does it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: Lol it's hilarious when people get upset that the hobby might require a level of social restraint or aptitude.
Considering that it is pretty Safe to say that society as a whole has certain social contracts at play yes it is indeed hillarious.
I'm not a prick to my opponent. I simply don't expect them to tell me what to bring, and I don't tell them what to bring either. The two should just be able to bring strong, TAC lists and may the best person win.
That's apparently a lot to ask for according to the people defending the OP.
I think most people are complaining about how you stated your opinion more than the opinion itself. I doubt too many people will argue that 40k doesn't need better balance (at least enough that no list should "auto-lose" against any other), but statements like "I don't have to be friends with my opponent" and "my opponent's enjoyment isn't my concern" are immediately gonna make people think you're a TFG. Phrasing is incredibly important in any discussion, and you chose your phrasing very poorly.
"You are not wrong Rick. You are just an ass hole"
Every single game outside the tournament scene needs a social contract to work.
All the time, when for example we go to a party and the host pulls out a shooter, or a mario kart, or a fighting game for people to play, I have to play relaxed because most of the people present arent as skilled in videogames as me.
Sometimes I encounter someone at my level or even better and we have epic duels for the ages, and thats even better. But I also have fun going more easy on friends, or other people at the party, because they are having fun too.
This does not justify GW balancing. But the notion that outside of a tournament I should have 0 considerations over how I behave based in my opponent is as wrong as american of a mindset.
I think what he's saying is the idea that you don't have an olbligation to your opponent to ensure everyone has a fun good time is a wrong mind set and it's one that is "uniquely American". There is a common belief among the rest of the west, that America, as a society tends to be much more individual focused then europe. "Why doesn't America supply universal health care? Because Americans are greedier then us and won't accept a small increase in their taxes to take care of socities more vunerable" Not sure I entirely belive this as I've seen some Europeans suggest they have some pretty toxic communities (Karol for example)
Galas wrote: "You are not wrong Rick. You are just an ass hole"
Every single game outside the tournament scene needs a social contract to work.
All the time, when for example we go to a party and the host pulls out a shooter, or a mario kart, or a fighting game for people to play, I have to play relaxed because most of the people present arent as skilled in videogames as me.
Sometimes I encounter someone at my level or even better and we have epic duels for the ages, and thats even better. But I also have fun going more easy on friends, or other people at the party, because they are having fun too.
This does not justify GW balancing. But the notion that outside of a tournament I should have 0 considerations over how I behave based in my opponent is as wrong as american of a mindset.
The question is, why are you not playing at your regular level? Why would your friends ask you to dumb yourself down? WHY is there an obligation to do that but not for them to improve at said game at all?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flandarz wrote: I think most people are complaining about how you stated your opinion more than the opinion itself. I doubt too many people will argue that 40k doesn't need better balance (at least enough that no list should "auto-lose" against any other), but statements like "I don't have to be friends with my opponent" and "my opponent's enjoyment isn't my concern" are immediately gonna make people think you're a TFG. Phrasing is incredibly important in any discussion, and you chose your phrasing very poorly.
Even if I phrased it poorly, the point remains the same. I'm not obligated to do GW's job for a fair game, and the more that people defend the OP and do that instead of taking their problems to GW, the less likely the problem actually gets solved.
Whilst Slayer-Fan perhaps comes across as a little callous, I think his overall point is nevertheless correct.
Not least because trying to balance armies in order to get a close game isn't necessary easy even when you're aware of the problem.
I've had games where I've played what I thought was a reasonably competitive list, only to get curb-stomped in a one-sided battle. And I've likewise played lists that I thought sacrificed power for fun/flavour, only for them to end up curb-stomping my opponent anyway.
I mean, this is supposed to be the entire purpose of having a points system in the first place. If points are going to bear little to no resemblance to the actual worth of a given unit (and by extension the power of a given army), then we might as well just go the (initial) AoS route. Just have each player dump a random pile of models on the table and see what happens.
Galas wrote: "You are not wrong Rick. You are just an ass hole"
Every single game outside the tournament scene needs a social contract to work.
All the time, when for example we go to a party and the host pulls out a shooter, or a mario kart, or a fighting game for people to play, I have to play relaxed because most of the people present arent as skilled in videogames as me.
Sometimes I encounter someone at my level or even better and we have epic duels for the ages, and thats even better. But I also have fun going more easy on friends, or other people at the party, because they are having fun too.
This does not justify GW balancing. But the notion that outside of a tournament I should have 0 considerations over how I behave based in my opponent is as wrong as american of a mindset.
The question is, why are you not playing at your regular level? Why would your friends ask you to dumb yourself down? WHY is there an obligation to do that but not for them to improve at said game at all?
its a party not an Esports tournament...?
what is your obsession with Obligations. no one is obligated to do anything. you make your choices as much as everyone else makes theirs.
Galas wrote: "You are not wrong Rick. You are just an ass hole"
Every single game outside the tournament scene needs a social contract to work.
All the time, when for example we go to a party and the host pulls out a shooter, or a mario kart, or a fighting game for people to play, I have to play relaxed because most of the people present arent as skilled in videogames as me.
Sometimes I encounter someone at my level or even better and we have epic duels for the ages, and thats even better. But I also have fun going more easy on friends, or other people at the party, because they are having fun too.
This does not justify GW balancing. But the notion that outside of a tournament I should have 0 considerations over how I behave based in my opponent is as wrong as american of a mindset.
The question is, why are you not playing at your regular level? Why would your friends ask you to dumb yourself down? WHY is there an obligation to do that but not for them to improve at said game at all?
its a party not an Esports tournament...?
what is your obsession with Obligations. no one is obligated to do anything. you make your choices as much as everyone else makes theirs.
I love the moment that you decide to try and win, it's all the sudden a tournament and you're now a bad friend.
That's amazing, really. You also had yet to explain the problem and deflected it to the fact I use the word "obligation".
Ishagu wrote: Lol it's hilarious when people get upset that the hobby might require a level of social restraint or aptitude.
Why not try reading what people post for a change, instead of attempting to provoke them?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: "You are not wrong Rick. You are just an ass hole"
Every single game outside the tournament scene needs a social contract to work.
All the time, when for example we go to a party and the host pulls out a shooter, or a mario kart, or a fighting game for people to play, I have to play relaxed because most of the people present arent as skilled in videogames as me.
Sometimes I encounter someone at my level or even better and we have epic duels for the ages, and thats even better. But I also have fun going more easy on friends, or other people at the party, because they are having fun too.
This does not justify GW balancing. But the notion that outside of a tournament I should have 0 considerations over how I behave based in my opponent is as wrong as american of a mindset.
i know you are responding to some poorly expressed posts, so I won't touch most of what you said, but-
Wow. Please explain.How is playing to win a moral failing in Americans?
You don't actually believe that behaving like jackasses when playing games is somehow a facet of American culture, do you?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's not my job to accommodate my coworkers and "be friends". I have friends already. I don't have time for that kind of garbage.
Being accommodating and respectful of strangers, let alone co-workers, is what I'd expect of most people. No-one's expecting you to "be friends", but if you can't accommodate and bend over a bit for your fellows, then that's just depressing. and if I was your employer, I'd be criticising that kind of ethic towards your colleagues. If I'm sitting down to game with them, I want to be able to have a nice dialogue with them, have relaxed, casual fun, and for us both to put in effort to have a mutually beneficial time. Beating the tar out of eachother with lists designed to win just does not appeal to me.
The way I look at it, compare an expressive dance duet to a dance battle. The former is made with the intent of conveying a narrative or emotional response, and requires both people to be working towards the same goal of reaching that narrative/emotional climax. In game terms, this is two people using their armies to convey a narrative, and as they're playing, they're using the models to help them tell a story, small victories and defeats determined by the roll of the dice. The latter is two people showcasing their technical skills and seeing to outperform the other. In game terms, this is two people using their armies to defeat the other and achieve their own victory with skill, luck, and well built forces.
Both are fine, but you can't just dismiss the idea of the hobby as requiring a social contract just because you don't like it.
Why do you support subpar rules for our instead of taking it to GW instead of DOING THEIR JOB FOR THEM?
I think we disagree on what we expect GW to do for us.
I've sent multiple emails. The game deserves better, and you deserve better, even if you're delusional and don't see it yet. As of now, until we get the changes we actually deserve, GW will never get money from me directly ever again.
Good for you. Genuinely, I mean that. I hope you feel happier in your life, because I don't think this is helping you.
I'll continue to enjoy the hobby, if you don't mind? Unless my "delusion" offends you.
If you are looking for something that has a positive attitude about the hobby - you may want to check out this Podcast (disclaimer: it's mine). We have been around almost 10 years now.
Galas wrote: "You are not wrong Rick. You are just an ass hole"
Every single game outside the tournament scene needs a social contract to work.
All the time, when for example we go to a party and the host pulls out a shooter, or a mario kart, or a fighting game for people to play, I have to play relaxed because most of the people present arent as skilled in videogames as me.
Sometimes I encounter someone at my level or even better and we have epic duels for the ages, and thats even better. But I also have fun going more easy on friends, or other people at the party, because they are having fun too.
This does not justify GW balancing. But the notion that outside of a tournament I should have 0 considerations over how I behave based in my opponent is as wrong as american of a mindset.
This has been asked but I'll add to it, what exactly is an American mindset ? Please, enlighten me as I don't want to take it as some kind of insult when you're just a little heated with one poster who happens to be American.
Galas wrote: "You are not wrong Rick. You are just an ass hole"
Every single game outside the tournament scene needs a social contract to work.
All the time, when for example we go to a party and the host pulls out a shooter, or a mario kart, or a fighting game for people to play, I have to play relaxed because most of the people present arent as skilled in videogames as me.
Sometimes I encounter someone at my level or even better and we have epic duels for the ages, and thats even better. But I also have fun going more easy on friends, or other people at the party, because they are having fun too.
This does not justify GW balancing. But the notion that outside of a tournament I should have 0 considerations over how I behave based in my opponent is as wrong as american of a mindset.
This has been asked but I'll add to it, what exactly is an American mindset ? Please, enlighten me as I don't want to take it as some kind of insult when you're just a little heated with one poster who happens to be American.
There is the general impression to the outside world that Americans are very much "bigger is better" all the time, that they have to be the best at everything. A lot of stuff that is state provided by the lot of the world is ran by corporations in a cut throat manner (so it appears), further fuelling the "be successful or suffer" impression that seems to be portrayed.
Small examples, when GW release something on a weekend that's an American only holiday, American people usually seem really amazed, because it's a local centric way of thinking.
I'd hasten to add that's not a view shared by everyone, just a loose generalisation.
Yes but when you refer to a place as large as the USA in generalist fashion like that it's really going to make some people annoyed. I mean unless every country likes to be treated like that. Now, don't take that as a " My feelings be hurt " I just want to know if that's all good with everyone.
I would ask as well, if we will be so generalized, at least link in the Team America song.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Yes but when you refer to a place as large as the USA in generalist fashion like that it's really going to make some people annoyed. I mean unless every country likes to be treated like that. Now, don't take that as a " My feelings be hurt " I just want to know if that's all good with everyone.
I would ask as well, if we will be so generalized, at least link in the Team America song.
I don't disagree, you have states larger than England and people still do the stupid assumption that we're all plum in cheek, tea swilling, football loving Hugh Grant's.
I don't disagree, you have states larger than England and people still do the stupid assumption that we're all plum in cheek, tea swilling, football loving Hugh Grant's.
I don't disagree, you have states larger than England and people still do the stupid assumption that we're all plum in cheek, tea swilling, football loving Hugh Grant's.
Do you even English bro?
Jokes aside some stereotypes do have a certain value of correctness due to cultural institutions and specific social contracts bound by location.
As for individualistic, or egoistic, there are worse exemples out there of said stereotype.
I don't disagree, you have states larger than England and people still do the stupid assumption that we're all plum in cheek, tea swilling, football loving Hugh Grant's.
Do you even English bro?
Yeah, just regrettably from Yorkshire, although I don't drink tea and I'm not a huge football fan. I also like this idea that we see the royal family all the time and that because it's a small country people just travel end to end on a whim.
I don't disagree, you have states larger than England and people still do the stupid assumption that we're all plum in cheek, tea swilling, football loving Hugh Grant's.
Do you even English bro?
Yeah, just regrettably from Yorkshire, although I don't drink tea and I'm not a huge football fan. I also like this idea that we see the royal family all the time and that because it's a small country people just travel end to end on a whim.
That's ok, I like tea enough for both of us. Are you saying you don't just walk right across the country daily ? My mind is blown right apart now.
I don't disagree, you have states larger than England and people still do the stupid assumption that we're all plum in cheek, tea swilling, football loving Hugh Grant's.
Do you even English bro?
Yeah, just regrettably from Yorkshire, although I don't drink tea and I'm not a huge football fan. I also like this idea that we see the royal family all the time and that because it's a small country people just travel end to end on a whim.
That's ok, I like tea enough for both of us. Are you saying you don't just walk right across the country daily ? My mind is blown right apart now.
Considering he isn't from Liechtenstein, yes he mostlikely will not just walk across his country....
I don't disagree, you have states larger than England and people still do the stupid assumption that we're all plum in cheek, tea swilling, football loving Hugh Grant's.
Do you even English bro?
Yeah, just regrettably from Yorkshire, although I don't drink tea and I'm not a huge football fan. I also like this idea that we see the royal family all the time and that because it's a small country people just travel end to end on a whim.
That's ok, I like tea enough for both of us. Are you saying you don't just walk right across the country daily ? My mind is blown right apart now.
Considering he isn't from Liechtenstein, yes he mostlikely will not just walk across his country....
it's more of a jog then a walk as I understand it!
I apologize to my fellow american dakkanites. I used american, in effect, as an hiperbolyc generalisation as a response to the extreme viewpoint Slayerfan was expressing. I should had linked the America feth yeah video as a way to show that it should not be taken seriously. But nonetheless it was unnecesarely and unfairly generalistic.
Now if you excuse me I have a paella to make but first I have a bull to kill and some gold to plunder.
The question is, why are you not playing at your regular level? Why would your friends ask you to dumb yourself down? WHY is there an obligation to do that but not for them to improve at said game at all?
You are not obligated to anything. Just like you are not obligated to open the door for a stranger that carries a heavy box, or you are not obligated to give a present to a friend in his or her birthday, or you are not obligated to spend time with your grandparents.
Doing things for others well being that dont benefit you directly is called being a polite and good person. A socially functional one.
I don't disagree, you have states larger than England and people still do the stupid assumption that we're all plum in cheek, tea swilling, football loving Hugh Grant's.
Do you even English bro?
Yeah, just regrettably from Yorkshire, although I don't drink tea and I'm not a huge football fan. I also like this idea that we see the royal family all the time and that because it's a small country people just travel end to end on a whim.
Regrettably?? Never regret coming from God's Own Country, it's a privilege!
Why do you support subpar rules for our instead of taking it to GW instead of DOING THEIR JOB FOR THEM?
I think we disagree on what we expect GW to do for us.
You don't expect quality in a product that you pay good money for and is presented as the best? You dont expect "write good, well-written rules" to be part of the job of a company selling a game (and no, their whole we sell models and not a game isn't true no matter how many times they repeat it) that has professional game designers working for them? You're basically being promised you're getting a new car and paying for one, and then getting the frame and have to put it together yourself and then rather than be upset just say oh well I'll just ask my friends to help me build it even though I paid for a completely built car.
Now I agree Slayer is sounding harsh but accepting mediocre work that's being peddled as quality is nonsense. You're getting an inferior product and somehow you're okay with that because it's "good enough" and you can work around it.
That's what enables this sort of horsegak to continue. You can enjoy yourself and make do with what you have while not trying to act it's somehow okay that you have to.
I don't disagree, you have states larger than England and people still do the stupid assumption that we're all plum in cheek, tea swilling, football loving Hugh Grant's.
Do you even English bro?
Yeah, just regrettably from Yorkshire, although I don't drink tea and I'm not a huge football fan. I also like this idea that we see the royal family all the time and that because it's a small country people just travel end to end on a whim.
That's ok, I like tea enough for both of us. Are you saying you don't just walk right across the country daily ? My mind is blown right apart now.
Considering he isn't from Liechtenstein, yes he mostlikely will not just walk across his country....
it's more of a jog then a walk as I understand it!
In the case of switzerland it's an Anschluss.
(considering how often we accidentally invaded Lichtenstein during maneouvre trainings )
I don't disagree, you have states larger than England and people still do the stupid assumption that we're all plum in cheek, tea swilling, football loving Hugh Grant's.
Do you even English bro?
Yeah, just regrettably from Yorkshire, although I don't drink tea and I'm not a huge football fan. I also like this idea that we see the royal family all the time and that because it's a small country people just travel end to end on a whim.
Regrettably?? Never regret coming from God's Own Country, it's a privilege!
It's alright for the most part, now the extreme chav phase appears to have gone away, I'm pretty happy here to be honest, it's just dull!
I don't disagree, you have states larger than England and people still do the stupid assumption that we're all plum in cheek, tea swilling, football loving Hugh Grant's.
Do you even English bro?
Yeah, just regrettably from Yorkshire, although I don't drink tea and I'm not a huge football fan. I also like this idea that we see the royal family all the time and that because it's a small country people just travel end to end on a whim.
Regrettably?? Never regret coming from God's Own Country, it's a privilege!
Considering you plebians couldn't even draw a simple cross on your flag
Why do you support subpar rules for our instead of taking it to GW instead of DOING THEIR JOB FOR THEM?
I think we disagree on what we expect GW to do for us.
You don't expect quality in a product that you pay good money for and is presented as the best? You dont expect "write good, well-written rules" to be part of the job of a company selling a game (and no, their whole we sell models and not a game isn't true no matter how many times they repeat it) that has professional game designers working for them? You're basically being promised you're getting a new car and paying for one, and then getting the frame and have to put it together yourself and then rather than be upset just say oh well I'll just ask my friends to help me build it even though I paid for a completely built car.
Now I agree Slayer is sounding harsh but accepting mediocre work that's being peddled as quality is nonsense. You're getting an inferior product and somehow you're okay with that because it's "good enough" and you can work around it.
That's what enables this sort of horsegak to continue. You can enjoy yourself and make do with what you have while not trying to act it's somehow okay that you have to.
Bit, I am ok that I have to? If I didn't like the rules or the company I'd play something else. Why co tinue doing something you don't enjoy? But the point here is if Slayer is making other people not enjoy it.
AngryAngel80 wrote: This has been asked but I'll add to it, what exactly is an American mindset ? Please, enlighten me as I don't want to take it as some kind of insult when you're just a little heated with one poster who happens to be American.
As an American, it's the prescriptive at least pseudo authoritarian mindset that you MUST be told EXACTLY what you HAVE to do. Without going into the hyper competitive aspect of American society. That running joke about keeping up with the Jones' from ye old boomer times anyone? I can rattle off examples all day if you like, the country as a whole has a serious problem accepting things that seem even slightly outside their expectations or anyone else doing better than them.
Meanwhile, you can remove the stick and live life by making some guesses and moving on. Not having to win every single time, not having to be told the exact steps to take in every aspect of life. It's quite nice, and you get far less offended when someone else does things differently. Common decency isn't something that has to be codified for you, it really should be something you can generally figure out. Much like rules to a game.
I don't really subscribe to it myself, but I'll laugh at anyone who insists it isn't a thing. It's why I don't play in tournaments here, it's not worth dealing with those kinds of people.
Also I think the whole America reference is because, at least in games, it seems to be the US who wants it to be 100% competitive, never anything else, if you don't bring your best then why even bother sort of approach with wanting everything to be hyper-competitive with world championships and stardom, while in Europe (and the UK especially) it seems to be people who can and do enjoy playing competitive in a tournament but toning it down and playing something weird/fun in a casual game. They know when to bring their A-list and when not to, and seem to be perfecty fine with this approach.
The US, on the other hand, seems to have a strong aversion to the idea of "toning it down" (as evident, not to single him out, by Slayer's repeating the Peregrine style approach of "Why do I have to tone it down, why can't you jack it up?" as an answer) and feels it has to be 100% competitive all the time, as though the only enjoyment comes from winning a game, not having a fun game. There really does seem to be the idea that you're doing a "disservice" by not min/maxing and bringing the best list every single time, whether it's to a casual game night or a tournament.
Why do you support subpar rules for our instead of taking it to GW instead of DOING THEIR JOB FOR THEM?
I think we disagree on what we expect GW to do for us.
You don't expect quality in a product that you pay good money for and is presented as the best?
I feel that the product is quality. If you don't agree, don't buy it.
Just because I'm okay with it doesn't mean you have to be.
You dont expect "write good, well-written rules" to be part of the job of a company selling a game (and no, their whole we sell models and not a game isn't true no matter how many times they repeat it) that has professional game designers working for them? You're basically being promised you're getting a new car and paying for one, and then getting the frame and have to put it together yourself and then rather than be upset just say oh well I'll just ask my friends to help me build it even though I paid for a completely built car.
No, I'm being promised basic rules and models, and I expect to put in some leg work myself to tailor those rules so that they suit my playstyle better. Again, it goes back to my point on that we expect different things.
You expect something else than I do, which is fine. But as far as I'm concerned, I get what I pay for, and I'm fine with that. If I wasn't, then I wouldn't buy it. If Slayer doesn't like what they get for their money, then they shouldn't buy it. However, what Slayer and I expect for our money are different.
Now I agree Slayer is sounding harsh but accepting mediocre work that's being peddled as quality is nonsense. You're getting an inferior product and somehow you're okay with that because it's "good enough" and you can work around it.
And what if I don't think it's inferior, and am largely fine with what I pay for?
I haven't got a problem with you having different standards to me, but don't expect me to abide by your standards.
*shrug* to each their own, I just don't get how anyone can pay a premium price for rules and then be okay with them being "basic" instead of the whole thing. More power to you for using it as a framework. I am a little envious of the oft-seen UK player's mindset that the rules are a framework, not a bible. Warhammer would be better if everyone thought that way :(
I don't disagree, you have states larger than England and people still do the stupid assumption that we're all plum in cheek, tea swilling, football loving Hugh Grant's.
Do you even English bro?
Yeah, just regrettably from Yorkshire, although I don't drink tea and I'm not a huge football fan. I also like this idea that we see the royal family all the time and that because it's a small country people just travel end to end on a whim.
That's football as in the New England Patriots, right? Go sports!
Wayniac wrote: *shrug* to each their own, I just don't get how anyone can pay a premium price for rules and then be okay with them being "basic" instead of the whole thing. More power to you for using it as a framework. I am a little envious of the oft-seen UK player's mindset that the rules are a framework, not a bible. Warhammer would be better if everyone thought that way :(
Nah, that's fair enough. I'm not confident enough to say if that is genuinely a UK vs US thing, could just be coincidence? But personally, I do agree that the hobby might be better off with that mindset, but then, I'm sure that there'd be people who disagree and think that my opinion is damaging.
Why do you support subpar rules for our instead of taking it to GW instead of DOING THEIR JOB FOR THEM?
I think we disagree on what we expect GW to do for us.
You don't expect quality in a product that you pay good money for and is presented as the best?
I feel that the product is quality. If you don't agree, don't buy it.
Just because I'm okay with it doesn't mean you have to be.
You dont expect "write good, well-written rules" to be part of the job of a company selling a game (and no, their whole we sell models and not a game isn't true no matter how many times they repeat it) that has professional game designers working for them? You're basically being promised you're getting a new car and paying for one, and then getting the frame and have to put it together yourself and then rather than be upset just say oh well I'll just ask my friends to help me build it even though I paid for a completely built car.
No, I'm being promised basic rules and models, and I expect to put in some leg work myself to tailor those rules so that they suit my playstyle better. Again, it goes back to my point on that we expect different things.
You expect something else than I do, which is fine. But as far as I'm concerned, I get what I pay for, and I'm fine with that. If I wasn't, then I wouldn't buy it. If Slayer doesn't like what they get for their money, then they shouldn't buy it. However, what Slayer and I expect for our money are different.
Now I agree Slayer is sounding harsh but accepting mediocre work that's being peddled as quality is nonsense. You're getting an inferior product and somehow you're okay with that because it's "good enough" and you can work around it.
And what if I don't think it's inferior, and am largely fine with what I pay for?
I haven't got a problem with you having different standards to me, but don't expect me to abide by your standards.
So why DO you expect to put legwork into making it work? Why should you have to in the first place?
No, I'm being promised basic rules and models, and I expect to put in some leg work myself to tailor those rules so that they suit my playstyle better. Again, it goes back to my point on that we expect different things.
Wait it is actualy told or writen down somewhere? Can I ask where?
Why do you support subpar rules for our instead of taking it to GW instead of DOING THEIR JOB FOR THEM?
I think we disagree on what we expect GW to do for us.
You don't expect quality in a product that you pay good money for and is presented as the best?
I feel that the product is quality. If you don't agree, don't buy it.
Just because I'm okay with it doesn't mean you have to be.
You dont expect "write good, well-written rules" to be part of the job of a company selling a game (and no, their whole we sell models and not a game isn't true no matter how many times they repeat it) that has professional game designers working for them? You're basically being promised you're getting a new car and paying for one, and then getting the frame and have to put it together yourself and then rather than be upset just say oh well I'll just ask my friends to help me build it even though I paid for a completely built car.
No, I'm being promised basic rules and models, and I expect to put in some leg work myself to tailor those rules so that they suit my playstyle better. Again, it goes back to my point on that we expect different things.
You expect something else than I do, which is fine. But as far as I'm concerned, I get what I pay for, and I'm fine with that. If I wasn't, then I wouldn't buy it. If Slayer doesn't like what they get for their money, then they shouldn't buy it. However, what Slayer and I expect for our money are different.
Now I agree Slayer is sounding harsh but accepting mediocre work that's being peddled as quality is nonsense. You're getting an inferior product and somehow you're okay with that because it's "good enough" and you can work around it.
And what if I don't think it's inferior, and am largely fine with what I pay for?
I haven't got a problem with you having different standards to me, but don't expect me to abide by your standards.
So why DO you expect to put legwork into making it work? Why should you have to in the first place?
This is the thing nobody is answering.
You're mistaking making the rules work vs making a game work. I expect that my opponent will have some expectations on what sort of game they would like, as such I make moves towards enabling a mutually enjoyable game instead of the game I want singularly.
Grey knight player walks in, states they want a tight game - take a good list and have a competitive match. If their list can't compete then you know that they asked for that kind of game and you can advise them how to improve. If they want a casual game, include some fun or kooky units, dial back the big combos and play to the mission but in a relaxed manner, add narrative etc.
None of that facilitates amending rules, working with wonky sets, that's just social skills.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:So why DO you expect to put legwork into making it work? Why should you have to in the first place?
This is the thing nobody is answering.
Because that's what I do for every game. Because we clearly have far deeper views on what we expect from a game that descends into far deeper human psychology for us both.
You've made it very clear yourself that you do not support or accommodate for your co-workers. I do support co-workers and accommodate for strangers. You play to test your skill within an existing set of parameters. I play to create a narrative scenario with a lot of flexibility and co-operation. You see GW as a company that should be putting out well finished watertight products. I see GW as a company putting out open-ended rulesets with room for personal interpretation according to personal whims. You think that GW's product is overpriced for what you get. I don't have a problem paying for what I receive.
I expect to put legwork in because that's what I expect of any leisure game, presumably because various experiences in my life, culture and personality have raised me that way. If that's not a satisfying answer for you, I'd ask you for your response to "why is the idea of putting legwork into something to make it work so unspeakable for you?"
Karol wrote:
No, I'm being promised basic rules and models, and I expect to put in some leg work myself to tailor those rules so that they suit my playstyle better. Again, it goes back to my point on that we expect different things.
Wait it is actualy told or writen down somewhere? Can I ask where?
Nowhere, that's just how I approach any game: I'll attempt to follow the rules as best I can, applying a bit of RAI and streamlining where necessary, but at the end of the day, I treat any rules as a mechanism by which to base a framework of playing the same.
In the same vein, is it written down or actually told that I should be expecting a tightly written and watertight game?
Why do you support subpar rules for our instead of taking it to GW instead of DOING THEIR JOB FOR THEM?
I think we disagree on what we expect GW to do for us.
You don't expect quality in a product that you pay good money for and is presented as the best?
I feel that the product is quality. If you don't agree, don't buy it.
Just because I'm okay with it doesn't mean you have to be.
You dont expect "write good, well-written rules" to be part of the job of a company selling a game (and no, their whole we sell models and not a game isn't true no matter how many times they repeat it) that has professional game designers working for them? You're basically being promised you're getting a new car and paying for one, and then getting the frame and have to put it together yourself and then rather than be upset just say oh well I'll just ask my friends to help me build it even though I paid for a completely built car.
No, I'm being promised basic rules and models, and I expect to put in some leg work myself to tailor those rules so that they suit my playstyle better. Again, it goes back to my point on that we expect different things.
You expect something else than I do, which is fine. But as far as I'm concerned, I get what I pay for, and I'm fine with that. If I wasn't, then I wouldn't buy it. If Slayer doesn't like what they get for their money, then they shouldn't buy it. However, what Slayer and I expect for our money are different.
Now I agree Slayer is sounding harsh but accepting mediocre work that's being peddled as quality is nonsense. You're getting an inferior product and somehow you're okay with that because it's "good enough" and you can work around it.
And what if I don't think it's inferior, and am largely fine with what I pay for?
I haven't got a problem with you having different standards to me, but don't expect me to abide by your standards.
So why DO you expect to put legwork into making it work? Why should you have to in the first place?
This is the thing nobody is answering.
When you buy a house, would you never improve it because the construction company didn't think to put an overhead light in your room?
What do you think baseball was like the first time someone bunted or stole a base... these are likely evolutions in the game that were later incorporated into the rules.
Do you think the hobby police are going to come and arrest you for playing a different game with your models? God forbid you use a 40k model in a pathfinder game as a mini!
Are you even obligated to play 40k if you buy the models?
Are you obligated to buy the models if you use the rules?
I bought the books, the rules, the models. My friends bought what they bought. Why can we not modify the rules to make our games and narratives more exciting for us? Maybe winning despite an advantage your opponent exclusively enjoys makes a great "against all odds" story. Why does it always have to be 100% balanced?
GW provides the framework we use to craft amazing stories and memories, on our terms, with no hostility over the fine (or missing) print. If we don't like something, we change or remove it. Going to come police us to make sure we don't?
Do you think we have diminished experiences because we play differently or not have any additional expectations?
I believe a game should be tight enough that it requires minimal work on the part of the players to be balanced and fun. The fact that GW is putting out fairly frequent FAQs, Errata, and point changes says to me that they also want this; they're just failing at providing it.
I kind of look at it like this: if you bought a PHb for D&D and it was written so poorly that you had to home rule 50% of the classes, weapons, and magic just to have a "balanced" game, you'd probably be pretty upset with WotC. Same deal. I want a ruleset that requires as little legwork on my part as possible. And this is something GW could provide. Yeah, I might still have to specify whether I wanna do competitive or narrative style game, but it CAN be better than it is now.
flandarz wrote: I kind of look at it like this: if you bought a PHb for D&D and it was written so poorly that you had to home rule 50% of the classes, weapons, and magic just to have a "balanced" game, you'd probably be pretty upset with WotC.
In that same vein, I can homerule the PHB to suit my needs accordingly (say, removing or altering Goodberry in a survival heavy game, or playing a low magic setting and stripping lots of magic classes or nerfing them), no matter how balanced it currently is.
They provide the basic framework, and if I'm not satisfied with their core, I change it to suit myself and my group.
flandarz wrote: I believe a game should be tight enough that it requires minimal work on the part of the players to be balanced and fun. The fact that GW is putting out fairly frequent FAQs, Errata, and point changes says to me that they also want this; they're just failing at providing it.
I kind of look at it like this: if you bought a PHb for D&D and it was written so poorly that you had to home rule 50% of the classes, weapons, and magic just to have a "balanced" game, you'd probably be pretty upset with WotC. Same deal. I want a ruleset that requires as little legwork on my part as possible. And this is something GW could provide. Yeah, I might still have to specify whether I wanna do competitive or narrative style game, but it CAN be better than it is now.
As MaRo laid it out in his 20 lessons for 20 years of MTG:
"It is not the job of the player to find the fun in a game. It is the job of the designer to put it where players can't help, but find it."
and also
"Make the fun part also the correct strategy to win" as army building is a big part of the experience, you should not be punished for picking the wrong choices.
flandarz wrote: I kind of look at it like this: if you bought a PHb for D&D and it was written so poorly that you had to home rule 50% of the classes, weapons, and magic just to have a "balanced" game, you'd probably be pretty upset with WotC.
In that same vein, I can homerule the PHB to suit my needs accordingly (say, removing or altering Goodberry in a survival heavy game, or playing a low magic setting and stripping lots of magic classes or nerfing them), no matter how balanced it currently is.
They provide the basic framework, and if I'm not satisfied with their core, I change it to suit myself and my group.
I think you might've missed the point; that being that homebrewing/ruling should be choice, not a requirement.
Dudeface wrote: You're mistaking making the rules work vs making a game work. I expect that my opponent will have some expectations on what sort of game they would like, as such I make moves towards enabling a mutually enjoyable game instead of the game I want singularly.
Grey knight player walks in, states they want a tight game - take a good list and have a competitive match. If their list can't compete then you know that they asked for that kind of game and you can advise them how to improve. If they want a casual game, include some fun or kooky units, dial back the big combos and play to the mission but in a relaxed manner, add narrative etc.
None of that facilitates amending rules, working with wonky sets, that's just social skills.
There seems to be the idea that in a "good" game with balance, there would be no need to "include some fun or kooky units, dial back the big combos and play to the mission but in a relaxed manner" and the fact there is in 40k IS the entire problem. At least that's what I've gathered from Slayer's posts. It's the entire fact that is even a "thing" that could come up (needing to "dial back" your list specifically, but more generally just needing to think about adjusting your list like that) is the "proof" that the rules are bad and not worth the money.
flandarz wrote: I believe a game should be tight enough that it requires minimal work on the part of the players to be balanced and fun. The fact that GW is putting out fairly frequent FAQs, Errata, and point changes says to me that they also want this; they're just failing at providing it.
I kind of look at it like this: if you bought a PHb for D&D and it was written so poorly that you had to home rule 50% of the classes, weapons, and magic just to have a "balanced" game, you'd probably be pretty upset with WotC. Same deal. I want a ruleset that requires as little legwork on my part as possible. And this is something GW could provide. Yeah, I might still have to specify whether I wanna do competitive or narrative style game, but it CAN be better than it is now.
As MaRo laid it out in his 20 lessons for 20 years of MTG:
"It is not the job of the player to find the fun in a game. It is the job of the designer to put it where players can't help, but find it."
and also
"Make the fun part also the correct strategy to win" as army building is a big part of the experience, you should not be punished for picking the wrong choices.
And what percentage of their card base, set by set, is overly ignored and garbage? Magic is not the super balanced game where every card has the same strategic value. You cannot take 60 random cards and expect to compete.
This is not some revolutionary way to deliver product that WotC has devised. It is the same junk GW does. Doesn't stop my wife from making theme decks and having a good time with those bad cards. Come to find out, enjoyment is subjective and threw best a company can do is make their product appeal to an audience. A feat which both GW and WotC have demonstrably achieved.
flandarz wrote: I kind of look at it like this: if you bought a PHb for D&D and it was written so poorly that you had to home rule 50% of the classes, weapons, and magic just to have a "balanced" game, you'd probably be pretty upset with WotC.
In that same vein, I can homerule the PHB to suit my needs accordingly (say, removing or altering Goodberry in a survival heavy game, or playing a low magic setting and stripping lots of magic classes or nerfing them), no matter how balanced it currently is.
They provide the basic framework, and if I'm not satisfied with their core, I change it to suit myself and my group.
I think you might've missed the point; that being that homebrewing/ruling should be choice, not a requirement.
Also this. With the analogy, sure you could house rule the PHB to adjust things. But you shouldn't (and don't) NEED to in order to make it usable. It should be usable out of the box, and the argument is that Warhammer is not because so much of the game depends on the "social contract" that it really defines the nature of the game. That's the difference. D&D you expect the rules to be a framework. With a miniature game, like a board game, you expect a rules manual not a set of guidelines that you then need to "fill in the gaps" to make it serviceable.
Daedalus81 wrote: And then you join a party with half the people wanting to follow the GMs story and the other half just out to cause chaos.
The premise that there's some huge hurdle for warhammer is bs. That other games are simple with no issues is also bs.
If I play a strong Iron Hands list, because I like the idea of robo-Marines, and you play a Grey Knights list, who's job is it to buy more models and tweak their list to make it a fair game?
I think you might've missed the point; that being that homebrewing/ruling should be choice, not a requirement. Also this. With the analogy, sure you could house rule the PHB to adjust things. But you shouldn't (and don't) NEED to in order to make it usable. It should be usable out of the box, and the argument is that Warhammer is not because so much of the game depends on the "social contract" that it really defines the nature of the game. That's the difference. D&D you expect the rules to be a framework. With a miniature game, like a board game, you expect a rules manual not a set of guidelines that you then need to "fill in the gaps" to make it serviceable.
And yet, 40kis useable. The hilarious thing though is historically speaking, wargames are absolutely no different to games like d&d in that they were very much a framework, with an expectation on players to 'social contract' and see he rules as 'guidelines', not 'manuals'. 40k started with a requirement to have a games master for gods sake. In some circles, especially amongst historical gamers, this is still very much one of the central tenets of how they build their games.
And the comparison to board games (collectible miniature games like 40k and warmachine are somewhat different beasts) is not a fair comparison. Board games are typically smaller, far more limited systems, with nothing like the scale, scope or variety you see in games like warmachine and 40k. Those systems are easier to balance, if for no other reason than by nature of being smaller of scale and scope. Now, add the ever required expansions and new waves of stuff, and you will also see that balance fall by the wayside pretty quick. Similarly, if you were to cut 40k down, and pare it to the bone so it could be boardgame scale rather than a mass model game, you would find I easir to balance too. Just don't expect the name 'wayniac' to be warmly received when you tell the community you killed 97% of their game.
I think you might've missed the point; that being that homebrewing/ruling should be choice, not a requirement. Also this. With the analogy, sure you could house rule the PHB to adjust things. But you shouldn't (and don't) NEED to in order to make it usable. It should be usable out of the box, and the argument is that Warhammer is not because so much of the game depends on the "social contract" that it really defines the nature of the game. That's the difference. D&D you expect the rules to be a framework. With a miniature game, like a board game, you expect a rules manual not a set of guidelines that you then need to "fill in the gaps" to make it serviceable.
And yet, 40kis useable. The hilarious thing though is historically speaking, wargames are absolutely no different to games like d&d in that they were very much a framework, with an expectation on players to 'social contract' and see he rules as 'guidelines', not 'manuals'. 40k started with a requirement to have a games master for gods sake. In some circles, especially amongst historical gamers, this is still very much one of the central tenets of how they build their games.
And the comparison to board games (collectible miniature games like 40k and warmachine are somewhat different beasts) is not a fair comparison. Board games are typically smaller, far more limited systems, with nothing like the scale, scope or variety you see in games like warmachine and 40k. Those systems are easier to balance, if for no other reason than by nature of being smaller of scale and scope. Now, add the ever required expansions and new waves of stuff, and you will also see that balance fall by the wayside pretty quick. Similarly, if you were to cut 40k down, and pare it to the bone so it could be boardgame scale rather than a mass model game, you would find I easir to balance too. Just don't expect the name 'wayniac' to be warmly received when you tell the community you killed 97% of their game.
How much does it cost to play D&D 5E?
$50 for a PHB.
$50 for a DMG.
That's $100 minimum, across usually 5 players. Now, the Monster Manual ($50) is an important buy and one I'd consider essential for a starting DM, and a second PHB wouldn't go amiss so there's more to reference. $200 total.
Add on dice and whatnot, call it $50 miscellaneous. $250 across 5 people is $50 a person.
Now, how much does it cost to play a game of 40k? I'll use my example above, with Iron Hands and Grey Knights.
$40-Space Marines Codex
$40-Grey Knights Codex
$30-Iron Hands Supplement
$35-Chapter Approved (2018, or 2019 when it comes out)
$145 across two people for rules alone. That's more expensive than D&D, and I went pretty high on the miscellaneous costs.
Daedalus81 wrote: And then you join a party with half the people wanting to follow the GMs story and the other half just out to cause chaos.
The premise that there's some huge hurdle for warhammer is bs. That other games are simple with no issues is also bs.
If I play a strong Iron Hands list, because I like the idea of robo-Marines, and you play a Grey Knights list, who's job is it to buy more models and tweak their list to make it a fair game?
"Perfect balance" is a fiction. Tournament balance isn't a good benchmark. JNA is describing here exactly what the flaw in 40k is: two new players decide they're going to start 40k. They go out and buy armies (Iron Hands v. GK in this analogy). They start playing games. The GK player gets steamrolled 100% of the time, gets pissed off, and quits.
This is an undesirable outcome.
Whose fault is it? Is it the GK player's responsibility to buy a new, stronger army? Is it the Iron Hands player's responsibility to buy a new, weaker army? Or should it be GW's responsibility to make sure that random people just starting their game in good faith don't run into trap options and feel pressured to buy models they don't like because the ones they do like have trash rules?
That's $100 minimum, across usually 5 players. Now, the Monster Manual ($50) is an important buy and one I'd consider essential for a starting DM, and a second PHB wouldn't go amiss so there's more to reference. $200 total.
Add on dice and whatnot, call it $50 miscellaneous. $250 across 5 people is $50 a person.
Now, how much does it cost to play a game of 40k? I'll use my example above, with Iron Hands and Grey Knights.
$40-Space Marines Codex
$40-Grey Knights Codex
$30-Iron Hands Supplement
$35-Chapter Approved (2018, or 2019 when it comes out)
$145 across two people for rules alone. That's more expensive than D&D, and I went pretty high on the miscellaneous costs.
How much does it cost to play 40k? Might as well ask how long is a piece of string.
I get what you are saying, but I would argue it Depends how you want to approach the game though, doesn't it. You have a very specific example. What happens when both players are space marines, or armies are built on the shadowspear box?
I don't think price comparisons are fair, either. You pay what you pay. Different things cost differently. I spend £100 a month on diesel. That's a warcry starter every month.
Personally speaking, for one, ive never 'split' the cost of a set of rulebooks for an rpg. I am happy to go out and buy the books for my own use (for me, it's the iron kingdoms rpg), so that's $250 on me. Which I don't mind paying, for what it's worth.
Similarly, when it comes to 40k, or gw games in general 'the cost' isn't something that bothers me negatively. I like the models, I like painting, assembling and converting them. To me it's worth it for that. Your mileage may vary and that's cool. My Current project is Warcry (after my last 2 necromunda warbands are painted up!). Hundred quid and I'm pretty certain this will become our game of choice. Seems like a reasonable price though.
Except that's not models. That's EXCLUSIVELY rules. And I would wager that it's far more common for people to start different armies, rather than two armies that can be built from the same Codex. Hell, if they do what you recommend and split a starter box, like Dark Imperium, they need two Dexes.
You can, quite reasonably, get into D&D at $50 or less per person. It's unlikely to reach above $200 per person unless everyone wants all the books-even if each person has their own PHB and dice, you don't need five Monster Manuals or Xanathar's. Whereas to start 40k, you're looking at more money spent on JUST RULES.
I agree that 40k needs some kind of social contract to work. As does any other game. But where I can say "Hey, let's play some D&D! Make a level 3 character, Core only, and have 1k gold to spend on equipment" and you can have a good game with just that information, in 40k (if I want to play a "fair and fun game") I have to provide and be provided far more information. Sometimes right on down to my opponent providing me their army list so I can tailor an "enjoyable experience" around it. To me, that's a problem. It's one thing to go "Let's do a 40k. 1k pts, casual, matched play." And another to go "Ok, I wanna run this Faction, and I'd like to play these units, but only if you don't take these units and please don't play this Faction, and if this mission comes up, I auto-lose, so can we redraw if that happens, oh, and this one unit is about 200 pts too expensive, so do you mind if I play it at the 'right' point cost, and I promise not to use this overpowered stratagem if you promise not to use YOUR overpowered stratagem..." and this can continue on for literal hours before the first model touches the board.
Daedalus81 wrote: And then you join a party with half the people wanting to follow the GMs story and the other half just out to cause chaos.
The premise that there's some huge hurdle for warhammer is bs. That other games are simple with no issues is also bs.
If I play a strong Iron Hands list, because I like the idea of robo-Marines, and you play a Grey Knights list, who's job is it to buy more models and tweak their list to make it a fair game?
I don't think, aside for buying non GK,there is much a GK player can buy to have an actual game vs an IH army. Doesn't even matter if IH list iss uper o ptimised or just primaris stuff or just classic marine stuff. Same with the reverse thing. Even if the IH player decides to skip all tanks, all flyers, all the stuff which is characterful for IH, and just build an army out of a starter sets times x3, it is still going to be a bit too good vs a GK casual list.
I don't think price comparisons are fair, either. You pay what you pay. Different things cost differently. I spend £100 a month on diesel. That's a warcry starter every month.
well price comperation are also hard to do when one country has 4xtimes lower avarge salary then another. It is good for you if paying as much GW games cost now, is okey for you, it may not be okey for someone with 1/10th or 1/100th of income. And worse thing is everyone at forums and stores give people the idea that somehow starter sets or just a few units are enough to play, but they are not. Specially if the meta is shifting or nerfs happen on 6month cycles.
It is confusing also as GW does not put any numbers for how much they expect from people to pay to be able to play their games, on a level where it is fun. If a mobile game has a minium cost of 50$ monthly for basic stuff, I just won't play it. GW on the other hand makes it seem so, as if buying models or even an army ment anything. But it doesn't.
Thing is though for most other wargames, you don't. At least nowhere near the same level. I've never heard of, in Warmahordes, for example, sitting there before a game discussing if you should field Denny2 or Goreshade1 because Denny2 is pretty hardcore. Sure it might happen rarely (I have no idea) but it's not the normal approach. Same with games like Bolt Action, or Infinity, or King of War and others. You don't need to decide if your list is too strong, or if your opponent wants a more laid back game; again sure you can do it, but it's not the normal approach
It's only Warhammer that has such a large level of imbalance that you need to do that.
Nowhere, that's just how I approach any game: I'll attempt to follow the rules as best I can, applying a bit of RAI and streamlining where necessary, but at the end of the day, I treat any rules as a mechanism by which to base a framework of playing the same.
In the same vein, is it written down or actually told that I should be expecting a tightly written and watertight game?
Rules are there to be followed. I mean if I could change the rules how ever I please what would stop me from saying that all my GK always have blessed ammo loaded and don't need to use stratagems, or that termintors can take stormshields etc
I don't even know what RAI is. I read one article about how GW said they thought GW should be played. turn one mass deep strike and mass use of psychic powers and multiple, as in more then 3, units like apothecaries etc. I don't know what what GWs intentions are right now with how GK should work, when they removed all those options from the game. They don't say a thing about their intentions.
plus how would such social rules be enforced. I come up with a set of rules for my army. My opponent doesn't play it. His army works okey within the existing frame work of rules, why should he want to learn or use my rules, when he can just find someone else to play. He doesn't have to spend money to rent a table just so I can play with my made up rules.
Daedalus81 wrote: And then you join a party with half the people wanting to follow the GMs story and the other half just out to cause chaos.
The premise that there's some huge hurdle for warhammer is bs. That other games are simple with no issues is also bs.
If I play a strong Iron Hands list, because I like the idea of robo-Marines, and you play a Grey Knights list, who's job is it to buy more models and tweak their list to make it a fair game?
You decide if you're playing open, narrative, or competitive.
Done. People aren't infants.
If the only way you have fun is by winning then games just aren't for you.
Why do you support subpar rules for our instead of taking it to GW instead of DOING THEIR JOB FOR THEM?
I think we disagree on what we expect GW to do for us.
You don't expect quality in a product that you pay good money for and is presented as the best?
I feel that the product is quality. If you don't agree, don't buy it.
Just because I'm okay with it doesn't mean you have to be.
You dont expect "write good, well-written rules" to be part of the job of a company selling a game (and no, their whole we sell models and not a game isn't true no matter how many times they repeat it) that has professional game designers working for them? You're basically being promised you're getting a new car and paying for one, and then getting the frame and have to put it together yourself and then rather than be upset just say oh well I'll just ask my friends to help me build it even though I paid for a completely built car.
No, I'm being promised basic rules and models, and I expect to put in some leg work myself to tailor those rules so that they suit my playstyle better. Again, it goes back to my point on that we expect different things.
You expect something else than I do, which is fine. But as far as I'm concerned, I get what I pay for, and I'm fine with that. If I wasn't, then I wouldn't buy it. If Slayer doesn't like what they get for their money, then they shouldn't buy it. However, what Slayer and I expect for our money are different.
Now I agree Slayer is sounding harsh but accepting mediocre work that's being peddled as quality is nonsense. You're getting an inferior product and somehow you're okay with that because it's "good enough" and you can work around it.
And what if I don't think it's inferior, and am largely fine with what I pay for?
I haven't got a problem with you having different standards to me, but don't expect me to abide by your standards.
So why DO you expect to put legwork into making it work? Why should you have to in the first place?
This is the thing nobody is answering.
When you buy a house, would you never improve it because the construction company didn't think to put an overhead light in your room?
What do you think baseball was like the first time someone bunted or stole a base... these are likely evolutions in the game that were later incorporated into the rules.
Do you think the hobby police are going to come and arrest you for playing a different game with your models? God forbid you use a 40k model in a pathfinder game as a mini!
Are you even obligated to play 40k if you buy the models?
Are you obligated to buy the models if you use the rules?
I bought the books, the rules, the models. My friends bought what they bought. Why can we not modify the rules to make our games and narratives more exciting for us? Maybe winning despite an advantage your opponent exclusively enjoys makes a great "against all odds" story. Why does it always have to be 100% balanced?
GW provides the framework we use to craft amazing stories and memories, on our terms, with no hostility over the fine (or missing) print. If we don't like something, we change or remove it. Going to come police us to make sure we don't?
Do you think we have diminished experiences because we play differently or not have any additional expectations?
Does any of this answer your question?
Your house analogy would make more sense if you were actually correct.
The real comparison would be like someone buys a house and then realize they need to tent for termites, which have been there for a while, and not getting mad at the realtor for not telling them this would be an issue.
You don't need the light fixture, but you need a solid foundation. 40k's balance is NOT even close to that.
Daedalus81 wrote: And then you join a party with half the people wanting to follow the GMs story and the other half just out to cause chaos.
The premise that there's some huge hurdle for warhammer is bs. That other games are simple with no issues is also bs.
If I play a strong Iron Hands list, because I like the idea of robo-Marines, and you play a Grey Knights list, who's job is it to buy more models and tweak their list to make it a fair game?
You decide if you're playing open, narrative, or competitive.
Done. People aren't infants.
If the only way you have fun is by winning then games just aren't for you.
Infants by nature don't have 700$ dollars and the ability to play w40k. So the example is strange.
Plus this still doesn't anwser the question who is suppose to buy the second army though. Although in the example given it is kind of a hard to match one with the other, because the GK player would have to buy a tournament list and the IH would have to buy something very casual.
When you buy a house, would you never improve it because the construction company didn't think to put an overhead light in your room?
People can actually do stuff like that on their own? Because here you need to have a legal permission for it, anything larger requeries hiring an architect and having local goverment okeying any changes. To have new electrical lines put down, you need a certified electrician, and you still have to have permission from the commune or house owner.
The the fix doesn't work, or works only for good armies who don't need fixs. This like 15year olds decide that they want to wrestle without head gear in their weight class, which to them is a different way of playing, but for the 13-14 year olds matched up against them it only means they get wrecked harder. In fact most trainers wouldn't even allow 13 year olds to do fights without head gear on.
So by that example we could just say that GK should be baned from being played in any setting, as they have an unfixable ruleset right now.
JNAProductions wrote: Open, Narrative, or Matched don’t address GK being way worse than Iron Hands.
And? Do you think Magnus can beat Iron Hands?
you seem to not like the example right? What if it is a GK and BA player. Or GK and Orc player, Or GK and eldar player, or knight or any other army player? Who in the case of one army being much weaker is considered to be the person who is suppose to make the investment to buy a new one. The people that have armies that are good, or at least better, or the person with the bad army.
Because if it is the person with the bad army, then wouldn't it be better, if they just bought a different army? Even if they like the one they play right now? if their army is the worse, they would just be buying in to more bad.
I agree that you shouldn't have to win to have fun. However, it quickly becomes "not fun" if you NEVER win, too. If, when you try your absolute hardest, and field the best possible army you can build, your friend's casual list that he built randomly destroys you while he plays Candy Crush and forgets to use Abilities and Stratagems, you probably ain't gonna feel very fulfilled. If it's the Mission or the dice rolls, you can just say: "I'll try again on a different Mission" or "just unlucky today". But when everything goes your way and you still lose, it hurts.
Then you play to the best of your ability and army limits and take the time to explore new facets. GK has a 43% win rate, so hyperbole about never winning or the game being unplayable because of some imaginary social contract is a bit silly.
Karol wrote:Rules are there to be followed. I mean if I could change the rules how ever I please what would stop me from saying that all my GK always have blessed ammo loaded and don't need to use stratagems, or that termintors can take stormshields etc
When I talk about changing rules, I obviously mean with my opponent's consent. If your opponent is fine with GK having all those things (perhaps because their list repeatedly beats yours, and they want to even things out), then why shouldn't you be able to play like that?
The idea that "those are the rules, we can't break them!" is a bit odd for me. Obviously, don't just disregard them on one player's whims, but if both players really don't care, why should they stick to them?
Again, I want to highlight your comment - it's not about "if I could change the rules however I please", it's about "if we could change the rules however [we please". Don't try and play non-rules stuff with people you haven't talked about it to with, but don't be afraid to talk to people about changing things so you have a more enjoyable time.
I don't even know what RAI is.
Rules As Intended.
An example of this is Assault weapons technically not working in the game because of initial restrictions on firing weapons (something like "weapons cannot be selected to fire if the wielder Advanced" - with the Assault Weapon not being able to be selected to fire, it's ability to fire when Advancing cannot come into effect). However, for other people, they are happy to come to an agreement on what they thought GW meant, and are happy to play the game how they believe GW "intended".
plus how would such social rules be enforced. I come up with a set of rules for my army. My opponent doesn't play it. His army works okey within the existing frame work of rules, why should he want to learn or use my rules, when he can just find someone else to play. He doesn't have to spend money to rent a table just so I can play with my made up rules.
You can't enforce social rules. I can't "enforce" someone holding the door for me if I'm late, I can't "enforce" someone picking up my wallet if I drop it, I can't "enforce" someone saying 'bless you' if I sneeze, but those are all social rules (for my culture, at least). Same way as someone can't "enforce" me to play with ITC/ETC rules, or play competitively - but if you talk to me, maybe we can come to some sort of agreement.
You can't enforce social rules, but if we normalise the idea of talking and discussing what we want from a 40k game in advance, maybe we can all have a better time?
Essentially, don't rely on social rules, but definitely try to talk to people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flandarz wrote: I agree that you shouldn't have to win to have fun. However, it quickly becomes "not fun" if you NEVER win, too. If, when you try your absolute hardest, and field the best possible army you can build, your friend's casual list that he built randomly destroys you while he plays Candy Crush and forgets to use Abilities and Stratagems, you probably ain't gonna feel very fulfilled. If it's the Mission or the dice rolls, you can just say: "I'll try again on a different Mission" or "just unlucky today". But when everything goes your way and you still lose, it hurts.
Won't disagree. However, in this case, my advice would be either to talk to your opponent to see what they can do to make things easier for you (potentially by halving their list, or playing with the Sudden Death Only War cards), playing games where you switch armies, or, in the most drastic of situations, stepping away from the hobby until something changes.
I really do get the feeling of "I can't win, no matter what", but there are options. Talk to people. Try and get them to see your perspective. And if they refuse, honestly, they sound like people I wouldn't want to be near the same table with.
Honestly, many of the people here sound like the type I wouldn't step near a table they were at. The absolutism is pretty abundant and the authoritarian perspectives are everywhere. I'd show up with a milk-toast shoddy GK level custom codex that they would wipe up easily, but it brings a smile to me to simply play my custom force... and they would refuse because it isn't GW written... all the while complaining at how GW writes only the worst of the worst for rules.
Also, didn't 40k start off as a narrative game, not a balanced competitive PvP game?
Purifying Tempest wrote: Honestly, many of the people here sound like the type I wouldn't step near a table they were at. The absolutism is pretty abundant and the authoritarian perspectives are everywhere. I'd show up with a milk-toast shoddy GK level custom codex that they would wipe up easily, but it brings a smile to me to simply play my custom force... and they would refuse because it isn't GW written... all the while complaining at how GW writes only the worst of the worst for rules.
Also, didn't 40k start off as a narrative game, not a balanced competitive PvP game?
it absolutely did. It's good that people are comparing it to D&D because it's worth noting GW effectively got it's start lisencing D&D out in the UK. so I suspect a lot of their design team ahs a RPGesque approuch.
as For D&D's cost it really depends what you want from it. thing is the main cost of 40k is the miniatures. something that for D&D is optional (and could even have similer costs if you say... decided to use AOS Ork minis for your d&d Orks)
when you factor in the costs they're not that majorly differant just for the rules books.
Your average D&D group has a cost of: 1 DMG (shared), 1 Beastary (shared) and 1 PHB per player (sure sometimes people share em but most vetern D&D players like to have their own book handy) plus any supplements you might desire. yet again, if you wanna use a class option from the sword coast adventurer's guide you proably end up buying it yourself.
In addition there may be third party supplements/additions ou are forced to purchase. for example the last time I ran a D&D game I opted to go for a low fantasy game set in middle earth, as such I purchased Cubical 7's Adventure's In middle earth players guide and loremasters guide (people looking to run low magic games BTW should check that out)
so yes, on a purely rules front, D&D is more or less on par with 40k in terms of whats needed. it can be cheaper, but on the other hand if you're DMing the cost of BOOKS for d&d can actually EXCEED the cost of books for 40k.
Wayniac wrote: Slayer I get what you're saying and I agree for the most part but you really are coming off like a selfish ass who doesn't care about anything but your own enjoyment with the way you're wording some of those statements...
I play the game to relax, not to negotiate with my opponent on what's okay and what's not. Only 40k has THAT many issues for a pickup game and the fact that people are DEFENDING this is inexcusable.
Dude every game has that problem. If one person brings a strong tournament list, deck etc and the other person brings a weak list, deck etc the second person gets stomped. That is true for 40k, MTG, warmahordes, infinity, AOS, etc.
Talking to your opponent before a pick up game is important for all these games.
Sorry but MtG and Warmahordes/Machine at minimum do not have that issue. That's basically lying, even WITH the multiple formats MtG has.
I can't speak for Infinity but based on what I've seen in the SF bay area this issue doesn't apply to AoS. So no, you don't know what you're talking about.
Whatever dude. Unlike you I have played all those games and the basic story is the same. All choices are not made equal and the fanbase of every game complain about certain models being OP or too weak. The level of balance issues vary from game to game but they are always there. These issues are not unique to 40k.
Wayniac wrote: Slayer I get what you're saying and I agree for the most part but you really are coming off like a selfish ass who doesn't care about anything but your own enjoyment with the way you're wording some of those statements...
I play the game to relax, not to negotiate with my opponent on what's okay and what's not. Only 40k has THAT many issues for a pickup game and the fact that people are DEFENDING this is inexcusable.
Dude every game has that problem. If one person brings a strong tournament list, deck etc and the other person brings a weak list, deck etc the second person gets stomped. That is true for 40k, MTG, warmahordes, infinity, AOS, etc.
Talking to your opponent before a pick up game is important for all these games.
Sorry but MtG and Warmahordes/Machine at minimum do not have that issue. That's basically lying, even WITH the multiple formats MtG has.
I can't speak for Infinity but based on what I've seen in the SF bay area this issue doesn't apply to AoS. So no, you don't know what you're talking about.
Whatever dude. Unlike you I have played all those games and the basic story is the same. All choices are not made equal and the fanbase of every game complain about certain models being OP or too weak. The level of balance issues vary from game to game but they are always there. These issues are not unique to 40k.
I have played Warmahordes too, and while the issues aren't unique to 40k, 40k has the worst that I've seen in any game.
Any of you guys watch Tabletop Tactics? It's good that there's a 3rd party involved in the game, to help arbitrate and manage the game. There's even video review to help keep everyone honest!
Some players might want to win on their list building and not on the tabletop, but a good arbitrator will not approve of a clear mismatch. They'd look at the lists and veto anything that's going to be a curbstomp. Lots of things affect balance -- terrain, player skill, mission format, scaling and skew lists, etc.
The best balance tool is going to be humans who are playing the game. Those who choose not to use it, were not interested in balanced play in the first place!
Yoyoyo wrote: Any of you guys watch Tabletop Tactics? It's good that there's a 3rd party involved in the game, to help arbitrate and manage the game. There's even video review to help keep everyone honest!
Some players might want to win on their list building and not on the tabletop, but a good arbitrator will not approve of a clear mismatch. They'd look at the lists and veto anything that's going to be a curbstomp. Lots of things affect balance -- terrain, player skill, mission format, scaling and skew lists, etc.
The best balance tool is going to be humans who are playing the game. Those who choose not to use it, were not interested in balanced play in the first place!
Because new players who literally CAN’T make a different list can get stuffed, right?
Daedalus81 wrote: Then you play to the best of your ability and army limits and take the time to explore new facets. GK has a 43% win rate, so hyperbole about never winning or the game being unplayable because of some imaginary social contract is a bit silly.
It was deliberately hyperbolic, because that's how a new player will think if they lose 5 or 6 times in a row. That's where the imbalance issues come into effect. Us veterans can understand that unit choices, strategy, and sometimes just plain old bad luck have a lot to do with whether we win or lose, but newer players are just gonna see that the models they think are cool keep getting beaten and immediately think "I picked wrong."
Also, it bears mentioning that tournament W/L percentages rarely translate as well to the FLGS scene. In tournaments, players often take "the best" units they can and are usually veteran players. So, while GK may have an 43% win rate in tournaments, it's gonna be with just a handful of unit choices and an experienced player backing them. A new player, or even just a less experienced one, just buying, painting, and playing the units they think are cool will likely not have the same success.
Because I, having played 40k for years now, can probably guestimate what makes a balanced list. New players? Hell no.
Well, yes! But I guess that's why it's important to cultivate communities that care about player experience, and feeling you have a fair shot on the table is a part of that.
At the end of the day, GW is a publicly traded company. Their primary responsibility is to their shareholders. When players run out in droves to purchase unbalanced models that increase their chances to stomp an unprepared opponent, that sends a message that unbalanced rules work. So in this sense? The financial imperatives of the company and the experience of the player are at odds. It's frustrating to see but not even GW's balance team can override the execs. So everything else to preserve an acceptable experience has to be done player side.
Purifying Tempest wrote: Honestly, many of the people here sound like the type I wouldn't step near a table they were at. The absolutism is pretty abundant and the authoritarian perspectives are everywhere. I'd show up with a milk-toast shoddy GK level custom codex that they would wipe up easily, but it brings a smile to me to simply play my custom force... and they would refuse because it isn't GW written... all the while complaining at how GW writes only the worst of the worst for rules.
Also, didn't 40k start off as a narrative game, not a balanced competitive PvP game?
I'd love to play against your custom rules. I'd also love to play a game that didn't force players to rewrite the rules to have a good time, but if you don't mind the fact that you have to rebuild 40k for a bunch of stuff to work it's great.
Its really hard to get too low win % in a tournament setting due to how people are matched in the lower rankings after a few games.
GK might have 42% win rate overall but most of those are probably against BA/DA/SW if against marines and not the new codex marines since IH dont even lose enough to get to the lowest 20% of the rankings to face GK in round 3-5. You usually have the worst players and the worst list/armies duking it out at the bottom and thats the only reason gk isnt dropping lower. I bet if you had gk play against only the top lists of the new Marines, Imperial soup, eldar flyers, tau, ork and GSC their win rate would be much much much lower than 40%. Its the same reason even a very strong army have trouble reaching much above 55% unless its totaly broken. They will face off against the other top lists mostly and that will even out their win %.
An army with 55% overall vs an army with 45% overall isnt gonna be a fair match even if it might look like it would be a 55/45 split in win chance. But in practice its more likely to be a 80/20 or even 90/10 advantage and only reason it isnt higher is due to the chance the worse army might get first turn and roll hot and still win. If it were a best of 3 though it might be closer to a 95/5 advantage to the stronger list.
The above 50% win rates are against the strongest lists/opponents while the sub 50% are against the weaker so each % difference between top and bottom is a much larger strength difference than what it might see.
Purifying Tempest wrote: Honestly, many of the people here sound like the type I wouldn't step near a table they were at. The absolutism is pretty abundant and the authoritarian perspectives are everywhere. I'd show up with a milk-toast shoddy GK level custom codex that they would wipe up easily, but it brings a smile to me to simply play my custom force... and they would refuse because it isn't GW written... all the while complaining at how GW writes only the worst of the worst for rules.
Also, didn't 40k start off as a narrative game, not a balanced competitive PvP game?
I'd love to play against your custom rules. I'd also love to play a game that didn't force players to rewrite the rules to have a good time, but if you don't mind the fact that you have to rebuild 40k for a bunch of stuff to work it's great.
most games that have been around awhile tend to have a collection of common house rules I've found. using a table top gaming example, Battletech has a rule that allows you to make a through armor critical hit, offically according to the rules this is only ever on the center torso, but a common house rule is "floating crits" where after you roll a TAC you roll for location. It's not part of the offical rules (last I checked) but it's used so often even many of the writers use it at their home games. (thought I'd give an example of another wargame. one whose rules are almost universlly agreed to be pretty solid)
AnomanderRake wrote: "Perfect balance" is a fiction. Tournament balance isn't a good benchmark. JNA is describing here exactly what the flaw in 40k is: two new players decide they're going to start 40k. They go out and buy armies (Iron Hands v. GK in this analogy). They start playing games. The GK player gets steamrolled 100% of the time, gets pissed off, and quits.
This is an undesirable outcome.
Whose fault is it? Is it the GK player's responsibility to buy a new, stronger army? Is it the Iron Hands player's responsibility to buy a new, weaker army? Or should it be GW's responsibility to make sure that random people just starting their game in good faith don't run into trap options and feel pressured to buy models they don't like because the ones they do like have trash rules?
I thought about this the other day and I think the best (and in practice most viable) solution would be to balance the Start Collecting! boxes as close to each other as possible, given the current ruleset when they were released. We need a common ground for balance to be able to provide it in the first place.
I mean think about it. If both players just pick three random boxes to start their army (HQ, troop and X), then one could end up with a Dreadknight Grand Master, 5 Strikes and a Stormraven, while the other guy brings IFF, 10 Primaris and a Land Speeder Storm. Without knowing the rules by heart, I tried to pick a combination where the GK player should be winning most of the time with ease. I think this is a situation that can come up in any game where not every unit/card/whatever is balanced against each other and not one unique to Warhammer.
If the tables turn around with an increasing collection and both notice that Iron Hands are in general much stronger than Grey Knights, out of courtesy and friendship, the Iron Hand player could play a different chapter against his friend. Unless the GK player insists that your Marines need to use the correct color scheme to use different rules
AnomanderRake wrote: "Perfect balance" is a fiction. Tournament balance isn't a good benchmark. JNA is describing here exactly what the flaw in 40k is: two new players decide they're going to start 40k. They go out and buy armies (Iron Hands v. GK in this analogy). They start playing games. The GK player gets steamrolled 100% of the time, gets pissed off, and quits.
This is an undesirable outcome.
Whose fault is it? Is it the GK player's responsibility to buy a new, stronger army? Is it the Iron Hands player's responsibility to buy a new, weaker army? Or should it be GW's responsibility to make sure that random people just starting their game in good faith don't run into trap options and feel pressured to buy models they don't like because the ones they do like have trash rules?
I thought about this the other day and I think the best (and in practice most viable) solution would be to balance the Start Collecting! boxes as close to each other as possible, given the current ruleset when they were released. We need a common ground for balance to be able to provide it in the first place.
I mean think about it. If both players just pick three random boxes to start their army (HQ, troop and X), then one could end up with a Dreadknight Grand Master, 5 Strikes and a Stormraven, while the other guy brings IFF, 10 Primaris and a Land Speeder Storm. Without knowing the rules by heart, I tried to pick a combination where the GK player should be winning most of the time with ease. I think this is a situation that can come up in any game where not every unit/card/whatever is balanced against each other and not one unique to Warhammer.
If the tables turn around with an increasing collection and both notice that Iron Hands are in general much stronger than Grey Knights, out of courtesy and friendship, the Iron Hand player could play a different chapter against his friend. Unless the GK player insists that your Marines need to use the correct color scheme to use different rules
the problem is SC boxes are designed to be a value deal of around 100 bucks to start a new army. some armies simply provide more "bang for your buck" I mean, let's take some extreme examples here, Imperial Guard vs Custodes.
Custodes effectively get a start collecting box in a custodian guard box, giving 1 HQ, 1 troop and 1 elite if you build em that way.
this is a points cost of about 400 points or so. Meanwhile, Imperial Guard gives you 1 Lemen Russ, 1 Comissar, 1 guard squad, and a HWT, this is about 300 points. for a box that costs roughly twice as much but is still honestly a deal. (total price of the contents of the box: 18 USD for the Comissar, 35 dollars for the guard squad, 55 for the Lemen russ, and... you can't get a single HWT normally. for a total value of just over 110 bucks.) these are extreme ends of the deal, custodes don't even have a SC box due to their elite nature combined with the Custodian Guard box effectively acting as one, but it serves to illustrate that you can't balance starter armies unless you do some weird pricing so every unit has an approx same price to points ratio.
I can't speak for Infinity but based on what I've seen in the SF bay area this issue doesn't apply to AoS. So no, you don't know what you're talking about.
Whatever dude. Unlike you I have played all those games and the basic story is the same. All choices are not made equal and the fanbase of every game complain about certain models being OP or too weak. The level of balance issues vary from game to game but they are always there. These issues are not unique to 40k.
But scale matters. yes MtG can have someone bring a deck worth as much as a car, and someone with a standard deck, even oko, get destroyed turn one. that is not the problem with w40k, and from what I read AoS too. The problem, some armies may always be non valid for tournaments. The real problems start when to play on the most basic of level some faction have to bring tournament lists, because then the whole play what you want with models you like, becomes an illusion. And then it becomes even worse, when even those tournament lists struggle vs basic list made with other books. Now I don't know about all the games listed, but in general if you spend 700$ on standard you get a deck that works, till a nerf at least. If you get 700$ of infinity you get multiple armies, and to some level all of them work. If you get 700$ of GK, you have to go after very specific units and the army is still bad comparing to a lot of other armies. How many trap choices and trap factions are there in other games?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion 781894 10624334 wrote:
the problem is SC boxes are designed to be a value deal of around 100 bucks to start a new army. some armies simply provide more "bang for your buck" I mean, let's take some extreme examples here, Imperial Guard vs Custodes.
Custodes effectively get a start collecting box in a custodian guard box, giving 1 HQ, 1 troop and 1 elite if you build em that way.
this is a points cost of about 400 points or so. Meanwhile, Imperial Guard gives you 1 Lemen Russ, 1 Comissar, 1 guard squad, and a HWT, this is about 300 points. for a box that costs roughly twice as much but is still honestly a deal. (total price of the contents of the box: 18 USD for the Comissar, 35 dollars for the guard squad, 55 for the Lemen russ, and... you can't get a single HWT normally. for a total value of just over 110 bucks.) these are extreme ends of the deal, custodes don't even have a SC box due to their elite nature combined with the Custodian Guard box effectively acting as one, but it serves to illustrate that you can't balance starter armies unless you do some weird pricing so every unit has an approx same price to points ratio.
the problem with SC boxs is that they are often full of units that never are going to be used. The IG box is great, as is the space wolf one. But the BA or chaos marine one? where is anyone ever going to use the venom crawler or termintor armoured HQs? GW can of course about how much you "save" with their boxs, based on the retail prices they have. But only thing that proves is how crazy the prices are. We just have to look at the last eldar dual box. Now that one was full of savings. Only stuff like vipers and falcons are in every other eldar box, and the DE stuff consists of units no one uses. A SC box can often be a trap option to buy. Plus some armies don't even have start collecting or bundle boxs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mean think about it. If both players just pick three random boxes to start their army (HQ, troop and X), then one could end up with a Dreadknight Grand Master, 5 Strikes and a Stormraven, while the other guy brings IFF, 10 Primaris and a Land Speeder Storm. Without knowing the rules by heart, I tried to pick a combination where the GK player should be winning most of the time with ease. I think this is a situation that can come up in any game where not every unit/card/whatever is balanced against each other and not one unique to Warhammer.
now am not sure what an IFF is, but the GK player is clearly cheating, by bringing a lot more points then the IH players. I mean this way we can as well say that the GK player brings 2000pts of tournament list, and the IH player brings an open list of nothing but melee servitors, and he has only 400pts in them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yoyoyo wrote: Why not just balance the armies without points?
AoS tried it, and it almost died because of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: Then you play to the best of your ability and army limits and take the time to explore new facets. GK has a 43% win rate, so hyperbole about never winning or the game being unplayable because of some imaginary social contract is a bit silly.
yeah played with ally, and units I don't like the looks of. The armies are all power armoured dudes. Meaning I would have to more or less buy a whole new army to play a 43% win ratio GK one. And if I had the money to do it, why the hell would I invest them in a bad GK army, that maybe will get nerfed again in a FAQ or CA, when GW decides that interceptors are too good or that GK strikes don't cost enough, comparing to purificators? I am may not be smart or get everything, but right now I know that buying anything GK is just pure stupidity.
also win ratios of 43%, under a rule set we don't use here, doesn't really help much. what is the GK win ratio vs eldars with flyers or the new marines, or chaos soups with demons and ahriman. I bet the win ratio is not 43%.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Won't disagree. However, in this case, my advice would be either to talk to your opponent to see what they can do to make things easier for you (potentially by halving their list, or playing with the Sudden Death Only War cards), playing games where you switch armies, or, in the most drastic of situations, stepping away from the hobby until something changes.
I really do get the feeling of "I can't win, no matter what", but there are options. Talk to people. Try and get them to see your perspective. And if they refuse, honestly, they sound like people I wouldn't want to be near the same table with.
Oh I did that months ago, I think I even asked people here to help how to phrase it, as am not very good with such stuff. The anwser I got was no. People here are happy with their armies, those that aren't leave the game, but they are also rich enough to start other games. Out of the people that started at the same as me only 2 other people play w40k, the rest play different stuff. We play matched play 2000pts, ETC terrain rules, no FW rules, all rules from codex and CA. In two stores closest to me, which at I wouldn't play anyway as they are too far away, it is the same.
Karol wrote: AoS tried it, and it almost died because of it.
Well there's no reason not to use points when they work. It's valuable to have a baseline and it's fun to min-max and theorycraft. Plus I think players usually benefit from constraints in a design sense. But if it still won't work on the TT to have a fun game, you can defang a mean list by bringing in more overcosted units and forfeiting things like mono-faction bonuses. That's "balancing wiithout points" even if technically it's a more mixed approach. Because evidently those bonuses are not reflected accurately -- as a living breathing human, you can take a much more qualified and granular approach.
Like for example, what's the value of an assault army on a board with perfect LOS blocking terrain, average terrain, and no terrain whatsoever? This has an effect on gameplay and there's nothing in the unit datasheets that can reflect that.
But scale matters. yes MtG can have someone bring a deck worth as much as a car, and someone with a standard deck, even oko, get destroyed turn one. that is not the problem with w40k, and from what I read AoS too. The problem, some armies may always be non valid for tournaments. The real problems start when to play on the most basic of level some faction have to bring tournament lists, because then the whole play what you want with models you like, becomes an illusion. And then it becomes even worse, when even those tournament lists struggle vs basic list made with other books. Now I don't know about all the games listed, but in general if you spend 700$ on standard you get a deck that works, till a nerf at least. If you get 700$ of infinity you get multiple armies, and to some level all of them work. If you get 700$ of GK, you have to go after very specific units and the army is still bad comparing to a lot of other armies. How many trap choices and trap factions are there in other games?
There are a lot of noob traps in games, miniature games are no exception. If what you care about is winning then best practice when starting a new miniatures game is to research the game before hand before making any purchases. If you only buy models based on what looks cool and not what performs on the table you could easily end up with a bad list. A bad list you spent hours assembling and painting. 40k defiantly has this problem but other games do as well.
Wayniac wrote:I have played Warmahordes too, and while the issues aren't unique to 40k, 40k has the worst that I've seen in any game.
I would argue CCGs are worse. There the imbalance is built into the business model. GW may or may not release CA 2019 next month with buffs to GK but I guarantee you that WoTC will keep churning out cards in every set that are hot garbage.
If you only buy models based on what looks cool and not what performs on the table you could easily end up with a bad list. A bad list you spent hours assembling and painting. 40k defiantly has this problem but other games do as well.
my models came pre painted, so I skiped the proces. Still it doesn't really help much that other games have it too. MtG can be played with good enough when sleeved china versions of the card for fraction of the cost of a w40k army. I also have my doubts that a 20 model infintiy army costs 700$ for a casual list.
Like for example, what's the value of an assault army on a board with perfect LOS blocking terrain, average terrain, and no terrain whatsoever? This has an effect on gameplay and there's nothing in the unit datasheets that can reflect that.
Maybe, the biggest impact game wise at least, was that when GW made my army they said it is suppose to play with deep strike and running more then 3 of support options. And non of those things can be done by the army, but the point cost of the options are reflected in the rules and the price per model. I don't mind having a weaker or even weak army, but it should work. What fun is there in playing a melee, psyker anti demon army , when the army is horrible at melee, nothing special at psychic stuff and the worse army to play against demons? if suddenly GK were turned in to an army of doom, but would require spaming of techmarines and tanks it wouldn't feel as bad, but in reality wouldn't it be just different coloured IH then? To use a non GK example, I doubt and orc player would be happy about his army being mostly grut, and I know that csm players aren't very happy that their armies are suppose to include as few csm as possible in them.
So to be happy all you need is to have money for projects, friends and not die. Well I guess that is a good advice as any. Kind of doesn't say what you are suppose to do when you don't have new models to paint, because everything is painted or when you don't have any friends.
Karol wrote: my models came pre painted, so I skiped the proces. Still it doesn't really help much that other games have it too. MtG can be played with good enough when sleeved china versions of the card for fraction of the cost of a w40k army. I also have my doubts that a 20 model infintiy army costs 700$ for a casual list.
Different hobbies have different costs for entering and constantly participating in a meaningful way. Not everybody can participate in every hobby. A friend of mine would like to have a horse but can't afford it. She got a dog and a cat instead and is happy with them.
To be helpful for your comparison: You could start another 40k army with a Kill Team and slowly build from there. Or - and this has to be said - if something else like Infinity is more affordable for you and better balance wise (or at least the cost for another faction so low that you could easily switch if your army gets weak rules), then taking a step back from Warhammer until your financial situation improved is an option to consider.
Karol wrote: So to be happy all you need is to have money for projects, friends and not die. Well I guess that is a good advice as any. Kind of doesn't say what you are suppose to do when you don't have new models to paint, because everything is painted or when you don't have any friends.
If you want to paint models and all your models are painted, then the obvious thing to do is... to go and buy something to paint I mean what are you expecting here?
From the few posts I read from you over various threads I get the feeling that your local Warhammer community is not the best anyway, so how about reaching out to people via forums? Either on Dakka or websites in your own language. I'm certain there are more than you and the two other guys from the store playing Warhammer in your area.
if something else like Infinity is more affordable for you and better balance wise (or at least the cost for another faction so low that you could easily switch if your army gets weak rules), then taking a step back from Warhammer until your financial situation improved is an option to consider.
Infinity is only an option if he actually has a group there.
I would argue CCGs are worse. There the imbalance is built into the business model. GW may or may not release CA 2019 next month with buffs to GK but I guarantee you that WoTC will keep churning out cards in every set that are hot garbage.
and at least with 40k if I know something is hot garbage and don't want it I'm not going to have to buy it on the chance I'll get it. If I want Primaris intercessors and assault marines are garbage I don't need to worry about "getting another damned assault marine!"
a_typical_hero wrote: Yep, of course. I was mentioning Infinity since Karol brought it up. Any other game system with a community in the area will do
It's funny that just about every other mini game has better balance and generally lower buy in cost than 40k yet no one ever thinks to try getting a group to start them. Even other GW games like Necromunda and Blood Bowl are forgotten about.
I think its a perception of making the most of your time. People with jobs or college or young families don't get out a lot so they feel that to make the most of their time they would rather play one 4 hour games than two 2 hour games. Also its just easier to find 40k players, but I have several Malifaux factions and two large Infinity armies and a decent sized board game collection and trying to get people to try new things is still a pain even when I have all the stuff. They just need to show up. I dunno what it is.
a_typical_hero wrote: Yep, of course. I was mentioning Infinity since Karol brought it up. Any other game system with a community in the area will do
It's funny that just about every other mini game has better balance and generally lower buy in cost than 40k yet no one ever thinks to try getting a group to start them. Even other GW games like Necromunda and Blood Bowl are forgotten about.
I think its a perception of making the most of your time. People with jobs or college or young families don't get out a lot so they feel that to make the most of their time they would rather play one 4 hour games than two 2 hour games. Also its just easier to find 40k players, but I have several Malifaux factions and two large Infinity armies and a decent sized board game collection and trying to get people to try new things is still a pain even when I have all the stuff. They just need to show up. I dunno what it is.
well here no one starts other games, because the store owners doesn't let people play stuff he doesn't sell. I like medival looking stuff, knights and stuff like that. I have seen some very nice game of thrones models online, but I wouldn't be able to play the game anywhere even if I had the money to buy in to it right now.
Infinity and 9th age are the only two games, besides cards and board games, being played at my store. Both are very tournament driven, and much smaller then the w40k.
Different hobbies have different costs for entering and constantly participating in a meaningful way. Not everybody can participate in every hobby. A friend of mine would like to have a horse but can't afford it. She got a dog and a cat instead and is happy with them.
That I don't agree. Although in my defence, no one at the store told me that a bad and good army cost often the same in w40k. Plus this was my first hobby, I invested my confirmation money in. Later durning summer my dad told me I shouldn't have started to play w40k, but it was too late then. Right now my budget for anything is under 5$ per month, so the chance of starting anything is close to zero.
From the few posts I read from you over various threads I get the feeling that your local Warhammer community is not the best anyway, so how about reaching out to people via forums? Either on Dakka or websites in your own language. I'm certain there are more than you and the two other guys from the store playing Warhammer in your area.
yes, there is over 26 people playing in store events every month. all people here play the same way. Closest other store are too far for me to go to, but some people from here go there, and it doesn't sound like they use other rules. When I posted questions on polish forums, I got laughed at. Dakka was my 3ed choice, after 4chan.
If you want to paint models and all your models are painted, then the obvious thing to do is... to go and buy something to paint I mean what are you expecting here?
I don't want to paint models, or rather I don't know If I would like to paint models. I do know, that I don't want to spend money on paints and brushs though. I was drawing the conclusion from the article, that to enjoy the hobby painting models is required.
A big issue, as is often stated, is that other games need traction/acceptance. 40k, despite its flaws, is the "safe choice", the gaming equivalent to "no one ever got fired for buying IBM". You can reasonably expect stores to stock the product (or be willing to order it), there to be tables and terrain set up for it, and people to play with.
Not always the case with other games, even if they have better rules. And since gamers as a whole seem to be reluctant to take the first step sometimes, you get a situation where nobody looks at other games because nobody thinks there will be interest, so nobody has intrest in other games because nobody ever talks about them.
They get fired after the first maintenance renewal comes in.
God that company is a nightmare.
As far as game systems go it really does depend on who is at your club and has a strong enough personality to change the game played by the majority. Kings of War and 9th Age were great, but they were so bland. Hordes was fun for a bit, but I just hate the models. There isn't a lot else out there with the logistics to support gaming globally.
Wayniac wrote: A big issue, as is often stated, is that other games need traction/acceptance. 40k, despite its flaws, is the "safe choice", the gaming equivalent to "no one ever got fired for buying IBM". You can reasonably expect stores to stock the product (or be willing to order it), there to be tables and terrain set up for it, and people to play with.
Not always the case with other games, even if they have better rules. And since gamers as a whole seem to be reluctant to take the first step sometimes, you get a situation where nobody looks at other games because nobody thinks there will be interest, so nobody has intrest in other games because nobody ever talks about them.
What happens in the circles I game with is this:
A new game is coming out/one of us sees something. If it piques someones interest they'll look into it a bit further. After that look they'll bring it up to the rest of us. "Hey, have you seen.... What do you think of...."
A recent example of this is Black Seas - a 1700-1800s age of sail ship game. You know, pirates, HMS Victory, Battle of Trafalgar.... Most of the group was pass/meh on it. Two of us were quite interested though (personally I think there's better rules sets for this than what Warlord produces, but....) & another one or two will give it a try (by using borrowed ships - if they like it enough they'l buy their own eventually).
And so I now have a box of tiny plastic ships assembled & in various stages of painting. I HAVE to paint these now as opposed to later as they look pretty poor without their sails/rigging attached & painting them after that step will be A LOT harder.
I would argue CCGs are worse. There the imbalance is built into the business model. GW may or may not release CA 2019 next month with buffs to GK but I guarantee you that WoTC will keep churning out cards in every set that are hot garbage.
and at least with 40k if I know something is hot garbage and don't want it I'm not going to have to buy it on the chance I'll get it. If I want Primaris intercessors and assault marines are garbage I don't need to worry about "getting another damned assault marine!"
You can get any card without having to buy packs of any card game, Fans of magic often tell players not to buy packs as its never the best way to get cards you need or want. But for a lot of players, opening packs itself can be fun. Trades are still quite a bit of the hobby itself for some people. And Draft and other formats that use the packs itself as part of the game.
Wayniac wrote: A big issue, as is often stated, is that other games need traction/acceptance. 40k, despite its flaws, is the "safe choice", the gaming equivalent to "no one ever got fired for buying IBM". You can reasonably expect stores to stock the product (or be willing to order it), there to be tables and terrain set up for it, and people to play with.
Not always the case with other games, even if they have better rules. And since gamers as a whole seem to be reluctant to take the first step sometimes, you get a situation where nobody looks at other games because nobody thinks there will be interest, so nobody has intrest in other games because nobody ever talks about them.
What happens in the circles I game with is this:
A new game is coming out/one of us sees something. If it piques someones interest they'll look into it a bit further. After that look they'll bring it up to the rest of us. "Hey, have you seen.... What do you think of...."
A recent example of this is Black Seas - a 1700-1800s age of sail ship game. You know, pirates, HMS Victory, Battle of Trafalgar.... Most of the group was pass/meh on it. Two of us were quite interested though (personally I think there's better rules sets for this than what Warlord produces, but....) & another one or two will give it a try (by using borrowed ships - if they like it enough they'l buy their own eventually).
And so I now have a box of tiny plastic ships assembled & in various stages of painting. I HAVE to paint these now as opposed to later as they look pretty poor without their sails/rigging attached & painting them after that step will be A LOT harder.
This is a lucky example. Far too often I see where the answer to "Have you seen" or "What do you think of" is either simply ignoring it, or saying how you have no interest in age of sail and nobody cares, while going back to playing Warhammer. That is assuming the game store isn't hostile to games they don't sell, which I've also seen.
Prices of cards isnt high due to lots of crap cards in each booster. Wotc sets the print run and decides the supply so they could change it in a heartbeat if they wanted. The "crap" cards are designed with other formats in mind, at least for the last decades, and you kind of get them for free.
You should only buy boosters if you like to draft or gamble and never to build a deck. It is a bit of a noob trap but I really like how its done. I mostly play limited and my left over cards enter the card pool of the constructed players and increases the supply for them while they subsidize my limited drafts by paying for cards I dont use. Its a win win.
Decks rotate but there are many popular game modes so most of the staple cards are always in demand and playable in some archetype in some format. And there isnt much of a downside to carrying around 3-5 decks for different format at a time since they are small and easy to carry and can be traded for cash quickly if you want to change anything. Unlike warhammer which is hard to carry around or trade with and you might have hundreds if not thousands of hours of personal investment in building and painting. If you have a bottom tier army it would be hard to quickly find a top tier army to trade for if they are both equal value/standard but you could trade a bad legacy deck for an equivalent modern deck in hours in a larger city or just a few days online.
Its ok for MtG to rotate and change which deck is at the top often and not have perfect balance below the top tier since its a completely different game with different investments than wargaming. Not really comparable in this regard.
Klickor wrote: Prices of cards isnt high due to lots of crap cards in each booster. Wotc sets the print run and decides the supply so they could change it in a heartbeat if they wanted. The "crap" cards are designed with other formats in mind, at least for the last decades, and you kind of get them for free.
You should only buy boosters if you like to draft or gamble and never to build a deck. It is a bit of a noob trap but I really like how its done. I mostly play limited and my left over cards enter the card pool of the constructed players and increases the supply for them while they subsidize my limited drafts by paying for cards I dont use. Its a win win.
Decks rotate but there are many popular game modes so most of the staple cards are always in demand and playable in some archetype in some format. And there isnt much of a downside to carrying around 3-5 decks for different format at a time since they are small and easy to carry and can be traded for cash quickly if you want to change anything. Unlike warhammer which is hard to carry around or trade with and you might have hundreds if not thousands of hours of personal investment in building and painting. If you have a bottom tier army it would be hard to quickly find a top tier army to trade for if they are both equal value/standard but you could trade a bad legacy deck for an equivalent modern deck in hours in a larger city or just a few days online.
Its ok for MtG to rotate and change which deck is at the top often and not have perfect balance below the top tier since its a completely different game with different investments than wargaming. Not really comparable in this regard.
Balance-wise, MTG and 40k is not a great comparison.
Those "cards for other formats" in Magic are either terrible in anything but Commander, or deliberately designed to be worthless outside of limited, where no-one gets enough powerful cards that the garbage ones can't be ignored. Mark Rosewater himself said on his blog, in response to questions about making packs that weren't meant for drafting that "not designing for draft will not get you the cards you want." Those garbage cards are intended to fill packs, so that cardboard addicts will buy and buy hunting for the few viable ones printed in a set. I hate this part of Magic. There are way too many neat cards that aren't viable if you actually want to win games. Magic has come to a point recently where if practices don't change, and soon, players are going to abandon Magic for other games.
Rotating Standard is necessary for Magic. WOTC does need to sell cards to be able to keep making them, and supporting organized play. If standard never rotated, it wouldn't be standard- it would be vintage- bonkers fast and expensive. And new cards with new abilities would be even less likely to be viable.
Magic also has the pauper format, where only commons are legal.
40k isn't even poorly balanced by design, the rules team just isn't competent at their jobs, and the powers that be, at least, are opposed to hiring people with technical writing skills, and utilizing a more effective method of play testing. Why are there still arguments about people who are paid to write rules, doing their jobs properly, and the erroneous viewpoint that it is somehow up to the players to make the products that they have massively overpaid for "work?" This GW culture is baffling.
I agree. Wotc know what they do when they make cards. Unlike GW it is by design. Its bad for the consumer but you cant say they dont know what they are doing just maybe that they shouldnt.
Klickor wrote: I agree. Wotc know what they do when they make cards. Unlike GW it is by design. Its bad for the consumer but you cant say they dont know what they are doing just maybe that they shouldnt.
Oko says this post is now a 3/3 elk.
Wotc makes huge mistakes. quite often. enough to warrant some major bans that end up devaluing cards significantly.
at least in standard.
though pioneer cause some issues because they didnt out right ban cards first so people bought up old banned cards that are now banned. losing a decent chunk of hype money.
Wayniac wrote: A big issue, as is often stated, is that other games need traction/acceptance. 40k, despite its flaws, is the "safe choice", the gaming equivalent to "no one ever got fired for buying IBM". You can reasonably expect stores to stock the product (or be willing to order it), there to be tables and terrain set up for it, and people to play with.
Not always the case with other games, even if they have better rules. And since gamers as a whole seem to be reluctant to take the first step sometimes, you get a situation where nobody looks at other games because nobody thinks there will be interest, so nobody has intrest in other games because nobody ever talks about them.
I've said this many times, but it bears repeating. As the owner of one of the FLGSs in our city says- "Gamers are the flakiest bunch of people he has ever known". I can vouch for that too. Too many times you want to get a new system going, a new campaign etc. you have a lot of people be interested and want to join in only to back out at the last minute or never actually commit. It is infuriating.
It was why WMH took so frustratingly long to get going here. We finally had an FLGS, a bit of a rarity over here in Blighty; somewhere to play WMH in a store, in public view so we could get more players. Loads of people showed interest but they got very few biters and even fewer wanting to actually buy stuff. Christmas was coming up at the time and I said to each of the people interested to "ask" () for a faction starter for Christmas. There- no excuses of "I can't afford it!" and other such excuses (well, if you didn't buy a Dominos every other day maybe you could actually afford it, certain someone. ) that they were making to try and bail. No biters again. We got a small cadre of players playing it, but it was a fraction of a fraction of the number that showed interest.
Same with other games. At this point I've essentially given up if all they want to do is go back to GW games, which is ironic as I cannot remember the last time I saw anything other than MTG played down there, but that's a whole 'nother rant.
Klickor wrote: I agree. Wotc know what they do when they make cards. Unlike GW it is by design. Its bad for the consumer but you cant say they dont know what they are doing just maybe that they shouldnt.
Oko says this post is now a 3/3 elk.
Wotc makes huge mistakes. quite often. enough to warrant some major bans that end up devaluing cards significantly.
at least in standard.
though pioneer cause some issues because they didnt out right ban cards first so people bought up old banned cards that are now banned. losing a decent chunk of hype money.
The key difference is that WotC is prepared to admit they f***ed up and ban a card in some formats. GW admits mistakes and corrects incredibly rarely, and even when they do they try and push the exact same set of rules/models for all 'formats' (inasmuch as casual/narrative/matched play are 'formats'), which ends up doing things like making Eldar pointless in casual play because they're priced in all formats based on optimized tournament lists.
Klickor wrote: I agree. Wotc know what they do when they make cards. Unlike GW it is by design. Its bad for the consumer but you cant say they dont know what they are doing just maybe that they shouldnt.
Oko says this post is now a 3/3 elk.
Wotc makes huge mistakes. quite often. enough to warrant some major bans that end up devaluing cards significantly.
at least in standard.
though pioneer cause some issues because they didnt out right ban cards first so people bought up old banned cards that are now banned. losing a decent chunk of hype money.
The key difference is that WotC is prepared to admit they f***ed up and ban a card in some formats. GW admits mistakes and corrects incredibly rarely, and even when they do they try and push the exact same set of rules/models for all 'formats' (inasmuch as casual/narrative/matched play are 'formats'), which ends up doing things like making Eldar pointless in casual play because they're priced in all formats based on optimized tournament lists.
Well i agree. though they kinda have no choice as they are beholden to their main bread and butter organized events.
Whilst I don't play Magic anymore (thanks to the Energy fuelled fupwittery of the Kaladesh block) its always had a very solid ruleset to largely carry it over WoTC increasingly frequent blunders
40k is far more wobbly due to GW's general 'do it like Jervis' way of thinking, I'd rather they sunk some effort into a tight ruleset that could be toned down for 'casual' play rather than the having to self patch it up for 'serious' play
But as long as you are willing to accept 40k for what it is you can't be doing the fun wrong (well maybe GK but...)
Wayniac wrote: A big issue, as is often stated, is that other games need traction/acceptance. 40k, despite its flaws, is the "safe choice", the gaming equivalent to "no one ever got fired for buying IBM". You can reasonably expect stores to stock the product (or be willing to order it), there to be tables and terrain set up for it, and people to play with.
Not always the case with other games, even if they have better rules. And since gamers as a whole seem to be reluctant to take the first step sometimes, you get a situation where nobody looks at other games because nobody thinks there will be interest, so nobody has intrest in other games because nobody ever talks about them.
What happens in the circles I game with is this:
A new game is coming out/one of us sees something. If it piques someones interest they'll look into it a bit further. After that look they'll bring it up to the rest of us. "Hey, have you seen.... What do you think of...."
A recent example of this is Black Seas - a 1700-1800s age of sail ship game. You know, pirates, HMS Victory, Battle of Trafalgar.... Most of the group was pass/meh on it. Two of us were quite interested though (personally I think there's better rules sets for this than what Warlord produces, but....) & another one or two will give it a try (by using borrowed ships - if they like it enough they'l buy their own eventually).
And so I now have a box of tiny plastic ships assembled & in various stages of painting. I HAVE to paint these now as opposed to later as they look pretty poor without their sails/rigging attached & painting them after that step will be A LOT harder.
This is a lucky example. Far too often I see where the answer to "Have you seen" or "What do you think of" is either simply ignoring it, or saying how you have no interest in age of sail and nobody cares, while going back to playing Warhammer. That is assuming the game store isn't hostile to games they don't sell, which I've also seen.
Oh that happens. For ex; we looked at that new Marvel miniatures game. The consensus was "eh." Models look good. But interest in playing it? Zero. Maybe later? Maybe if some peoples favorite characters ever get made? Another was the Aeronautica Imperialis & Titanticus stuff - wow, talk about a cold reception....
As for the shop being hostile to things they don't/won't sell?
We can deal with that.
1) Only a fraction of our gaming is at the shop. Doesn't matter what the shops opinion is on whatever we're playing Sunday afternoon over at Frank's.
2) Shop doesn't want to/can't/won't supply something for whatever reason? That's fine. We've got this thing called the internet. Shop doesn't want us using their tables for games they don't/can't/won't sell? That's fine, see #1 above. It's perfectly reasonable to want what you sell showcased.
3) Shop gets pissy when they learn about something we're playing elsewhere that they don't/won't/can't sell us? Then we turn off the $ until they learn to keep their opinion to themselves.
Just because your the local shop doesn't mean that you're entitled to the $.
Turnip Jedi wrote: Whilst I don't play Magic anymore (thanks to the Energy fuelled fupwittery of the Kaladesh block) its always had a very solid ruleset to largely carry it over WoTC increasingly frequent blunders
40k is far more wobbly due to GW's general 'do it like Jervis' way of thinking, I'd rather they sunk some effort into a tight ruleset that could be toned down for 'casual' play rather than the having to self patch it up for 'serious' play
But as long as you are willing to accept 40k for what it is you can't be doing the fun wrong (well maybe GK but...)
This I think is the worst part. While over the years I've started to agree with the Jervis way of thinking, it can't be denied that it's far easier to have a tight set of rules that can be loosened for more laid back/narrative/wonky play than have a loose set of rules and fill in the gaps for competitive. Although Warmahordes had that and I never, ever, ever remember anyone playing casual Warmahordes games because even if you weren't doing Steamroller Scenario 2-list games, the rules themselves were tuned for playing in a competitive and decidedly non-narrative way and the very mechanical/methodical way the rules worked playing that way felt like you were actively going against the game because everything was so precise.
From the games I've played, for all its flaws, only 40k has at least been able to satisfy both needs (albeit its balance/competitive part needs extra work). But if you're playing competitive, it feels competitive. If you're playing narrative, it feels narrative. No other game has been able to do change depending on how you play.
). I love gaming. I like rules that make sense and are clear, I do some of that as my job making procedures that define the company I work in. I am committed to the 
I mean what are you expecting here?
) that they were making to try and bail. No biters again. We got a small cadre of players playing it, but it was a fraction of a fraction of the number that showed interest.
