Around my area the popular thing to talk about has been the new expansions, and their effect on the game. Now since they are a part of the regular game, and not some optional supplement, if you deny to play someone because they are running a revenant with 3 void shield generators, as distasteful as you may find it you are denying regular play. Wouldn't stop me, since I would find that type of game unfun in the beginning, but some may be offended. Anyway a lot of people are speculating that what they are adding now is to pretty much "kill" the idea of competitive gameplay thru the idea that so few official lists could compete things like tournaments would be pointless, as you could narrow down the field to 2 lists, top tier and counter top tier.
My question is this. How does ostracizing the tournament/competitive fans benefit GW in the long run? Pretending this was true for a minute, that this was their corporate mandate, what does it gain them? I understand from a rules point of view, they have always struggled with balance with so many armies and units that it is impossible, there will always be power lists. And that is why you see tournament organizers finally stepping up and placing self imposed restrictions to try and curb the most blatantly imbalanced things. Does not caring if anything is balanced anymore and chalking stupid game situations up to "its a beer and pretzels game $#&@%#$ I aint gotta splain $&^%" somehow save them money? Or have they in investor pressure thrown off any façade of caring about game balance in favor of writing more and more over the top rules for NEW things, just to push their plastic out of the door.
Going by recent trends it looks more and more to be the latter. And I haven't seen the new rules on the tyranids yet, but I would bet peanuts to pesos all the new shiny things become the MUST have to compete units.
As far as your last comment, power creep always existed - and it isn't unique to 40k, GW, or tabletop games. Regarding the expansions and latest rulesets - think of the game as a constant WIP. It will have editions that shine and editions that have glaring shortcomings. But for every player unhappy with the rules, or business strategy, or models - there are 100 enjoying it all. I don't say this to marginalize your opinion, but perhaps they just aren't trying to design for competitive fanbase at this point in time. My perdonal opinion is that there are more than two competitive lists in the game, and with every new unit/expansion - the game gets more interesting. If 40k currently requires house rules or tournament rules to be tourney-worthy, that's not a gamebreakingly terrible thing is it? Its still 40k, and people can adjust.
Orock wrote: as you could narrow down the field to 2 lists, top tier and counter top tier.
Magic: the Gathering consists of exactly like that at the professional level. As there are quite a few people making a living out of playing that game (as "professional" in "professional level" implies), why do you attach such a negative connotation to its ability to sustain tournament/competitive play?
When every box comes with a bottle of beer and a bag of pretzels, then it's officially a beer and pretzels game.
Until then it's every shade from uber-competitive to ultra-casual, depending on the mood of the players.
They have said that you can ignore any of the rules you like in favor of your own, if this makes your games more enjoyable. This is fine for home games/games with friends.
Random pickup games/tourneys tend to be played a lot closer to the rules, naturally, but even then there are local houserules/tweaks. This is fine too, as long as everyone knows what page they are on.
Then there is the RAW-only level of play, where people can spend hours debating the meaning of the word 'and'. Some people get off on this, lothers not so much. This is fine too.
Orock wrote: Going by recent trends it looks more and more to be the latter. And I haven't seen the new rules on the tyranids yet, but I would bet peanuts to pesos all the new shiny things become the MUST have to compete units.
It seems to be going downhill in terms of regulation, organization and approrpiate compartmentalization of rules and really just the quality of the rules themselves. When you give bel'akor move through cover, it really does make some of us worry seeing as he already has that usr by being an mc, it really does give some of us a moment of pause where we have to ask "who's writing this?" kinda like when you see 5pt powerfists for chosen in their latest dataslate.
My main concern is just how much GW absolves themselves of any responsiblity on the game/rules side of things with their whole "you're not gamers, you're collectors" or "forge the narrative" crap.
No, GW is not deliberately making a "beer and pretzels" game to drive off competitive players, because that would be so suicidally stupid that even GW can figure out that it's a bad idea. Making the game worse for competitive play doesn't make it better for casual play, it just means that fewer people are buying the game. And GW is obsessed with short-term profit, I can imagine that any manager who suggested deliberately getting rid of customers would be immediately fired.
What is actually happening is that GW doesn't place any value on quality rules. Their game designers aren't all that good, and then they never test anything adequately to catch all of the problems. Why? Because GW's core market (young kids with birthday money) don't actually play the game, so they just need the idea of a game to inspire them to beg for a box of space marines. So why spend more money on longer design periods and extensive playtesting if they don't feel that it will improve tomorrow's sales? Calling 40k a "beer and pretzels" game is just an excuse for this laziness and incompetence. If GW can convince you to be proud of how little you care about the quality of the product you're buying then they don't have to waste money on improving their product.
If GW can convince you to be proud of how little you care about the quality of the product you're buying then they don't have to waste money on improving their product.
I agree. I was thinking about this about last year or so.
Mc Donalds have done this. They made a commercial on how cool a messy burger can be so cool. This is what I think GW is trying to do as well. Why fix something if you can make people think it's cool/proud.
Bro do you even know what "beer and pretzels" means? Because 40K isnt that, nor is it anywhere close to being that, just because a game isnt competitively focused doesnt automatically make it "beer and pretzels", theres actually an entire grey area in between those two ends for games that are simply that: games.
Why? Because GW's core market (young kits with birthday money) don't actually play the game, so they just need the idea of a game to inspire them to beg for a box of space marines. So why spend more money on longer design periods and extensive playtesting if they don't feel that it will improve tomorrow's sales?
I disagree with your description of the 'core market'. In the GW stores I have frequented over the years I see far more adult males in the 20 something to 50 year old range buying models than I ever have kids with their money buying things. If the core market was children who buy one box and then loose interest they would not be able to generate enough sales to stay in business. One needs to simply look at the product line as a whole. Paints, rule books, codex's, expansions, terrain, large expensive single model kits, ect.. The entire hobby is aimed at an adult, or young adult, market with a certain level of disposable income, not some 10 year old who got $25 from Grandma.
Why? Because GW's core market (young kits with birthday money) don't actually play the game, so they just need the idea of a game to inspire them to beg for a box of space marines. So why spend more money on longer design periods and extensive playtesting if they don't feel that it will improve tomorrow's sales?
I disagree with your description of the 'core market'. In the GW stores I have frequented over the years I see far more adult males in the 20 something to 50 year old range buying models than I ever have kids with their money buying things. If the core market was children who buy one box and then loose interest they would not be able to generate enough sales to stay in business. One needs to simply look at the product line as a whole. Paints, rule books, codex's, expansions, terrain, large expensive single model kits, ect.. The entire hobby is aimed at an adult, or young adult, market with a certain level of disposable income, not some 10 year old who got $25 from Grandma.
Everything you said is right.
The problem is that GW seem to legitimately believe everything Peregrine said. In their financial reports they talk about how they are in the business of selling toys to kids.
Why? Because GW's core market (young kits with birthday money) don't actually play the game, so they just need the idea of a game to inspire them to beg for a box of space marines. So why spend more money on longer design periods and extensive playtesting if they don't feel that it will improve tomorrow's sales?
I disagree with your description of the 'core market'. In the GW stores I have frequented over the years I see far more adult males in the 20 something to 50 year old range buying models than I ever have kids with their money buying things. If the core market was children who buy one box and then loose interest they would not be able to generate enough sales to stay in business. One needs to simply look at the product line as a whole. Paints, rule books, codex's, expansions, terrain, large expensive single model kits, ect.. The entire hobby is aimed at an adult, or young adult, market with a certain level of disposable income, not some 10 year old who got $25 from Grandma.
Everything you said is right.
The problem is that GW seem to legitimately believe everything Peregrine said. In their financial reports they talk about how they are in the business of selling toys to kids.
Yeah, Peregrine and jonolikespie have it right.
Most players I know are far from young, yet many things in the game are obviously aimed at 12 years old kids. There is adult stuff, but it is somehow hidden. You need to do some research.
And their financial reports make it clear.
On topic, the game has always been a "beer and pretzels" game. They toyed with making it a "competitive" (balanced, serious, well written rules) game for some time but never really happened. Lack of interest from the developers is my guess. They enjoy creating crazy stuff.
I think it is less the developers wanting to create more crazy stuff and more the suits that are telling the developers and sculptors what to do being totally disconnected from the fans.
Hi all.
To my mind a beer and pretzels game is a fast to learn and fun to play game .
40k does not fall into this catagory.
It is a thinly veiled sales pamphlet , selling the idea of a cool game that is hardly ever actually played , with minatures that often do not get assembled let alone painted .
It just inspires purchases of GW product, SHORT TERM.
IF GW were HONESTLY selling a narrative driven game, which would be perfectly fine!
Many good games dont have PV and FoC, but use senarios and campains to attract narrative gamer types.
Then GWs claim to making a cinematic,narrative focused games might be taken seriously and respected.
BUT the inclusion of PV and FoC JUST to appeal to the more competitive player,WITHOUT putting in the work to make the PV and FoC function for a reasonable level of competitive play .
Condemns GW plc as a money grabbing corporation , that cares nothing about its core products or their potential demoghraphic.
As soon as GW starts distibiuting 40k rules and codex as FREE down loads without PV and Foc.But with tons of cool senarios and campain packs.
Then 40k would be worth some time and effort on my part.IMO
Orock wrote: Around my area the popular thing to talk about has been the new expansions, and their effect on the game. Now since they are a part of the regular game, and not some optional supplement, if you deny to play someone because they are running a revenant with 3 void shield generators, as distasteful as you may find it you are denying regular play.
If you are not making sure that your opponent will be having fun during the game, double and triple-checking that you don't have anything your opponent considers "un-fun" on your side of the table (Superheavies, Forge World, unpainted stuff, Screamerstar, Orks, whatever), you are not playing the regular game.
Orock wrote: Around my area the popular thing to talk about has been the new expansions, and their effect on the game. Now since they are a part of the regular game, and not some optional supplement, if you deny to play someone because they are running a revenant with 3 void shield generators, as distasteful as you may find it you are denying regular play.
If you are not making sure that your opponent will be having fun during the game, double and triple-checking that you don't have anything your opponent considers "un-fun" on your side of the table (Superheavies, Forge World, unpainted stuff, Screamerstar, Orks, whatever), you are not playing the regular game.
QFT
The game is supposed to be fun for both players. If you want to try something odd, do it with a friend or after checking that your opponent is OK with it. That´s playing the game as is intended to be played.
Zweischneid wrote: If you are not making sure that your opponent will be having fun during the game, double and triple-checking that you don't have anything your opponent considers "un-fun" on your side of the table (Superheavies, Forge World, unpainted stuff, Screamerstar, Orks, whatever), you are not playing the regular game.
IOW, "if you're not playing the game the way I play it, including using my house rules about what is allowed, then you're not playing the regular game". Sorry, but no.
Zweischneid wrote: If you are not making sure that your opponent will be having fun during the game, double and triple-checking that you don't have anything your opponent considers "un-fun" on your side of the table (Superheavies, Forge World, unpainted stuff, Screamerstar, Orks, whatever), you are not playing the regular game.
IOW, "if you're not playing the game the way I play it, including using my house rules about what is allowed, then you're not playing the regular game". Sorry, but no.
?
That's the exact opposite of what I said. If you don't like, don't have fun playing, the way I play or what I field, you can opt out. And vice versa. That's the bottom line.
Zweischneid wrote: That's the exact opposite of what I said. If you don't like, don't have fun playing, the way I play or what I field, you can opt out. And vice versa. That's the bottom line.
And my point is that this opting out and negotiation isn't part of the standard game. A standard game is when I show up at the local store and tell a random stranger "hey, let's play a game of 40k" and we play a game without making any special arrangements about what things we're allowed to use. Once you start talking about things like having to double and triple check that your opponent will be having fun (and presumably change something if they won't) you're talking about playing a special variant game under your own new rules.
jonolikespie wrote: I think it is less the developers wanting to create more crazy stuff and more the suits that are telling the developers and sculptors what to do being totally disconnected from the fans.
This. Worth noting that Alessio Cavatore and Jake Thornton have produced some excellent work outside of GW, when given their own creative freedom.
Zweischneid wrote: That's the exact opposite of what I said. If you don't like, don't have fun playing, the way I play or what I field, you can opt out. And vice versa. That's the bottom line.
And my point is that this opting out and negotiation isn't part of the standard game. A standard game is when I show up at the local store and tell a random stranger "hey, let's play a game of 40k" and we play a game without making any special arrangements about what things we're allowed to use. Once you start talking about things like having to double and triple check that your opponent will be having fun (and presumably change something if they won't) you're talking about playing a special variant game under your own new rules.
At its heart, a game of Warhammer 40,000 is a shared experience between two fellow hobbyists - and it should be as enjoyable and fullfilling for both players as possible.
- Warhammer 40K Rulebook, Introduction
I am sorry. But that is, and always has been the "prime directive" of Warhammer 40K. It's a shared experience, not a competitive game, and the ultimate goal is maximizing the enjoyment for both players.
I know that is not how it is often played, especially in the states, where all that "tournament mentality" has been seeping even into the regular, non-tournament understanding of what 40K is about. But that doesn't change the fact that pre-game "negotiation" (which in itself is the wrong word, it's more like pre-game cooperative planning a shared, cooperative and narrative experience about futuristic warfare) is how the game was envisioned.
You are free to skip that part and play it against the grain, but than you are not playing "regular" 40K.
jonolikespie wrote: I think it is less the developers wanting to create more crazy stuff and more the suits that are telling the developers and sculptors what to do being totally disconnected from the fans.
This. Worth noting that Alessio Cavatore and Jake Thornton have produced some excellent work outside of GW, when given their own creative freedom.
Really?
I admit, I only know the work they did for Mantic, but that is even worse. (though arguably, with ex-GW Ronnie Renton at the helm, it's not technically "outside GW")
Zweischneid wrote: I am sorry. But that is, and always has been the "prime directive" of Warhammer 40K. It's a shared experience, not a competitive game, and the ultimate goal is maximizing the enjoyment for both players.
Yes, of course a game should be enjoyable for both players. Nobody is disputing that. The point here is that the rules of 40k fail to live up to that ideal, and new releases like Escalation damage the shared experience and require elaborate negotiation about what is allowed in a game and upset people who aren't able to use the army they want because their opponent vetoed it.
I know that is not how it is often played, especially in the states, where all that "tournament mentality" has been seeping even into the regular, non-tournament understanding of what 40K is about.
Sorry, but it's not a tournament mentality at all. Opposing the ridiculous "casual at all costs" crowd (who are very serious and yell very loudly about how casual they are) does not mean you want every game to be a tournament, it just means that you want to play a game and not just hang out with your friends making gun noises with your toy soldiers.
But that doesn't change the fact that pre-game "negotiation" (which in itself is the wrong word, it's more like pre-game cooperative planning a shared, cooperative and narrative experience about futuristic warfare) is how the game was envisioned.
And this is why 40k's rules are garbage. If 40k was a good game you could show up with your army and have an enjoyable game without having to make any special arrangements beyond "hey, let's play a 1500 point game". But GW keeps publishing half-finished garbage (with the excuse of "stop having high standards, BEER AND PRETZELS" to justify their laziness and incompetence) like Escalation that require arrangements that aren't included in the game's actual rules.
You are free to skip that part and play it against the grain, but than you are not playing "regular" 40K.
No, you're just confusing a vague marketing statement with the actual rules of the game.
I actually think both Zwei and Peregrine are correct in a way. GW has this idea that players are going to go indepth into the type of game they are going to play every time they play it...which can work ok for games with your close buds...but fails beyond that (Because showing up at my LGS and asking a guy if he wants to re-create the battle of Istavan IV is not really going to happen.).
Where This fails (and Peregrine is right on this) is that it sucks when people feel the need to refuse games based on balance reasons (or perceived balance reasons)...It is bad for the game when I can bring a 1500 point list...and you can bring a 1500 point list....and the game is so imbalanced as for it not even to be a real game...just an exercise in unpacking models...rolling dice...and repacking models.
Peregrine wrote: (...)
No, you're just confusing a vague marketing statement with the actual rules of the game.
The "actual rules of the game" includes House Rules. Customized missions, campaigns, fan-made rules, units and everything. It is not a "vague statement", it is all over the place.
Page 108, Rulebook 6th edition, "The Army List" entry.
"With the points limit agreed, players need to pick their forces. The best way to do this is to make use of the army list in the relevant codex, although, of course, players are free to either adapt the army lists or use their own system as they wish."
And there are 60 pages about creating scenarios in the Rulebook. 60 pages no less.
And the "Forging the Narrative" entries.
And the lines Zweischneid quoted.
And the fact that you will hardly see an official event or an official battle report without House Rules. Special characters created for the battle, new missions on the go, an army playing with more points than the other... there is always something new.
The game is supposed to boost the creativity of the players. And to be played with friends, after talking and changing what is needed to be changed to make the game enjoyable for all players.
And this is why 40k's rules are garbage. If 40k was a good game you could show up with your army and have an enjoyable game without having to make any special arrangements beyond "hey, let's play a 1500 point game". But GW keeps publishing half-finished garbage (with the excuse of "stop having high standards, BEER AND PRETZELS" to justify their laziness and incompetence) like Escalation that require arrangements that aren't included in the game's actual rules.
No, you're just confusing a vague marketing statement with the actual rules of the game.
You have a point though. House Rules (agreements, fixes, whatever) shouldn´t be necessary.
They should be an option, with a properly texted and written set of "core rules" to allow tournaments and games against strangers.
Peregrine wrote: (...)
No, you're just confusing a vague marketing statement with the actual rules of the game.
The "actual rules of the game" includes House Rules. Customized missions, campaigns, fan-made rules, units and everything. It is not a "vague statement", it is all over the place.
Page 108, Rulebook 6th edition, "The Army List" entry.
"With the points limit agreed, players need to pick their forces. The best way to do this is to make use of the army list in the relevant codex, although, of course, players are free to either adapt the army lists or use their own system as they wish."
And there are 60 pages about creating scenarios in the Rulebook. 60 pages no less.
And the "Forging the Narrative" entries.
And the lines Zweischneid quoted.
And the fact that you will hardly see an official event or an official battle report without House Rules. Special characters created for the battle, new missions on the go, an army playing with more points than the other... there is always something new.
The game is supposed to boost the creativity of the players. And to be played with friends, after talking and changing what is needed to be changed to make the game enjoyable for all players.
None of that changes the fact that if I show up to club night at my FLGS and say 'Hey, lets play a game, oh and by the way I want to use 4 Heavy slots instead of 3' my opponent will be perfectly within their rights to say no, use three, because while creativity and whatnot are encouraged by the rulebook there is an assumption that you will be playing a game within the confines of the rules. Seeing as how, you know, it's a game. With rules.
There is nothing wrong with making houserules and the like but nothing changes the fact that they are still houserules.
None of that changes the fact that if I show up to club night at my FLGS and say 'Hey, lets play a game, oh and by the way I want to use 4 Heavy slots instead of 3' my opponent will be perfectly within their rights to say no, use three, because while creativity and whatnot are encouraged by the rulebook there is an assumption that you will be playing a game within the confines of the rules. Seeing as how, you know, it's a game. With rules.
There is nothing wrong with making houserules and the like but nothing changes the fact that they are still houserules.
None of that changes the fact that if you show up to club night or to your FLGS with a "3 Heavy Slot" list that sticks pedantically to the rules, but looks like it'll offer no fun to play (e.g. 3 Wraithknights), nobody will have to play against you. And if the guy over there with his 4 HS-slot list seems to offer the more enjoyable Saturday-afternoon, he'll get my game, not you.
People are as free to turn down your 3-HS-list (or, in the spirit of finding a middle ground and get a good compromise going, politely ask for changes in the list as an alternative to not playing) as they are with a 4-HS-list.
jonolikespie wrote: (...)
None of that changes the fact that if I show up to club night at my FLGS and say 'Hey, lets play a game, oh and by the way I want to use 4 Heavy slots instead of 3' my opponent will be perfectly within their rights to say no, use three, because while creativity and whatnot are encouraged by the rulebook there is an assumption that you will be playing a game within the confines of the rules. Seeing as how, you know, it's a game. With rules.
A really loose set of rules. That, according to its creators, you are expected to change.
And thinking that there is an "official" set of rules somewhere does not change the fact that if you show up with 3 Riptides (to use an example) your opponent will be perfectly within their rights to say no, claiming that they are way overpowered, and that playing against an overpowered list is utterly boring and unfun.
There is nothing wrong with making houserules and the like but nothing changes the fact that they are still houserules.
In a game that, according to you, does not work without House Rules: "If 40k was a good game you could show up with your army and have an enjoyable game without having to make any special arrangements beyond "hey, let's play a 1500 point game"."
We all need special arrangements. At least, if we want an enjoyable game.
I would like to see a proper set of rules but, given that it does not seem to be possible, I like the current "crazy" state of the game. At least it forces the players to talk to each other and try to reach an agreement.
Zweischneid wrote: None of that changes the fact that if you show up to club night or to your FLGS with a "3 Heavy Slot" list that sticks pedantically to the rules, but looks like it'll offer no fun to play (e.g. 3 Wraithknights), nobody will have to play against you. And if the guy over there with his 4 HS-slot list seems to offer the more enjoyable Saturday-afternoon, he'll get my game, not you.
People are as free to turn down your 3-HS-list (or, in the spirit of finding a middle ground and get a good compromise going, politely ask for changes in the list as an alternative to not playing) as they are with a 4-HS-list.
Yes, and the point is that you're modifying the rules of the game when you do that. You're no longer playing the standard game of 40k according to the rules published by GW (which include a limit of three heavy support choices and allow you to take three Wraithknights), you're playing your own special version that includes unwritten rules about what is "fun" and social pressure to follow your rules.
Which, if you go back to the original statement that started this discussion, is exactly the problem. Instead of making a game where you can have an enjoyable pickup game with any legal list and no negotiation beyond "let's play a 1500 point game" GW keeps publishing rules like Escalation where there are blatant fun-destroying options and you have to negotiate about what things you're willing to include in the game. That leads to unhappy players (after all, who wants to be told that their chosen army isn't fun enough and they aren't allowed to play unless they change it) for no reason beyond GW's laziness and incompetence.
Zweischneid wrote: None of that changes the fact that if you show up to club night or to your FLGS with a "3 Heavy Slot" list that sticks pedantically to the rules, but looks like it'll offer no fun to play (e.g. 3 Wraithknights), nobody will have to play against you. And if the guy over there with his 4 HS-slot list seems to offer the more enjoyable Saturday-afternoon, he'll get my game, not you.
People are as free to turn down your 3-HS-list (or, in the spirit of finding a middle ground and get a good compromise going, politely ask for changes in the list as an alternative to not playing) as they are with a 4-HS-list.
Yes, and the point is that you're modifying the rules of the game when you do that. You're no longer playing the standard game of 40k according to the rules published by GW (which include a limit of three heavy support choices and allow you to take three Wraithknights), you're playing your own special version that includes unwritten rules about what is "fun" and social pressure to follow your rules.
Which, if you go back to the original statement that started this discussion, is exactly the problem. Instead of making a game where you can have an enjoyable pickup game with any legal list and no negotiation beyond "let's play a 1500 point game" GW keeps publishing rules like Escalation where there are blatant fun-destroying options and you have to negotiate about what things you're willing to include in the game. That leads to unhappy players (after all, who wants to be told that their chosen army isn't fun enough and they aren't allowed to play unless they change it) for no reason beyond GW's laziness and incompetence.
I agree with you that the implementation is terrible, but am I bad for actually liking Escalation?
None of that changes the fact that if you show up to club night or to your FLGS with a "3 Heavy Slot" list that sticks pedantically to the rules, but looks like it'll offer no fun to play (e.g. 3 Wraithknights), nobody will have to play against you. And if the guy over there with his 4 HS-slot list seems to offer the more enjoyable Saturday-afternoon, he'll get my game, not you.
People are as free to turn down your 3-HS-list (or, in the spirit of finding a middle ground and get a good compromise going, politely ask for changes in the list as an alternative to not playing) as they are with a 4-HS-list.
Same here.
I would rather play against a fun army with 4 HS slots than against a no-fun "fully legal" army.
(And I would rather play against an Adeptus Mechanicus army using rules adapted from 30k Forgeworld Legio Cybernetica rules with properly done models than against most "normal" armies, but then again I really enjoy the creative parts of the game, and that´s just me and a few more)
Yes but with the current, horribly unbalanced, rules a 3 Wraithknight Sam Hain* list is legal while having 4 predators** in an Iron Warriors list is not.
It's all well and good to say houseruling things makes everything better, but by saying that you are saying the system is fundamentally flawed to begin with.
*Not sure if I'm spelling that right, the one that's red and shouldn't be using wraithknights because they are, fluffwise, all about speed.
**AFAIK preds are not often taken, I'm guessing there is a reason for that.
da001 wrote: A really loose set of rules. That, according to its creators, you are expected to change.
That's not really expecting change, it's just an acknowledgement of the fact that GW isn't holding a gun to your head and forcing you to play by strict RAW. GW never includes actual rules about doing things like making your own army list instead of using a codex, they just make a vague statement about how cool those things are and how they aren't going to punish you if you want to do them.
We all need special arrangements. At least, if we want an enjoyable game.
Yes, and this is exactly the problem. Good games don't need special arrangements, you just play them "out of the box" and have fun. Unfortunately 40k is not a good game, and GW's latest releases are only making the problems worse.
At least it forces the players to talk to each other and try to reach an agreement.
Which means that there's a high chance of someone being unhappy with that agreement. If I show up with my chosen army and have to change everything because you're not going to play a game with me unless I do then I'm not going to be very happy about it. I made the army that way for a reason and I shouldn't have to change it just because GW insists on throwing out half-finished garbage and calling it a rulebook.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I agree with you that the implementation is terrible, but am I bad for actually liking Escalation?
You're not a bad person, but that doesn't make Escalation a good product. The basic idea of "use bigger tanks" might have had some potential, but the execution was awful and the book we actually got has no place in normal games.
jonolikespie wrote: Yes but with the current, horribly unbalanced, rules a 3 Wraithknight Sam Hain* list is legal while having 4 predators** in an Iron Warriors list is not.
It's all well and good to say houseruling things makes everything better, but by saying that you are saying the system is fundamentally flawed to begin with.
*Not sure if I'm spelling that right, the one that's red and shouldn't be using wraithknights because they are, fluffwise, all about speed.
**AFAIK preds are not often taken, I'm guessing there is a reason for that.
The concept of "legal" does not exist. Legal means rules that are enforced! If you violate a law, there are sanctions that can be brought to bear against your will for breaking a law.
Since nothing can be "enforced" in 40K and everything is based on consent, the concept of "legal" is a fallacy.
Hence the measure of "legal" or "not-legal" is irrelevant. The only worthwhile measure is "fun" or "un-fun", which two players can only ever decide between the two of them. It's not a decision any one person can take on his or her own.
Zweischneid wrote: None of that changes the fact that if you show up to club night or to your FLGS with a "3 Heavy Slot" list that sticks pedantically to the rules, but looks like it'll offer no fun to play (e.g. 3 Wraithknights), nobody will have to play against you. And if the guy over there with his 4 HS-slot list seems to offer the more enjoyable Saturday-afternoon, he'll get my game, not you.
People are as free to turn down your 3-HS-list (or, in the spirit of finding a middle ground and get a good compromise going, politely ask for changes in the list as an alternative to not playing) as they are with a 4-HS-list.
Yes, and the point is that you're modifying the rules of the game when you do that. You're no longer playing the standard game of 40k according to the rules published by GW (which include a limit of three heavy support choices and allow you to take three Wraithknights), you're playing your own special version that includes unwritten rules about what is "fun" and social pressure to follow your rules.
I don´t think this is correct.
There is no such limitations in the Rulebook. See the quotes above or read the previous posts. This "standard game" never existed.
Just look at the Battle Reports: they don´t even care about having the same amount of points.
Which, if you go back to the original statement that started this discussion, is exactly the problem. Instead of making a game where you can have an enjoyable pickup game with any legal list and no negotiation beyond "let's play a 1500 point game" GW keeps publishing rules like Escalation where there are blatant fun-destroying options and you have to negotiate about what things you're willing to include in the game. That leads to unhappy players (after all, who wants to be told that their chosen army isn't fun enough and they aren't allowed to play unless they change it) for no reason beyond GW's laziness and incompetence.
I agree with you that the implementation is terrible, but am I bad for actually liking Escalation?
I like it a lot too.
But it needs a lot of work: tweaking, fixing and talking. It is broken, and if used as given to us it can easily turn your game into a boring experience.
I would never use it against a stranger, only against friends or in pre-arranged games. And if you bring a Warhound to a 1500 game against someone you don´t even know, expect a lot of people saying "no thanks".
Unit1126PLL wrote: I agree with you that the implementation is terrible, but am I bad for actually liking Escalation?
You're not a bad person, but that doesn't make Escalation a good product. The basic idea of "use bigger tanks" might have had some potential, but the execution was awful and the book we actually got has no place in normal games.
Wait, so I like it, and it's ok to like it. Except that it has no place in normal games.
Meanwhile, in Harrisburg, PA, my friends and I (and the other FLGS goers besides) are having a blast with it in normal games.
I agree with you that the implementation is terrible, but am I bad for actually liking Escalation?
I like it a lot too.
But it needs a lot of work: tweaking, fixing and talking. It is broken, and if used as given to us it can easily turn your game into a boring experience.
I would never use it against a stranger, only against friends or in pre-arranged games. And if you bring a Warhound to a 1500 game against someone you don´t even know, expect a lot of people saying "no thanks".
I brought a Warhound in a 1500 point game against the Tau without pre-planning. He killed it and won 18-20.
I brought a Baneblade in a 1500 point game against a Chaos Warhound. We killed eachother and tied 6-6.
Zweischneid wrote:
The concept of "legal" does not exist. Legal means rules that are enforced! If you violate a law, there are sanctions that can be brought to bear against your will for breaking a law.
Since nothing can be "enforced" in 40K and everything is based on consent, the concept of "legal" is a fallacy.
Hence the measure of "legal" or "not-legal" is irrelevant. The only worthwhile measure is "fun" or "un-fun", which two players can only ever decide between the two of them. It's not a decision any one person can take on his or her own.
So if someone in a game with you decided to reroll a miss for no reason at all they should just be allowed to do it?
What if they tell you that their model is supposed to be a better shot than their rules say and so they should be allowed to hit on a 3 not a 4?
A marine should certainly be able to hit a land raider more than 66% of the time when they are 5 meters away from it.
For that matter a lasgun wound should not kill a marine 33% of the time.
Just because there is not a TO present at random pick up games does not mean the rules do not apply.
*Editied the quote in, the rest of you guys are posting too fast for me
I think that what Perigrin says is right . GW doesn't realy care about the rules . When someone starts the game ,he just wants to blast the other army off the table . But after some games , when you suddenly understand that some armies have very limited options in doing that , the game becomes a lot less fun . From what I understand GW thinks that the way to fix this is people buying ton of random stuff , far more then they need for 1500 or what ever points they play . Then those same people can pick random lists , based on what they like and because everyone would be doing this , no one would be too powerful or too weak . And if somehow that did happen , his friends would just tell him to play something else and he would because of the big collection he owns . Good for GW ,because people would not just buy X points of armies , but huge collections from different armies to use all those formations , ally , FW etc. Not so good if you don't live in a country where the avarge salary is 1/6 of what people in UK get and everyone just buys X pts of the best stuff and plays with that. if the army you bought is a lot weaker then everyone elses , you may have just as well set the money on fire .
Oddly enough for a very long time , I thought that most table top games were like that. Then I saw warmahordes and there were more options , sure the game still wasn't ,play with what you like, but balanced wasn't even a problem . Almost everything was OP , so almost everything could be used.
this christmas I watched some infinity games and I was struck how people are using different stuff then what tournaments list as the best. Again I asked why they do something like that , when the same people playing w40k/WFB pick the best of the best every time, and they told me that it is , because all models working well more or less . Sure this units maybe weaker , then those , but taking them or not taking them doesn't criple you.
In w40k not playing with certain units or models makes no sense , specialy now with escalation and stronghold codex out.
Zweischneid wrote: The concept of "legal" does not exist. Legal means rules that are enforced! If you violate a law, there are sanctions that can be brought to bear against your will for breaking a law.
*sigh*
Seriously? Do you really not understand how "legal" in this context means "following the published rules of the game", or how having a standard set of rules makes it a lot easier to have a random pickup game?
The only worthwhile measure is "fun" or "un-fun", which two players can only ever decide between the two of them.
Only in bad games. In good games you just play by the rules of the game and you have fun. You only need that mutual negotiation and agreement when the rules are so awful that using them without modifications is unlikely to be an enjoyable experience
Zweischneid wrote:
The concept of "legal" does not exist. Legal means rules that are enforced! If you violate a law, there are sanctions that can be brought to bear against your will for breaking a law.
Since nothing can be "enforced" in 40K and everything is based on consent, the concept of "legal" is a fallacy.
Hence the measure of "legal" or "not-legal" is irrelevant. The only worthwhile measure is "fun" or "un-fun", which two players can only ever decide between the two of them. It's not a decision any one person can take on his or her own.
So if someone in a game with you decided to reroll a miss for no reason at all they should just be allowed to do it?
No.
If both players in a game decide to re-roll a miss would make the game more fun, they should be allowed to do it? Why shouldn't they?
Zweischneid wrote: The concept of "legal" does not exist. Legal means rules that are enforced! If you violate a law, there are sanctions that can be brought to bear against your will for breaking a law.
*sigh*
Seriously? Do you really not understand how "legal" in this context means "following the published rules of the game", or how having a standard set of rules makes it a lot easier to have a random pickup game?
I do.
I understand it perfectly. I know that this is how probably 99% of all other (miniature) games out there work.
Why is it so hard to understand that Warhammer 40K simply doesn't and Games Workshop is putting a different emphasis here with their constant repetition of shared experience, narrative, etc.. .
Like it or not, Warhammer 40K is more like LARP with painted models than "classic" wargaming. I don't even claim that this is the best way to handle it, but it is, as a fact, how Games Workshop is currently promoting their game as the "regular" way to play Warhammer 40K. If you approach it the same way you approach a game of .. say .. Warmachine or Monopoly, you are not playing "regular" Warhammer 40K.
So if someone in a game with you decided to reroll a miss for no reason at all they should just be allowed to do it?
If you agree with him? Of course. It is all about reaching an agreement. And if you disagree, then he is not allowed to do that.
House Rules are not about forcing people to do things. Actually, it is the other way around.
In many games, I have let my opponents to reroll some dices. In one of my last games, my Chapter Master ordered an Orbital Bombardment in turn two and killed most of my enemy´s best unit. So we rerolled it. Otherwise, it would have been a boring game.
I brought a Warhound in a 1500 point game against the Tau without pre-planning. He killed it and won 18-20.
I brought a Baneblade in a 1500 point game against a Chaos Warhound. We killed eachother and tied 6-6.
I hope you enjoyed the battle. That is what really matters.
At 1500 points against a stranger I would rather take a "skirmish" approach. Few points, yet lots of models. MSU, tactical options, "normal" units with few explanations needed... I wouldn´t like the game reduced to "can I kill the Warhound?". I would find it boring. I would play against such a list, but only if there is absolutely no one else around to play with. Opinions, I guess.
Zweischneid wrote: Why is it so hard to understand that Warhammer 40K simply doesn't and Games Workshop is putting a different emphasis here with their constant repetition of shared experience, narrative, etc.. .
Because those things don't actually make 40k a better narrative/casual/whatever game, they just make it a bad game. All that talk about "forge the narrative" is nothing more than a flimsy "don't question our rules, just give us your money" excuse for lazy game design. The sad thing is that somehow they manage to convince people like you to be proud of how bad the rules are instead of being outraged that you paid $50 for half a rulebook.
Zweischneid wrote: Why is it so hard to understand that Warhammer 40K simply doesn't and Games Workshop is putting a different emphasis here with their constant repetition of shared experience, narrative, etc.. .
Because those things don't actually make 40k a better narrative/casual/whatever game, they just make it a bad game. All that talk about "forge the narrative" is nothing more than a flimsy "don't question our rules, just give us your money" excuse for lazy game design. The sad thing is that somehow they manage to convince people like you to be proud of how bad the rules are instead of being outraged that you paid $50 for half a rulebook.
Speak for yourself. Personally, I think they make Warhammer 40K vastly superiour to other games out there.
And they don't need to convince me of anything. I play plenty of other games too, Chess, DreadBall, Risk, X-Wing. And sometimes, to get that special narrative experience (which none of the previously mentioned games can create), Warhammer 40K.
I brought a Warhound in a 1500 point game against the Tau without pre-planning. He killed it and won 18-20.
I brought a Baneblade in a 1500 point game against a Chaos Warhound. We killed eachother and tied 6-6.
I hope you enjoyed the battle. That is what really matters.
At 1500 points against a stranger I would rather take a "skirmish" approach. Few points, yet lots of models. MSU, tactical options, "normal" units with few explanations needed... I wouldn´t like the game reduced to "can I kill the Warhound?". I would find it boring. I would play against such a list, but only if there is absolutely no one else around to play with. Opinions, I guess.
Fair enough. Opinions indeed - just don't try to remove my ability to play with my Superheavies over here in Harrisburg while you play wherever it is that you are.
Zweischneid wrote: Speak for yourself. Personally, I think they make Warhammer 40K vastly superiour to other games out there.
And they don't need to convince me of anything. I play plenty of other games too, Chess, DreadBall, Risk, X-Wing. And sometimes, to get that special narrative experience (which none of the previously mentioned games can create), Warhammer 40K.
Different tools for different purposes.
I agree with you. The fluff and the narrative of the games you make up is where the strenght of 40k really lies.
I also play FoW, and while you can also create great narratives for that, you do not have the freedom you have with 40k.
That does not mean however that the rules should be as unbalanced as they are. Fantasy manages to create the same narrative experience, but it is still a lot better balanced than 40k.
It should be possible to create a game that caters to both the tournament and casual players. I am pretty sure that GW would be capable of doing that. If other, smaller companies can do it, so can GW.
Zweischneid wrote: Speak for yourself. Personally, I think they make Warhammer 40K vastly superiour to other games out there.
I have yet to hear any explanation for how these problems make 40k a better game. The best I've ever heard in 40k's defense is that the problems aren't so horrible that you can't enjoy the game despite them, and that's not even close to the same thing.
See here is the issue with the way GW is handling things....they don't need to provide you with bad rules to forge a narative...nor do they need to grant permission for people to house rules things. If they actually put out reasonably balanced rules you could still do these things. Prior to escalation the only thing stopping super heavies in revular games was your opponent saying no thanks....you could already pre arrage taking one to take on your opponent. The only difference now is that they sold you a new book to use, and created an expectation that they will be allowed...which leads to more games turned down....
Essentially saying "Hey buddy, want to take on my titan?" is different than showing up at a game and throwing a titan at an unprepared opponenet.
Is it wrong to enjoy casual house ruled games...no.
Speak for yourself. Personally, I think they make Warhammer 40K vastly superiour to other games out there.
And they don't need to convince me of anything. I play plenty of other games too, Chess, DreadBall, Risk, X-Wing. And sometimes, to get that special narrative experience (which none of the previously mentioned games can create), Warhammer 40K.
Different tools for different purposes.
But if you don't play the game by the rules , but just reinvent them for every game , it would mean total chaos . No one would know what is legal and what is not , one dude would claim that this stones give +5 cover and another +4 , you would have to constantly roll for everything , because there would be nothing that stops your opponent from let say claiming +4 cover in the open . It would be a horror to new players too . He would have to do ton of research what is accepted or what isn't , because the rules may say he can take 3 riptides , but opponents won't let a noob play with those . On the other hand the Quarterback version of a w40k community could do what ever he wants , because of the status he holds . He would be able to "get away" with taudar as ad mecha , while a noob wouldn't . I would rather play in a place where everyone can play with the army he wants accodring to the core ruels and not with armies , that his opponents let him play with .
Essentially saying "Hey buddy, want to take on my titan?" is different than showing up at a game and throwing a titan at an unprepared opponenet.
Is that how it works ? here is is I play sm want to play me and you never know , if he plays SW drop pods , SM graviton bikers etc. No one would say his army is an eldar titan one , because no one would accept the game . But if he says eldar you pay for the table and then he plops down his LoW .
Well I generally don't pay for a table...but typically for me it goes
Want a game?
Sure, what you playing?
X Army, how competitive a game are you looking for?
The last question is important because I try to avoid (after negative experiences) dropping my tournament army on new players or players who don't want that level of difficulty because it makes for a bad game.
Now if I wanted to play a super heavy it would include....do you mind if I use X unit?
I was also talking about before escalation you could already include titans in a game simply by asking if your opponent wanted to try his hand at fighting one...now with esclation the scenario you spell out is what can happen...
So if someone in a game with you decided to reroll a miss for no reason at all they should just be allowed to do it?
If you agree with him? Of course. It is all about reaching an agreement. And if you disagree, then he is not allowed to do that.
And if neither player can reach an agreement what then? Obviously one of you isn't playing in the spirit of the game but would you argue that if someone was saying that their marine should hit on a 2+ because a land raider is a big target and won't take no for an answer then the person saying no is the one at fault for not coming t an agreement?
Of course not. Because the one saying 'no' is the one abiding by the rules where the other one is just being a jerk.
Likewise if someone is saying you should be hitting on a 4 not a three because you're guardsmen are at 23 inches away and deserve a -1 for being so far away and they push the issue you are not being a jerk because you are playing by the rules.
If you can't reach an agreement I understand you probably don't want to be playing that person to begin with but none the less the actual, published rules have to be the default. Because they are the rules.
Fair enough. Opinions indeed - just don't try to remove my ability to play with my Superheavies over here in Harrisburg while you play wherever it is that you are.
How would I do that? Believe me, I am not a god. Not yet.
And even if I were able to stop you from playing the game the way you like it, why would I ever do that? I am for House Rules and Escalation. I just think a Warhound is a little too much for a 1500 points game against a stranger. I don´t want to remove your ability to do anything.
So if someone in a game with you decided to reroll a miss for no reason at all they should just be allowed to do it?
If you agree with him? Of course. It is all about reaching an agreement. And if you disagree, then he is not allowed to do that.
And if neither player can reach an agreement what then?
The game ends.
Obviously one of you isn't playing in the spirit of the game but would you argue that if someone was saying that their marine should hit on a 2+ because a land raider is a big target and won't take no for an answer then the person saying no is the one at fault for not coming t an agreement?
Of course not. Because the one saying 'no' is the one abiding by the rules where the other one is just being a jerk.
(...)
I disagree.
Some players play "for the fun" and would like to reroll stuff that has too strong an influence on the game, for the sake of "having fun". I gave you an example before. Other players will refuse because they want to win (nothing wrong with that) and see no point in the game if stuff is changed on the go. I enjoy both types of games, but some people do not. And neither side is "right".
The most common example I can think of is the 5-turn end-game roll in a disputed game. "So we stop it now? And we don´t get to know what happened? No way. Let´s play a sixth turn to see who wins".
I see the same playing chess with strangers, a lot. Someone makes a bad move and then says "eh wait! sorry" and takes back the piece. Some people are fine with it because the objective is to have a "good game with your friends", one that reaches beautifulness and complexity, and is determined by complicated tactics, instead of being decided by a silly bad move due to a lapse of concentration. Other people see chess as a fight between two minds and would claim that mistakes like that can not be taken back, since they are trying to establish who is the best player. Again, I enjoy both types of games. In chess, this is something you should talk through before the game begins, or you are in for some arguments. It happens a lot.
The difference being that chess can be played competitively because it is a balanced game with well thought rules. It lacks the setting and the narrative feeling of w40k though, so I will always take a game of 40k over a game of chess.
If you can't reach an agreement I understand you probably don't want to be playing that person to begin with but none the less the actual, published rules have to be the default. Because they are the rules.
Rules we all agree are terrible
And that their own creators stated that they shouldn´t be taken too seriously.
"So we stop it now? And we don´t get to know what happened? No way. Let´s play a sixth turn to see who wins".
But we know what happened . we played 4+turns and one dude lost , and now that he lost he is trying to get extra turns to turn his lose in to a draw or a win . The narrative was forged , two players played and the game ended . I have never seen a player of the supposed non-B&P kind to ask for one turn more , but those B&P players , which have wining unimportant on their banners , do . They are also the ones that try to change other people armies and make other armies easier for them to play , not carring what the other players may want or not. Those bad Tournament players on the other hand always want more lists and more different armies and remove stuff from the game only , if adding a unit or rule would drop the number of players in their area. oddly enough GW who claims their games are B&P are very good at splashing game breaking stuff . cheap multi shot D weapons , demons in WFB in 7th .
A friend and I picked up warmachine recently. Granted we haven't gotten much beyond 25pt games but it's more "beer and pretzels" than 40k ever was.
There's this thing called "buzzkill" and if you have to spend 30 minutes talking about who's bringing what and basically coordinating your wardrobe to go out on the town with the other girls, you might as well toss the crap in a trashcan and just go have the beer and play something fun like smallworld or king of tokyo which ARE beer and pretzel games.
No, 40k is for people who like to argue over esoteric vaguely written rules. I have yet to see a game go by without both players at some point picking up a rulebook. That's not beer and pretzels.
Peregrine, quit being such a downer dude, I still own someGW stock and I need people like Zweischneid to make sure my dividends still get paid.
No, 40k is for people who like to argue over esoteric vaguely written rules. I have yet to see a game go by without both players at some point picking up a rulebook. That's not beer and pretzels.
Ding ding ding, winner. I'll never understand why people will defend GW's rules when they're so horribly convoluted. You can not care about balance, not care about realism, not care about other player's enjoyment, whatever but you CANNOT say that the rules, as they stand, are intuitive, well written and clear. The fact that the rules are what, 131 pages long, plus the length of all the codices and supplements, yet STILL have huge glaring rules issues is ridiculous. I'm yet to see a good answer to the newbie question which is always asked:why doesn't cover affect how well the models shoot; it's still absurd to me now. This is not a game which should be complex at all. There's 4 phases to the game, yet the rules are absolutely colossal and, if we're honest, barely any of them are used with any frequency (when was the last time you used random allocation, split fire, shot a T10 creature, took cover behind razor wire, failed a shooting morale check, used dangerous terrain at all, had to regroup, threw a frag grenade,had a vehicle split from a squadron after immobilisation, etc). Why? What benefit does that add to the game which simple rules wouldn't? The few times it matters are no less realistic than half the stuff built into the rules like being able to run out a transport but not charge, or standing around in the open after completing a combat. How can you describe this game as beer and pretzels when you need to always lug around a huge rulebook, any relevant codices, your entire army, an army list, any IA books, maybe Escalation and Stronghold Assault, etc and THEN play with delicate, finely painted models? It's too much guff to bother IMO.
GW writes bad rules because GW doesn't care and people still have fun. It seemingly doesn't matter to them that it's putting people off or that many people hate the changes, because they have no consumer goodwill anyway. They just want money without actually having a clue about how to get up sales.
Zweischneid wrote: Speak for yourself. Personally, I think they make Warhammer 40K vastly superiour to other games out there.
I have yet to hear any explanation for how these problems make 40k a better game. The best I've ever heard in 40k's defense is that the problems aren't so horrible that you can't enjoy the game despite them, and that's not even close to the same thing.
Because you keep insisting that they are "problems", when they are not. They are a surplus of options, added to the game in the understanding that it is not the type of game where all available options are appropriate at all times. Players need to exercise "pre-game-negotiations" to make sensible use of those options. The advantage is the infinitely greater number of options.
It's the difference between the little store at the corner and Walmart.
If you simply want to buy "beans", the little store might only have one type of beans, getting the "job done" somewhat faster. If you want more selection however, Walmart offers more (though the price-quality ratio might not be "balanced" on all of them).
But if you keep running into Walmart to buy "beans" and buy everything they have at the same time, all the time, because you insist that "beans" means "everything that "legally" qualifies as "beans" all the time, no exception", than yes, Walmart is probably "broken".
But at the end of the day, the "problem" isn't Walmart, it's a "problem" with the person going in there to shop, who is incapable of taking a selection from a larger range of available options.
One has to keep the "goal" in mind, which is cooking a tasty meal for two persons, which both people enjoy. To achieve this goal, a greater selection of "beans" can be helpful, but you have to use the selection to this end, not simply go for the most cost-effective "beans" all the time because they are there. And certainly it helps to make sure to not take any "beans", that the other person you are cooking for doesn't like.
Here is where that falls apart though...say I love beans, so I go out and buy a lot of beans because the cook book I bought says they may be used in any recipe....then I go to invite by friends over for dinner and they say...I'd love to so long as we are not having any beans....If this always happens I as the bean lover end up frustrated in wasting my money...the game is better served by balanced rules where any combination of models produces a fun game because then I can take what I like and enjoy the game, rather than being given options that I rarely (if ever) get to excersise. As I stated before...there is never anything stopping individuals from doing what they like within their own game...what the bad rules end up doing is creating tension between players that have different expectations.
Breng77 wrote: Here is where that falls apart though...say I love beans, so I go out and buy a lot of beans because the cook book I bought says they may be used in any recipe....then I go to invite by friends over for dinner and they say...I'd love to so long as we are not having any beans....If this always happens I as the bean lover end up frustrated in wasting my money...the game is better served by balanced rules where any combination of models produces a fun game because then I can take what I like and enjoy the game, rather than being given options that I rarely (if ever) get to excersise. As I stated before...there is never anything stopping individuals from doing what they like within their own game...what the bad rules end up doing is creating tension between players that have different expectations.
Which is why ought to ask your friends first. "Problem" solved.
And as you said, there is never anything stopping you from doing what you like with your own game. So if you want to reduce the selection to a smaller number of available options that are "balanced" enough for you, do so.
But a large selection of stuff, including whacky stuff serves a larger group of people, those who want whacky stuff too (e.g. Titans) and (!) those that want a smaller "balanced" selection (which everyone is free to pick from the greater group of available options).
A smaller "balanced" selection only serves the latter group.
"So we stop it now? And we don´t get to know what happened? No way. Let´s play a sixth turn to see who wins".
But we know what happened . we played 4+turns and one dude lost , and now that he lost he is trying to get extra turns to turn his lose in to a draw or a win . The narrative was forged , two players played and the game ended . I have never seen a player of the supposed non-B&P kind to ask for one turn more , but those B&P players , which have wining unimportant on their banners , do . They are also the ones that try to change other people armies and make other armies easier for them to play , not carring what the other players may want or not. Those bad Tournament players on the other hand always want more lists and more different armies and remove stuff from the game only , if adding a unit or rule would drop the number of players in their area. oddly enough GW who claims their games are B&P are very good at splashing game breaking stuff . cheap multi shot D weapons , demons in WFB in 7th .
In your opinion? It seems so.
But there are many people that couldn´t care less about that. What happened after the 5th turn? Did the Wolves stop the demonic infestation? Did the Chaos Lord win or lose his duel against the Wolf Priest? For competitive players, it doesn´t matter: the game is finished, you count up your points and see who got the victory, and that´s all. For not-competitive players, the narrative is what matters. Winning or losing a battle is of no interest. The models have a story of their own, and that is what they are looking for: to tell a story, to play it with a friend. They are B&P players, as opposed to "competitive players" or "tournament players". If you look at the polls in this forum, they are the majority.
Warhammer was born from role playing games. There are no winners or losers or, more properly written, both players win if they have fun and both players lose if one of them gets upset or bored. That´s a "beer and pizza (I don´t even know what is a pretzel)" game. It doesn´t matter who is the winner. What matters is getting more or lest drunk, full of pizza, and having a good time with your friends.
It can be played as if it were a "competitive" game, but this is not the way it is intended to be played. The rules are too chaotic, the random elements too extreme, the balance nearly zero. "Pay to win" meets "unfair advantage" meets "a random dice and you are out" meets "nobody knows how this rule works". Playing "competitive" with strangers usually means endless arguments, and this is something most players do not want. With friends, it can work.
I love competitive games and tournaments, yet I avoid competitive 40k. It is really difficult to get through all the broken things in the game. I will like to see a properly developed set of rules, but at the moment it seems GW is going the opposite direction. I must admit I also enjoy the craziness of the current game, and welcome all the new stuff.
Zweischneid wrote: That's the exact opposite of what I said. If you don't like, don't have fun playing, the way I play or what I field, you can opt out. And vice versa. That's the bottom line.
And my point is that this opting out and negotiation isn't part of the standard game. A standard game is when I show up at the local store and tell a random stranger "hey, let's play a game of 40k" and we play a game without making any special arrangements about what things we're allowed to use. Once you start talking about things like having to double and triple check that your opponent will be having fun (and presumably change something if they won't) you're talking about playing a special variant game under your own new rules.
"Spirit of the Game" seems to say that negotiation is part of the game. How else do you make an experience that is fun for all involved?
The lengths people go to try and argue that they shouldn't need to talk to their opponent to make sure both sides are going to have a good time is simply amazing.
Breng77 wrote: Here is where that falls apart though...say I love beans, so I go out and buy a lot of beans because the cook book I bought says they may be used in any recipe....then I go to invite by friends over for dinner and they say...I'd love to so long as we are not having any beans....If this always happens I as the bean lover end up frustrated in wasting my money...the game is better served by balanced rules where any combination of models produces a fun game because then I can take what I like and enjoy the game, rather than being given options that I rarely (if ever) get to excersise. As I stated before...there is never anything stopping individuals from doing what they like within their own game...what the bad rules end up doing is creating tension between players that have different expectations.
Which is why ought to ask your friends first. "Problem" solved.
And as you said, there is never anything stopping you from doing what you like with your own game. So if you want to reduce the selection to a smaller number of available options that are "balanced" enough for you, do so.
But a large selection of stuff, including whacky stuff serves a larger group of people, those who want whacky stuff too (e.g. Titans) and (!) those that want a smaller "balanced" selection (which everyone is free to pick from the greater group of available options).
A smaller "balanced" selection only serves the latter group.
The issue is playing with "non-friends", say I move and was playing one way...and now nobody wants to play against my army becaue they don't like x.....wacky stuff is fine....but it is better left on the fringes of an otherwise balanced game...with Titans being Apoc only...nothing stopped friends from playing wacky games like my titan Vs your army...etc. What the rules do now are hurt pick up style play for little gain in variety (balanced rules would provide better variety.) Titans would also not be a problem if they were big powerful, but balanced to point models (i.e. a titan could rasonably expect to be even with a similar number of points worth of models). There still would be no limit to fun wacky scenarios while still providing a good game.
"So we stop it now? And we don´t get to know what happened? No way. Let´s play a sixth turn to see who wins".
But we know what happened . we played 4+turns and one dude lost , and now that he lost he is trying to get extra turns to turn his lose in to a draw or a win . The narrative was forged , two players played and the game ended . I have never seen a player of the supposed non-B&P kind to ask for one turn more , but those B&P players , which have wining unimportant on their banners , do . They are also the ones that try to change other people armies and make other armies easier for them to play , not carring what the other players may want or not. Those bad Tournament players on the other hand always want more lists and more different armies and remove stuff from the game only , if adding a unit or rule would drop the number of players in their area. oddly enough GW who claims their games are B&P are very good at splashing game breaking stuff . cheap multi shot D weapons , demons in WFB in 7th .
In your opinion? It seems so.
But there are many people that couldn´t care less about that. What happened after the 5th turn? Did the Wolves stop the demonic infestation? Did the Chaos Lord win or lose his duel against the Wolf Priest? For competitive players, it doesn´t matter: the game is finished, you count up your points and see who got the victory, and that´s all. For not-competitive players, the narrative is what matters. Winning or losing a battle is of no interest. The models have a story of their own, and that is what they are looking for: to tell a story, to play it with a friend. They are B&P players, as opposed to "competitive players" or "tournament players". If you look at the polls in this forum, they are the majority.
Warhammer was born from role playing games. There are no winners or losers or, more properly written, both players win if they have fun and both players lose if one of them gets upset or bored. That´s a "beer and pizza (I don´t even know what is a pretzel)" game. It doesn´t matter who is the winner. What matters is getting more or lest drunk, full of pizza, and having a good time with your friends.
It can be played as if it were a "competitive" game, but this is not the way it is intended to be played. The rules are too chaotic, the random elements too extreme, the balance nearly zero. "Pay to win" meets "unfair advantage" meets "a random dice and you are out" meets "nobody knows how this rule works". Playing "competitive" with strangers usually means endless arguments, and this is something most players do not want. With friends, it can work.
I love competitive games and tournaments, yet I avoid competitive 40k. It is really difficult to get through all the broken things in the game. I will like to see a properly developed set of rules, but at the moment it seems GW is going the opposite direction. I must admit I also enjoy the craziness of the current game, and welcome all the new stuff.
here is the thing though why if you don't care about winning/losing the mission on random length do you bother playing the missions at all...just play out your story....nothing would stop you from doing so....but the rules should be written in a way that allows players to play the game the way they want...without the need to weed through the broken stuff.
The issue is playing with "non-friends", say I move and was playing one way...and now nobody wants to play against my army becaue they don't like x.....wacky stuff is fine....but it is better left on the fringes of an otherwise balanced game...with Titans being Apoc only...nothing stopped friends from playing wacky games like my titan Vs your army...etc. What the rules do now are hurt pick up style play for little gain in variety (balanced rules would provide better variety.) Titans would also not be a problem if they were big powerful, but balanced to point models (i.e. a titan could rasonably expect to be even with a similar number of points worth of models). There still would be no limit to fun wacky scenarios while still providing a good game.
I disagree. Putting the narrative stuff at the fringes of the game buts people who want to play the narrative stuff at the fringes of the community. That is not healthy for a game and hobby that thrives on the narrative and spirit of the game.
Frankly, this is the situation we've had to endure for most of 3rd and 4th and, partly 5th. It gave an unhealthy weight to a tiny minority of highly organized (and blogging) group of tournament players that managed to poison nearly the entire hobby with abstruse concepts like "RAW" and "Play to Win", etc.. .
It simply didn't work. It may take decades to repair the harm these people did to the hobby.
Zweischneid, I play to have fun but I really disagree with what you are saying.
I doubt there is any point in arguing with you though since you are so dogmatic in your opinions, but I'll try anyhow. My issue with GW is charging what they do for rules that are so badly written I have to patch them myself, and then negotiate their use with any gaming group I join. (I move around a lot so I don't have access to an established group of players.).
To me that removes one of the greatest strengths of 40K which is that anyone can reasonably expect t obe able to pick up a game no matter where they go. The more the rules need to be personalised, the less that can happen.
On the other hand, if there is a balanced and fun normal game, with some optional narrative stuff, then your situation is essentially the same- you can still negotiate for "fun" narrative games, but my situation is massively improved- the base game is robust enough that I can play "pick up" with strangers with a minimum of fuss, disagreement or awkwardness.
Warzone had an interesting ruleset that I'd like to see brought over.
Each unit is activated separately in an "I go/you go" pattern which allows greater player interaction than the current army "I go you go".
Each unit has three action points which can be spent on movement, shooting, or assault. If you want to get somewhere in a hurry you spend all your action points on movement, if you want to blaze away at something you spend the points on shooting, and if you want to hurl yourself into the fray you spend two points on movement then a third to charge in and initiate assault. (Movement stat would have to be brought back).
We should get rid of separate armour and toughness classes. Armour is too fragile, and high toughness too tough. Vehicles should have toughness/saves/invulnerables like monstrous creatures, and weapons should be built for dealing with that. For example a weapon classed as armourbane (something like lascannons or bright lances as examples) would do D3 wounds rather than 1, titan killer weapons would do D6. Vehicles (and monstrous creatures) would lose weapon functionality as their wound pool decreases. Half wounds, half their weapons function (rounding fractions up) attacking player decides which guns die.
Cover affects to-hit rolls, as does moving at high speed but only to a maximum of -1 for cover, and -1 for speed to a maximum of 6+ to hit. That means that a BS5 unit shooting at a shrouded bike moving 12 inches or more would hit on a 4+. A unit classed as large (vehicles, anything larger than a Wraith Guard) is +1 to hit up to the half range of the weapon shooting, to a minimum of 2+.
Overwatch requires the owning player to have "saved" an action point for that unit from its previous turn, and only a single shot from each model regardless of the class of weapon they're using is allowed.
I don't think 40k is a beer and pretzels game at all. Though gw has a pub as an actual business attached. While it was a while ago back when allessio calvatore was designing, he is the undisputed master of beer and pretzels, and most of his rules boil down to roll more dice.
Currently, I feel they are trying quite hard to add more narrative (not as just some tag line) to the game, more complexity, and more diversity.
This goes against typical tournament methodology; as tournaments (and their players) trend towards simplicity for a variety of reasons.
No, 40k is for people who like to argue over esoteric vaguely written rules. I have yet to see a game go by without both players at some point picking up a rulebook. That's not beer and pretzels.
Ding ding ding, winner. I'll never understand why people will defend GW's rules when they're so horribly convoluted. You can not care about balance, not care about realism, not care about other player's enjoyment, whatever but you CANNOT say that the rules, as they stand, are intuitive, well written and clear. The fact that the rules are what, 131 pages long, plus the length of all the codices and supplements, yet STILL have huge glaring rules issues is ridiculous. I'm yet to see a good answer to the newbie question which is always asked:why doesn't cover affect how well the models shoot; it's still absurd to me now. This is not a game which should be complex at all. There's 4 phases to the game, yet the rules are absolutely colossal and, if we're honest, barely any of them are used with any frequency (when was the last time you used random allocation, split fire, shot a T10 creature, took cover behind razor wire, failed a shooting morale check, used dangerous terrain at all, had to regroup, threw a frag grenade,had a vehicle split from a squadron after immobilisation, etc). Why? What benefit does that add to the game which simple rules wouldn't? The few times it matters are no less realistic than half the stuff built into the rules like being able to run out a transport but not charge, or standing around in the open after completing a combat. How can you describe this game as beer and pretzels when you need to always lug around a huge rulebook, any relevant codices, your entire army, an army list, any IA books, maybe Escalation and Stronghold Assault, etc and THEN play with delicate, finely painted models? It's too much guff to bother IMO.
GW writes bad rules because GW doesn't care and people still have fun. It seemingly doesn't matter to them that it's putting people off or that many people hate the changes, because they have no consumer goodwill anyway. They just want money without actually having a clue about how to get up sales.
I couldn't disagree with you more. The 40k rulebook is far from huge. My FoW rulebook is about 300 pages, and that is only the 'small' one that comes with the starter set. And to be honest, I like complicated games. Some rules may not be used often, but when you encounter certain situations, it is good that they exist. Complex games are good, simple games tend to get boring really quickly.
Imo, the rulebook, even including all the codices, is far from huge, but the benefit it adds to the game is obvious. Most importantly, it is variation.
Also, it is important to keep in mind that the game is not 40k's main thing. Warhammer is all about the hobby. About the miniatures. It is a hobby with a game attached to it, rather than the other way around as with FoW and many other miniature wargames.
You are however correct when saying that 40k is not a 'beer and pretzel' game. imo, the term 'beer and pretzel' is thrown about way too much without regard to the meaning of it.
40k is a wargame. Wargames are meant to be complicated.
What I think most people here mean when they say 'bear and pretzel game' is a game played in a casual setting (with friends, joking around while eating pretzels etc.) as opposed to a game that is often played in a 'serious' tournament setting (like chess).
I disagree. Putting the narrative stuff at the fringes of the game buts people who want to play the narrative stuff at the fringes of the community. That is not healthy for a game and hobby that thrives on the narrative and spirit of the game.
Frankly, this is the situation we've had to endure for most of 3rd and 4th and, partly 5th. It gave an unhealthy weight to a tiny minority of highly organized (and blogging) group of tournament players that managed to poison nearly the entire hobby with abstruse concepts like "RAW" and "Play to Win", etc.. .
It simply didn't work. It may take decades to repair the harm these people did to the hobby.
Sure, it's "not healthy", which is why 3e/4e had no user base growth at all, narrative play suffered so much that GW no longer ever does campaigns and there's no mention in 6e of narrative at all.
Oh wait.
Are you so blind as to think that a game which can be played in a tournament completely kills narrative players? The only thing which has "poisoned" 40k is the writers and GW. We've seen them nearly collapse due to exponential growth with no way to support it, we're now seeing falling sales. Even in 2e, GW themselves ran tournaments and issued balance changes. If something isn't working in YOUR group, that is your own issue and not one of anyone else's creation. Your attitude towards other people's preferred play style (as in, how they have fun playing a game) is nothing short of sickening to me. If you can't see why having a fair game is completely inconsequential to any story based gameplay, in the same way it is in any other game, then the onus is on you.
Variation grows from balance. In games with balance, most things are used. In games without, people gravitate towards the flavour of the day. It happens in every game, so pinning blame on anything other than the design is foolish. I would love to be able to reenact Space Hulk, with the Kill Team rules, but now Terminators just almost always win. I would love to reenact mass guardsmen, but it plays the book missions badly compared to these silly new 2++ reroll armies. These are things which I know people want, but do not function due to bad balance. There is no excuse for this whatsoever and I can't believe anyone is still defending GW's stance as "it gives options". No, it doesn't; it hampers them. You CAN take whatever you want, sure... if there's a model, it fits in the FOC, it's got unambiguous rules and your opponent agrees, sure. You can. But 99% of players won't. Most of the people I face couldn't care less about tournaments, but I've not seen a genestealer heavy army on the table for 6 years. Why? Because it loses to fluffy marine lists. What is that saying about the game? "Take this, but if you want to actually play the game, take these instead"? Even if you don't mind losing, do you think that people enjoy playing the guy who they always beat, no matter what? No, it's really boring as you know what will happen. If I wanted to make a narrative game, I would run a campaign again, or agree to it beforehand, or even jsut read one of the many 40k novels out there. I sure as heck wouldn't play a pick up game with someone new to the game because they won't get half the fluff, won't know what they're doing and will need help, all of which break the immersion. I don't WANT to play the same people over and over; I want new people to come in, enjoy themselves and stick around. If I have to go through a list of what people SHOULD take or what house rules the area has, or why we do/don't use FW/supplements/allies/fortifications/whatever else, then that's a huge barrier to entry. The game NEEDS to be balanced for those players and armies NEED to enforce fluff restrictions if GW wants the game to run like the background; attempting otherwise is a fools folly. Why then should anyone care about your enjoyment of the "options" (which may as well not exist half the time) when the imbalance created there is driving newbies away and veterans out? It's an exceedingly selfish stance.
I couldn't disagree with you more. The 40k rulebook is far from huge. My FoW rulebook is about 300 pages, and that is only the 'small' one that comes with the starter set. And to be honest, I like complicated games. Some rules may not be used often, but when you encounter certain situations, it is good that they exist. Complex games are good, simple games tend to get boring really quickly.
My issue isn't complexity, it's the needless complexity. Having a basic CC weapon does absolutely nothing, unless you have a pistol/another CC weapon. Why? Why bother even writing they have one then? Why is it that Eldar Jetbikes are a different class of things to normal Jetbikes when the vast majority (in fact, as far as I can think the only significant jetbikes in the game even) of jetbikes are ALL Eldar? Heck, why not amalgamate those rules with the ones for fast skimmers? Why are walkers not MCs? Why is random allocation a rule? There's just no need for half of the rules at all. Heck, even some of the stuff touted at the start of 6e is worthless; when did you last throw a frag grenade? Would the games depth really suffer if half of these things became a unified entity? I doubt it, and it would prevent a lot of rules issues.
As for FOW, that's not a fair comparison. In terms of actual text, it has way, way less than 40k in - it's mostly illustrations of in game situations rather than paragraph after paragraph of text, with the writing being a larger font as well. Even so, those 300 pages have way less rules issues than 40k and they even describe most of the factions special rules. I can't think of a single FOW rule that could be cut without significant detriment to some army builds, which is also highly dissimilar to 40k.
I also disagree with complexity=replayability. Two of my favourite games are Poker and Dou Dizhu which both have fairly simple rules, yet have never gotten boring to play. Sure, they're different from a war game but the idea should be that complexity is player built - there should never be a way to "cheese" the game, nor make "unfluffy" lists; the game should be tactical whilst representing the background. I feel there's still a substantial amount of tactics used in 40k despite what naysayers would have you believe, but very often it comes at the expense of the background rather than from the behest of it. If they make complex rules then charge for them, they should be mostly watertight like most other war games. If they simplify the game (and they certainly should start deleting redundant bits) then they need to make sure it's still enjoyably tactical. At the moment, I am enjoying the game less as my narrative lists get stomped and my tournament lists are not super fun to actually play as or against. If this hobby is going to be model based, they need to make it so that every model can be used, as otherwise sales will die on those models. Too often have we seen deliberate unbalancing to sell kits: the Carnifex nerf and stupid Tervigon, the mech change in 5e, the almost crippling blow dealt to assault in 4e, etc; for what? Because people repeatedly say that it's to boost sales as no-one would otherwise collect other armies (which is patently false if you speak to any 40k player)? No, it's just bad design; intentional or unintentional doesn't matter.
I guess my point is this: what does the game REALLY gain from this complexity? We have model types which have different special rules within special rules within special rules. We have effectively on;y 2 movement speeds - 6" and 12", yet this is individually stated for EVERY model rather than just saying "normal speed" or "fast speed". Why? What do we gain from that? Why is razorwire even 6+ cover - does it protect that well from tank blasts? Why is cover not generally a modifier to armour saves or to hit rolls, instead creating a whole new type of save on its own, needlessly complicating things in a non-intuitive way. Worse, it DOES affect to hit rolls if you're out of LOS - you simply can't be wounded. What sense does it make to have it generate a save one way and stop wounding the next? Would it not make more sense for cover to be -1 BS and out of sight models hit at BS 0 (hence allowing blasts and things to still hit accurately to models they see but not ones they don't)? Again, needless complexity which no-one gains from. If it was all corner cases then sure, but these rules don't cover these cases, they create new ones. It's bizarre that we now ask for FAQs so our paid army rules which require paid game rules have awkward issues covered, isn't it? When all it does it stifle creativity, make a substantial amount of players abandon models they love and confuse even old players, whence comes the extra variation or enjoyment?
Da Boss wrote: Zweischneid, I play to have fun but I really disagree with what you are saying.
I doubt there is any point in arguing with you though since you are so dogmatic in your opinions, but I'll try anyhow. My issue with GW is charging what they do for rules that are so badly written I have to patch them myself, and then negotiate their use with any gaming group I join. (I move around a lot so I don't have access to an established group of players.).
To me that removes one of the greatest strengths of 40K which is that anyone can reasonably expect t obe able to pick up a game no matter where they go. The more the rules need to be personalised, the less that can happen.
On the other hand, if there is a balanced and fun normal game, with some optional narrative stuff, then your situation is essentially the same- you can still negotiate for "fun" narrative games, but my situation is massively improved- the base game is robust enough that I can play "pick up" with strangers with a minimum of fuss, disagreement or awkwardness.
Well, I have to assume you'll be equally dogmatic about your point of view, but the "problems" you describe aren't "problem", they are purposeful decisions in game-design.
You are free to disagree with them, despise them, whatever, but they are not a result of "oversight", "ineptitude", whatever on the side of the game developers. They are there because they want them to be there.
I am not gonna start the discussion again about "a balanced game benefits narrative play just as much". It doesn't. It stifles variety and creativity and results in bland, mirror-units.
Does that mean Warhammer 40K is "perfect" for narrative gaming? No, it doesn't, but trying to make the game "balanced" wouldn't help and only make things worse.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter if you "convince" me or not, "agree with me" or not.
Warhammer 40K clearly isn't your game, whether by choice of the game designers (as I argue) or by ineptitude of the game designers (as most people here seem convinced). In either case... walk away.
A 'beer and pretzels' [I hate pretzels btw, crisps are much better] game and well written rules aren't mutually exclusive. Having errata coming out weeks after a rulebook release and having highly ambiguous wording reduces the fun for me. I don't find stopping games to flick through the rulebook, google the answer and failing that make a post on YMDC, fun.
Also, introducing massively unbalancing elements with little thought for the impact or very little playtesting also isn't fun. Fun for me is a well thought out, fast paced and intuitive ruleset.
I'm saying this from the point of view of a [very] casual player]. The worst parts of the game for me are the arguments over rules and the stop/start to try and find the right answer. Also, arguing means less time to drink beer.
You are free to disagree with them, despise them, whatever, but they are not a result of "oversight", "ineptitude", whatever on the side of the game developers. They are there because they want them to be there.
I am not gonna start the discussion again about "a balanced game benefits narrative play just as much". It doesn't. It stifles variety and creativity and results in bland, mirror-units.
Does that mean Warhammer 40K is "perfect" for narrative gaming? No, it doesn't, but trying to make the game "balanced" wouldn't help and only make things worse.
Here is where I lose you...why does balance lead to bland mirror units....The units can be very different and if point costed correctly be more or less balanced (I'm not saying perfect) what we have now is mirror/bland armies being played because not taking those armies makes the game very unenjoyable (narrative or not playing with an army that gets killed turn 2 is boring). Balance is not just about every unit being equal...it is about every unit being valued properly and for that cost being nearly as good as what it is meant to do.
Also this idea that people that don't like it should quit (when they have invested a good deal of time and money in the hobby during editions, including early 6th that were far more balanced.) is silly unless your goal is to make GW go away.
I'll also disagree that things are imbalanced with intent. They may have no intent to balance while designing things but given past FAQs it is obvious they just don't think about it...which makes it unintentional.
Here is where I lose you...why does balance lead to bland mirror units....The units can be very different and if point costed correctly be more or less balanced (I'm not saying perfect) what we have now is mirror/bland armies being played because not taking those armies makes the game very unenjoyable (narrative or not playing with an army that gets killed turn 2 is boring). Balance is not just about every unit being equal...it is about every unit being valued properly and for that cost being nearly as good as what it is meant to do.
Also this idea that people that don't like it should quit (when they have invested a good deal of time and money in the hobby during editions, including early 6th that were far more balanced.) is silly unless your goal is to make GW go away.
I'll also disagree that things are imbalanced with intent. They may have no intent to balance while designing things but given past FAQs it is obvious they just don't think about it...which makes it unintentional.
The idea that people should quit a game they don't like (investments and all) is not any less silly than the idea that Games Workshop should change their game which many people enjoy (and invest as heavily into) precisely the way it is, because of the way it is.
Doubly so, if the "recommendation" is to change 40K to be more like ... for example ... "Warmachine", when there already is Warmachine on the market (but nothing like the current Warhammer 40K, if the current Warhammer 40K were to stop being the game it is now).
I disagree. Putting the narrative stuff at the fringes of the game buts people who want to play the narrative stuff at the fringes of the community. That is not healthy for a game and hobby that thrives on the narrative and spirit of the game.
Frankly, this is the situation we've had to endure for most of 3rd and 4th and, partly 5th. It gave an unhealthy weight to a tiny minority of highly organized (and blogging) group of tournament players that managed to poison nearly the entire hobby with abstruse concepts like "RAW" and "Play to Win", etc.. .
It simply didn't work. It may take decades to repair the harm these people did to the hobby.
What sales are generated by the good units. Riptides are good , they sell . Hobby growths . The more "riptides" a codex has the more people want to play it and the more people buy it . On the other hand the more "vespids" a codex has the fewer people want to play the codex.
All I see "narrative" people to generate is hate . You can't play the army you want , becaue the "narrative" player may not like it . You can't use the models you want , because the "narrative" player doesn't like . Heaven forbid you don't like something he plays , because then your a WAAC and everything is legal and he plays RAI or some other sort of house and not the way the rule is actualy writen down . And what hand to new players do they have . the tournament players help with building armies and narrative says play with what you want , because "everything works" as long as it isn't good , because if the new players likes "riptides" the narrative player won't forget to tell him how bad a person the new guy is for wanting to play with "riptides" .
All I see "narrative" people to generate is hate . You can't play the army you want , becaue the "narrative" player may not like it . You can't use the models you want , because the "narrative" player doesn't like . Heaven forbid you don't like something he plays , because then your a WAAC and everything is legal and he plays RAI or some other sort of house and not the way the rule is actualy writen down . And what hand to new players do they have . the tournament players help with building armies and narrative says play with what you want , because "everything works" as long as it isn't good , because if the new players likes "riptides" the narrative player won't forget to tell him how bad a person the new guy is for wanting to play with "riptides" .
How so?
All you need to do is find likeminded people and play with them the way you enjoy it.
A less restrictive ruleset accommodates both the more competitive-minded people tweaking their game to their liking, and the narrative people. The player base is that much larger, and even though you might never play with the "narrative people", GW has more revenues, can produce more miniatures, more Codexes, expanding the wealth of options ever further.
A more competitive ruleset would only shuts out people you don't want to play with anyways. The player base would be smaller. Nothing would be gained, and a smaller player-base would only make the releases from GW's side fewer and further in-between, as they break even less often on a smaller group of "only competitive" customers, rather than the larger group of "competitive & narrative" customers.
Zweischneid wrote: All you need to do is find likeminded people and play with them the way you enjoy it.
A less restrictive ruleset accommodates both the more competitive-minded people tweaking their game to their liking, and the narrative people. The player base is that much larger, and even though you might never play with the "narrative people", GW has more revenues, can produce more miniatures, more Codexes, expanding the wealth of options ever further.
A more competitive ruleset would only shuts out people you don't want to play with anyways.
No, the division shuts out the people YOU don't want to play with. I'm personally quite happy to play against anyone regardless of what aspects of the game they enjoy. It's hard not to read your posts as very snobbish when you are so happy with shutting people out of the game and saying they can go play with their own kind. I don't want anyone shut out. Nor do the other players you're arguing with. What we want is a situation where anyone can play with anyone else and no-one has to start a session by telling someone they can't play with you unless they use only the units you allow them to.
What we want is a situation where anyone can play with anyone else and no-one has to start a session by telling someone they can't play with you unless they use only the units you allow them to.
Outside of tournaments and competition, I personally have never had a problem with someone's army comp, nor have I seen any narrative player restrict units.
knas ser wrote: What we want is a situation where anyone can play with anyone else and no-one has to start a session by telling someone they can't play with you unless they use only the units you allow them to.
I hope this never happens. It would mean some people would possibly have to endure games they don't enjoy, just so you don't have to be fethed with digging out some basic social skills. For a "two-player-game/hobby", I find that unacceptable.
If you can't be bothered to actually interact with somebody else to make gaming a fun experience for two people, what's the point of playing any two-player game?
Here is where I lose you...why does balance lead to bland mirror units....The units can be very different and if point costed correctly be more or less balanced (I'm not saying perfect) what we have now is mirror/bland armies being played because not taking those armies makes the game very unenjoyable (narrative or not playing with an army that gets killed turn 2 is boring). Balance is not just about every unit being equal...it is about every unit being valued properly and for that cost being nearly as good as what it is meant to do.
Also this idea that people that don't like it should quit (when they have invested a good deal of time and money in the hobby during editions, including early 6th that were far more balanced.) is silly unless your goal is to make GW go away.
I'll also disagree that things are imbalanced with intent. They may have no intent to balance while designing things but given past FAQs it is obvious they just don't think about it...which makes it unintentional.
The idea that people should quit a game they don't like (investments and all) is not any less silly than the idea that Games Workshop should change their game which many people enjoy (and invest as heavily into) precisely the way it is, because of the way it is.
Doubly so, if the "recommendation" is to change 40K to be more like ... for example ... "Warmachine", when there already is Warmachine on the market (but nothing like the current Warhammer 40K, if the current Warhammer 40K were to stop being the game it is now).
I don't think anyone (at least not me) is saying 40k should play more like Warmachine (mechanics and scale are totally different). What I am saying is I want balance within the rules that GW provides. Given that what it is right now is a vastly different game than I started playing saying "Well you if you don't like it just quit." is not meaningful because I already invested a lot of time (and money) into the game...and have a lot of friends who play (who feel similarly to me). My recomendation would be "hey GW, you had a good thing going before...why are you so intent on screwing it up."
You seem dead set against units being balanced but have given no reasoning (other than apparently that they would all be the same), as to why that hurts anyone.
Nor do you seem to acknoledge the fact that it is not so easy to "just find likeminded people" as it is a small hobby and fracturing it into groups is bad for the hobby. As is a game that requires copious house rules to play. IT is bad if I live in one area and play with one set of rules...then travel to another to play with a different set of rules...it leads to arguments amongst players etc....
SO I fail to see how a game with just as many options that are at least somewhat balanced is some how worse than what we have now? If I can take a Tau army and successfully compete in a game (not be competitive, but not get outright stomped) with say Vespids, and Kroot, instead of Riptides and Broadsides...without needing you to remake your army....how is that bad for anyone?
knas ser wrote: What we want is a situation where anyone can play with anyone else and no-one has to start a session by telling someone they can't play with you unless they use only the units you allow them to.
I hope this never happens. It would mean some people would possibly have to endure games they don't enjoy, just so you don't have to be fethed with digging out some basic social skills. For a "two-player-game/hobby", I find that unacceptable.
If you can't be bothered to actually interact with somebody else to make gaming a fun experience for two people, what's the point of playing any two-player game?
This is the whole point...we shouldn't need to have a pregame discussion to make the game enjoyable for both of us....it should be designed so that it occurs by default.......it should be the general state of the game within the rules....not some exception to the rules that must be negotiated...to be some comprimise so that we are both a little happy and a little not....What happens right now is I lovingly paint up say a 5 Riptide army because I love giant robots...and no one will play against me because it is OP and Cheesey. This should not occur.
You seem dead set against units being balanced but have given no reasoning (other than apparently that they would all be the same), as to why that hurts anyone.
Balanced games produce steep learning curves, highly rote-plays, and a general "distancing" from the narrative aspects. I've given plenty of reasons. 40K's "meta-game", which drives so many to keep investing and being engaged with it is another one.
Inversely, I have heard no idea why "balanced" should be "better" by default, other than that it allows you to skip the "social" aspect of wargaming.
You seem dead set against units being balanced but have given no reasoning (other than apparently that they would all be the same), as to why that hurts anyone.
Balanced games produce steep learning curves, highly rote-plays, and a general "distancing" from the narrative aspects. I've given plenty of reasons. 40K's "meta-game", which drives so many to keep investing and being engaged with it is another one.
Inversely, I have heard no idea why "balanced" should be "better" by default, other than that it allows you to skip the "social" aspect of wargaming.
I think you're misunderstanding that video quite badly and certainly misusing it in thinking it is a counter argument to what many of us have said. The video is also focused on cycles of obsoleting models and creating power-churn. Which is great for GW to milk money from people, but not the goal of a player. You also make the assumption (in so far as the video does apply), that GW implement what they describe well. Whereas GW do so very badly.
I'll skip over the rather rude and offensive parts you directed at me about 'lack of social skills', other than to note the irony of your insults. Your attack on better written and balanced rules because they "allow people to skip the social aspect" is multiply flawed.
Firstly it is flawed because what you are describing is not "the social aspect". I do not require rules or lack of rules to be social. What you are erroneously describing is that a process of negotiation (a social process) can mitigate a problem. Reducing the problem and thus reducing the necessity of a social patch to fix it, is not "removing the social aspect". It's simply making it no longer a necessary stage to go through. Nothing stops you talking to your opponent for as long as you like before a game. What better written and balanced rules allows, is greater freedom as to whether you have to engage in that process.
Secondly, it is flawed because that process is not a necessarily friendly huggy process, but rather a risk that it will create disharmony between the players. A drawn out re-establishment of expectations and compromise is not "a social aspect", it is (as explained earlier) something that can be mitigated by social skills. But that does not make it a problem. Indeed, if two people turn up and one has her lovingly painted Wraith Knights (two of them) and you tell her she cannot use them against you - that has immediately created a social problem. And your demand inherently takes away from her enjoyment. Especially if you then take the attitude of 'stick to your own kind' as you evinced in your previous post. It gets worse if you then take a superior attitude as you have been doing so in this thread (i.e. we're happy to play anyone, you argue for a division between players). But this situation would not arise if the armies and rules were better balanced.
Thirdly, it is tiresome to have to go through an extended process of negotiation when you just want to play someone (who you may or may not know).
Fourthly, your entire argument has a flawed premise. You argue for negotiation between players, finding of mutually satisfactory match-ups, rather than whatever GW allows. If you are arguing in favour therefore, of player negotiation over balancing the codices, what do you care about what the codices are in the first place? Your only reason is that they might set expectations but you are arguing people should self-limit and allow things based on player negotiation anyway, so why should you care if the codices are better balanced?
And actually, I've changed my mind. I'm not going to skip over your personal attacks. Just because someone wants rules to be well written and armies to have better balance, does not mean that they lack social skills. And your snobbish attitude is tiresome. We want everyone to be able to play together. You want a certain section to bugger off and play with their own kind. Indeed, you clearly look down on those players, so maybe you should assess your own sociability.
I think you're misunderstanding that video quite badly and certainly misusing it in thinking it is a counter argument to what many of us have said.
I am not using this video as a counter argument to anything.
I am using it as one example (among many) on why this myth of "balanced=better", or at least "balanced=no trade-offs" that keeps getting perpetuated here isn't as self-evident as you claim.
There are many good reasons to stay away from balance as a game-design goal. Those expressed in the video are some of them (more monetary ones). A more rewarding narrative environment is another reason. Either way, it doesn't matter.
More balance has advantages (skipping pre-game negotiation, if that's something that irks you), but it also has disadvantages.
Less balance has disadvantages (requiring more pre-game negotiation, if that's not something you like), but it also has advantages.
All that matters is that there are a wide variety of opinions about game-design out there. Just because a game heads down a direction you personally wouldn't have chosen or don't enjoy, doesn't mean it's inherently "bad". Nor does it mean there aren't any people who actually do enjoy it.
Inversely, it feels odd that somebody who accuses other people of snobbishness keeps clinging to such a simplistic and egoistical worldview of "Either-I-Like-It-Or-It-Must-Be-gak".
Zweischneid wrote: But a large selection of stuff, including whacky stuff serves a larger group of people, those who want whacky stuff too (e.g. Titans) and (!) those that want a smaller "balanced" selection (which everyone is free to pick from the greater group of available options).
A smaller "balanced" selection only serves the latter group.
This is another flawed argument. That better written rules and better balanced armies, require a smaller selection. Lowering the points cost of Howling Banshees slightly, would make them slightly more balanced (imo - it's just an example of principle), but in no way remove them from the game. Indeed, it would mean that you saw more varied lists with a wider selection of units as instead of people being fully aware that Scorpions are better and that they're lowering their chances of winning by picking Banshees, many people would find it more of an even choice between the two units (even though they both play quite differently). You keep trying to make this a divisive issue between extremes - play to win and damn the fluff, or do as you please and resolve all differences with cuddles (and of course blaming any failure in the latter scenario on someone's lack of social skills). But in fact, there are many (most?) who enjoy both fluff and narrative and also enjoy competitive play. At the same time. You should be in favour of letting people have their cake and eat it, rather than widening the gulf so that everyone is forced to choose a side or your way or get "shut out".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zweischneid wrote: Inversely, it feels odd that somebody who accuses other people of snobbishness keeps clinging to such a simplistic and egoistical worldview of "Either-I-Like-It-Or-It-Must-Be-gak".
But that isn't my "worldview". More or less the opposite of what I've been saying. I'm saying that better written rules and more balanced armies are good for everyone, not good for me. That you personally do not think the rules can be improved or the armies better balanced without making things worse, does not mean that I am being egotistical. No more than a medieval Christian not accepting that there was any option other than following God or following the Devil, would make an atheist a devil-worshipper.
I said I found your post snobbish because you said certain types of players should be shut out and I contrasted this with our view that everyone should be catered for by the rules and army lists.
Exactly I don't think anyone is arguing for perfect balance (an monetary reasons for imbalance do not good game design make...they might make for good buisiness...but not good game design.). I am arguing that if you make units more balanced (viable) you have a better game...and one in which people can play with the toys they like rather than having a pregame banning session to enjoy the game.
But that isn't my "worldview". More or less the opposite of what I've been saying. I'm saying that better written rules and more balanced armies are good for everyone, not good for me.
And I am saying that better written rules and less emphasis on balance, with an overall loser, more free-form and sand-box approach, are good for everyone, not good for me. It'll allow the game to reach a larger group of players (including the competitive crowd, who can still play within the larger game with a few house-rules (e.g. 1999+1 as it has been popular). Indeed, hundreds of flavours of "competitive" could be possible, not just one of them.
But that isn't my "worldview". More or less the opposite of what I've been saying. I'm saying that better written rules and more balanced armies are good for everyone, not good for me.
And I am saying that better written rules and less emphasis on balance, with an overall loser, more free-form and sand-box approach, are good for everyone, not good for me. It'll allow the game to reach a larger group of players (including the competitive crowd, who can still play within the larger game with a few house-rules (e.g. 1999+1 as it has been popular). Indeed, hundreds of flavours of "competitive" could be possible, not just one of them.
Those are some really hard to parse sentences.
EDIT: By "loser" did you mean "looser"? If so, I'm completely at a loss how you turn what people have been saying into what you wrote above.
But that isn't my "worldview". More or less the opposite of what I've been saying. I'm saying that better written rules and more balanced armies are good for everyone, not good for me.
And I am saying that better written rules and less emphasis on balance, with an overall loser, more free-form and sand-box approach, are good for everyone, not good for me. It'll allow the game to reach a larger group of players (including the competitive crowd, who can still play within the larger game with a few house-rules (e.g. 1999+1 as it has been popular). Indeed, hundreds of flavours of "competitive" could be possible, not just one of them.
Those are some really hard to parse sentences.
EDIT: By "loser" did you mean "looser"? If so, I'm completely at a loss how you turn what people have been saying into what you wrote above.
Yes. Looser. I apologize if my typo made it impossible for you to read a sentence.
But that isn't my "worldview". More or less the opposite of what I've been saying. I'm saying that better written rules and more balanced armies are good for everyone, not good for me.
And I am saying that better written rules and less emphasis on balance, with an overall loser, more free-form and sand-box approach, are good for everyone, not good for me. It'll allow the game to reach a larger group of players (including the competitive crowd, who can still play within the larger game with a few house-rules (e.g. 1999+1 as it has been popular). Indeed, hundreds of flavours of "competitive" could be possible, not just one of them.
Those are some really hard to parse sentences.
EDIT: By "loser" did you mean "looser"? If so, I'm completely at a loss how you turn what people have been saying into what you wrote above.
Yes. Looser. I apologize if my typo made it impossible for you to read a sentence.
Well you were talking about changes making things "better for everyone" but "an overall loser". I don't think that warrants sarcastic apologies and digs about me finding it impossible to read sentences. It was a genuine question. I still don't see how what people have been saying translates into what you're saying in the above.
SO just to be clear you like that their are units that are totally obvious no brainer includes, factions that are bad in comparison to others, and a system that (if you want a fair game) needs players to flat out change rules or ban units. Rather than a game where all choices are actually viable?
But that isn't my "worldview". More or less the opposite of what I've been saying. I'm saying that better written rules and more balanced armies are good for everyone, not good for me.
And I am saying that better written rules and less emphasis on balance, with an overall loser, more free-form and sand-box approach, are good for everyone, not good for me. It'll allow the game to reach a larger group of players (including the competitive crowd, who can still play within the larger game with a few house-rules (e.g. 1999+1 as it has been popular). Indeed, hundreds of flavours of "competitive" could be possible, not just one of them.
Those are some really hard to parse sentences.
EDIT: By "loser" did you mean "looser"? If so, I'm completely at a loss how you turn what people have been saying into what you wrote above.
You really are wasting your time arguing with Zweischneid, he is either a huge troll or has a severe difficulty in parsing what other people are saying so it is perfectly useless trying to reason with him in any way as he is just going to distort what you say to try and fit his arguments. Take his link of the the perfect imbalance video, for example, lots of people already did what you did, try and explain to him how that video doesn't really apply to GW games for all the reasons that you posted and others, and yet he still insists on posting it on every thread that even mentions how a better balanced set of rules would be beneficial to 40K...
Breng77 wrote: SO just to be clear you like that their are units that are totally obvious no brainer includes, factions that are bad in comparison to others, and a system that (if you want a fair game) needs players to flat out change rules or ban units. Rather than a game where all choices are actually viable?
There aren't.
Banshees (to use the earlier example) might be too expensive in table-edge-to-table-edge annihilation shoot-out with Tau. They are probably under-priced in a Zone Mortalis game against Tac Marines, where inversely the Wraithknight might be utterly useless. With the multitude of possible match-ups and combinations, it's impossible to find a single "balance" for a given unit, much less a single Codex, unless you limit the game to a highly standardized, inflexible "one-type-of-game".
True diversity will only be possible if the community learns, as a matter of standard pre-game procedure, to adjust things to be "the most fun possible" for the given game they are about to play.
Breng77 wrote: SO just to be clear you like that their are units that are totally obvious no brainer includes, factions that are bad in comparison to others, and a system that (if you want a fair game) needs players to flat out change rules or ban units. Rather than a game where all choices are actually viable?
Queue re-phrasing of the above into loaded terms and obfuscation of these facts with unsupported corollaries.
But that isn't my "worldview". More or less the opposite of what I've been saying. I'm saying that better written rules and more balanced armies are good for everyone, not good for me.
And I am saying that better written rules and less emphasis on balance, with an overall loser, more free-form and sand-box approach, are good for everyone, not good for me. It'll allow the game to reach a larger group of players (including the competitive crowd, who can still play within the larger game with a few house-rules (e.g. 1999+1 as it has been popular). Indeed, hundreds of flavours of "competitive" could be possible, not just one of them.
Those are some really hard to parse sentences.
EDIT: By "loser" did you mean "looser"? If so, I'm completely at a loss how you turn what people have been saying into what you wrote above.
You really are wasting your time arguing with Zweischneid, he is either a huge troll or has a severe difficulty in parsing what other people are saying so it is perfectly useless trying to reason with him in any way as he is just going to distort what you say to try and fit his arguments. Take his link of the the perfect imbalance video, for example, lots of people already did what you did, try and explain to him how that video doesn't really apply to GW games for all the reasons that you posted and others, and yet he still insists on posting it on every thread that even mentions how a better balanced set of rules would be beneficial to 40K...
Breng77 wrote: SO just to be clear you like that their are units that are totally obvious no brainer includes, factions that are bad in comparison to others, and a system that (if you want a fair game) needs players to flat out change rules or ban units. Rather than a game where all choices are actually viable?
There aren't.
Banshees (to use the earlier example) might be too expensive in table-edge-to-table-edge annihilation shoot-out with Tau. They are probably under-priced in a Zone Mortalis game against Tac Marines, where inversely the Wraithknight might be utterly useless. With the multitude of possible match-ups and combinations, it's impossible to find a single "balance" for a given unit, much less a single Codex, unless you limit the game to a highly standardized, inflexible "one-type-of-game".
True diversity will only be possible if the community learns, as a matter of standard pre-game procedure, to adjust things to be "the most fun possible" for the given game they are about to play.
Then IMO it would be better to write and pointscost units differently for each type of game rather than have an open system....because saying well X unit is great under y circumstance is silly. In the game (as layed out in the base rulebook, with the missions they provide), some units are much better than others. and you are very specific in your statement...they are underpriced in a particular mission style against a particular opponent....so essentially if we list tailor stuff...then everything works out and if I design a mission with rules saying grots cannot die....then they are the best unit ever....there is a way to find a single balance based on the Base game...which is what the system is designed around playing.....saying well I can design rules to make something work is not a way to design a game...
if I design a mission with rules saying grots cannot die....then they are the best unit ever...
If you have a story that makes this the game to play, why not? A good example of something the game-developers probably wouldn't be able to foresee writing the game.
there is a way to find a single balance based on the Base game
Yes, but it has proven inhibiting for people wanting to go beyond the "base" game and detrimental to the normal social checks-and-balances against people being ass-hats within this base/default-game, because they read the rules as a sort of absolute gospel (with everything allowed within them fair game, anything outside them anathema).
Making this division more permeable and encouraging hobbyists to move get creative beyond the "provided" missions, "provided" point costs, "provided" rules, "provided" units is to create a more free-form system. It should've worked before with a more closed system, I guess, but for some reason it just didn't.
My point is that it is easier for people to generate rules for the things that fall outside of the inner circle you have there (and they often exist in non-core supplements) than it is to do so for Organized play or pick up play. And what having unbalanced rules leads to is disagreement...hurt feelings, and a bad experience.
I.e. if the core rules are balanced there is nothing stopping you from changing them for a special scenario. However, convincing a guy you just met that x/y/or z is broken...or should be used differently etc...is near impossible...and just leads to games not happening.
Essentially creative groups don't even need the rules at all....
Breng77 wrote: My point is that it is easier for people to generate rules for the things that fall outside of the inner circle you have there (and they often exist in non-core supplements) than it is to do so for Organized play or pick up play. And what having unbalanced rules leads to is disagreement...hurt feelings, and a bad experience.
I.e. if the core rules are balanced there is nothing stopping you from changing them for a special scenario. However, convincing a guy you just met that x/y/or z is broken...or should be used differently etc...is near impossible...and just leads to games not happening.
Essentially creative groups don't even need the rules at all....
I disagree. I believe it is easier to remove existing rules for a single, specific set of players than it is to compel every single other player outside of that category to invent new rules from scratch. They're not paid to be game developers.
Put another way...if I think riptides are too powerful, and I play just with my buddies and they agree there is nothing stopping us from changing the rules for them...if I show up at a Game shop with those changed rules to play some guy I've never met that is much harder.
Breng77 wrote: Put another way...if I think riptides are too powerful, and I play just with my buddies and they agree there is nothing stopping us from changing the rules for them...if I show up at a Game shop with those changed rules to play some guy I've never met that is much harder.
True - so why are you trying to change the rules? Is it bad that Riptides are too powerful?
Breng77 wrote: My point is that it is easier for people to generate rules for the things that fall outside of the inner circle you have there (and they often exist in non-core supplements) than it is to do so for Organized play or pick up play. And what having unbalanced rules leads to is disagreement...hurt feelings, and a bad experience.
I.e. if the core rules are balanced there is nothing stopping you from changing them for a special scenario. However, convincing a guy you just met that x/y/or z is broken...or should be used differently etc...is near impossible...and just leads to games not happening.
Essentially creative groups don't even need the rules at all....
I disagree. I believe it is easier to remove existing rules for a single, specific set of players than it is to compel every single other player outside of that category to invent new rules from scratch. They're not paid to be game developers.
Neither are the people removing the rules....and it is not removing just rules, people are rewriting them...banning units entirely etc...much easier for small groups to change what they want than large communities.
Breng77 wrote: Put another way...if I think riptides are too powerful, and I play just with my buddies and they agree there is nothing stopping us from changing the rules for them...if I show up at a Game shop with those changed rules to play some guy I've never met that is much harder.
True - so why are you trying to change the rules? Is it bad that Riptides are too powerful?
If all I ever see from Tau is 4 or 5 Riptides then yes it is bad....
Breng77 wrote: My point is that it is easier for people to generate rules for the things that fall outside of the inner circle you have there (and they often exist in non-core supplements) than it is to do so for Organized play or pick up play. And what having unbalanced rules leads to is disagreement...hurt feelings, and a bad experience.
I.e. if the core rules are balanced there is nothing stopping you from changing them for a special scenario. However, convincing a guy you just met that x/y/or z is broken...or should be used differently etc...is near impossible...and just leads to games not happening.
Essentially creative groups don't even need the rules at all....
I disagree. I believe it is easier to remove existing rules for a single, specific set of players than it is to compel every single other player outside of that category to invent new rules from scratch. They're not paid to be game developers.
Neither are the people removing the rules....and it is not removing just rules, people are rewriting them...banning units entirely etc...much easier for small groups to change what they want than large communities.
The tournament scene has been FAQing, Comping, and adjusting the rules for years, and you pay to go to tournaments. So they are paid, after a fashion, and it's nothing new.
Breng77 wrote: My point is that it is easier for people to generate rules for the things that fall outside of the inner circle you have there (and they often exist in non-core supplements) than it is to do so for Organized play or pick up play. And what having unbalanced rules leads to is disagreement...hurt feelings, and a bad experience.
I.e. if the core rules are balanced there is nothing stopping you from changing them for a special scenario. However, convincing a guy you just met that x/y/or z is broken...or should be used differently etc...is near impossible...and just leads to games not happening.
Essentially creative groups don't even need the rules at all....
I disagree. I believe it is easier to remove existing rules for a single, specific set of players than it is to compel every single other player outside of that category to invent new rules from scratch. They're not paid to be game developers.
Neither are the people removing the rules....and it is not removing just rules, people are rewriting them...banning units entirely etc...much easier for small groups to change what they want than large communities.
The tournament scene has been FAQing, Comping, and adjusting the rules for years, and you pay to go to tournaments. So they are paid, after a fashion, and it's nothing new.
Ummmmm....most tournaments barely break even...so no they are not paid....they often lose money on the endeavor.....further I could also say local playing groups have been changing rules for ever...
and the Tau thing is because it is better to have other viable units....if one unit is dominant it makes the game unappealing (at least to me).
Breng77 wrote: My point is that it is easier for people to generate rules for the things that fall outside of the inner circle you have there (and they often exist in non-core supplements) than it is to do so for Organized play or pick up play. And what having unbalanced rules leads to is disagreement...hurt feelings, and a bad experience.
I.e. if the core rules are balanced there is nothing stopping you from changing them for a special scenario. However, convincing a guy you just met that x/y/or z is broken...or should be used differently etc...is near impossible...and just leads to games not happening.
Essentially creative groups don't even need the rules at all....
I disagree.
Some super-creative artist-superminds might not need it, but Timmy from next door does need help and encouragement to be creative. He may never step outside the red circle (or never step inside the game), if the game suggest that all it does and all it cares about is the red circle.
There's a balance to providing people with some guidance to get into it (i.e. a game entirely without point values or stats probably would demand too much of people), but also not make people too dependent on those first pair of crutches they use to learn to walk (or play the game), that they'll never leave them behind.
For someone who uses so much rhetoric about freedom and player choice, you don't half love creating arbitrary boundaries. Why would rules written for competitive play differ from those for narrative play? One of the things many people have argued here is that the rules should be streamlined and more simple. Why is that at odds with "Beer and Pretzels" with a red boundary separating them? What, about balancing points costs better, makes it incompatible with "asymmetrical campaign play". My example of better costing Howling Banshees does not stop anyone from having a 500pt vs. 800pt asymmetrical game. You are very big on making arbitrary statements that X is incompatible with Y (which your diagram is an example of), but do not bother to relate your arbitrary distinctions to what people have actually said. If one were, to take another example proposition, factor cover saves into the actual hit roll thus speeding up play, how is that going to be less suitable for "very low point games" than it is for "very high point games". Or narrative games. What about having better written rules or better balanced armies makes them less suitable for multi-player games? Indeed, you could write the rules in a better way that made them more suitable for both two-player and 3+ player games.
In short, in each case where someone has argued for better rules, you have retreated to making general statements or contrived examples, as an argument against people striving to improve what we have.
Furthermore, as Breng points out - if your argument is that no rules set fits all scenarios, then what is your objection to having the core rules at least fit one general case so that there is a better platform from which to adapt your oddball cases?
Well, they should charge more then. And I haven't been in a single local play group that has changed the rules, except to play tournaments.
And if they only break even or lose money, why don't they charge more? Capitalism is a thing. Regardless of whether or not they're paid, it's an easier task to excise rules than it is to make up new ones from scratch.
And there are other viable units - I have a friend who routinely wins games fielding 72 kroot, three hammerheads, and a crisis commander.
For someone who uses so much rhetoric about freedom and player choice, you don't half love creating arbitrary boundaries. Why would rules written for competitive play differ from those for narrative play? One of the things many people have argued here is that the rules should be streamlined and more simple. Why is that at odds with "Beer and Pretzels" with a red boundary separating them? What, about balancing points costs better, makes it incompatible with "asymmetrical campaign play". My example of better costing Howling Banshees does not stop anyone from having a 500pt vs. 800pt asymmetrical game. You are very big on making arbitrary statements that X is incompatible with Y (which your diagram is an example of), but do not bother to relate your arbitrary distinctions to what people have actually said. If one were, to take another example proposition, factor cover saves into the actual hit roll thus speeding up play, how is that going to be less suitable for "very low point games" than it is for "very high point games". Or narrative games. What about having better written rules or better balanced armies makes them less suitable for multi-player games? Indeed, you could write the rules in a better way that made them more suitable for both two-player and 3+ player games.
In short, in each case where someone has argued for better rules, you have retreated to making general statements or contrived examples, as an argument against people striving to improve what we have.
I'm in favor of balancing points costs where possible. Just don't remove any options.
I disagree that there is ample guidance being given now to make that statement....now what you get is Timmy trying to play in the circle because that is what he sees and Tom shows up with this Titan and Stomps Timmy's face. Now Timmy does not want to play games against Titans because they are no fun...So when Bobby goes out and buys a Titan because it is cool....Timmy refuses to play him and he cannot get a game....
Breng77 wrote: I disagree that there is ample guidance being given now to make that statement....now what you get is Timmy trying to play in the circle because that is what he sees and Tom shows up with this Titan and Stomps Timmy's face. Now Timmy does not want to play games against Titans because they are no fun...So when Bobby goes out and buys a Titan because it is cool....Timmy refuses to play him and he cannot get a game....
Perhaps Timmy should stop defining what is fun and what isn't based on whether or not he wins.
Breng77 wrote: I disagree that there is ample guidance being given now to make that statement....now what you get is Timmy trying to play in the circle because that is what he sees and Tom shows up with this Titan and Stomps Timmy's face. Now Timmy does not want to play games against Titans because they are no fun...So when Bobby goes out and buys a Titan because it is cool....Timmy refuses to play him and he cannot get a game....
Which won't happen if people learn that you don't simply "show up with X" without making sure it'll be a fun game for all participants.
Breng77 wrote: I disagree that there is ample guidance being given now to make that statement....now what you get is Timmy trying to play in the circle because that is what he sees and Tom shows up with this Titan and Stomps Timmy's face. Now Timmy does not want to play games against Titans because they are no fun...So when Bobby goes out and buys a Titan because it is cool....Timmy refuses to play him and he cannot get a game....
Perhaps Timmy should stop defining what is fun and what isn't based on whether or not he wins.
Again the superior mentality that other people should have to adapt to someone else's preferences instead of producing a better rules system so that Bobby can play what he thinks is cool and Timmy can play against without knowing he is going to auto-lose the battle. Again, the strange mentality that someone must be motivated by EITHER cool OR winning, and excluding anyone who might have a degree of both (which is most).
Unit1126PLL wrote: Well, they should charge more then. And I haven't been in a single local play group that has changed the rules, except to play tournaments.
And if they only break even or lose money, why don't they charge more? Capitalism is a thing. Regardless of whether or not they're paid, it's an easier task to excise rules than it is to make up new ones from scratch.
And there are other viable units - I have a friend who routinely wins games fielding 72 kroot, three hammerheads, and a crisis commander.
.
The Riptide thing was an example (I don't actually see just riptides, but in general most Armies out there use the same units from each books, with little variety)
Also you are right Capitalism is a thing...which is why they don't charge more.....people are only willing to pay so much. As for it being easier to excise rules...it still ends up pissing people off when you do it at a large scale vs... Lets just use the riptide example.
Tournament thinks riptides are too good....well lets ban them. Or restrict to only 1 per army. Now Timmy cannot bring his multiple riptides at all, or he stays home.
Local Group agrees riptides are too good....well lets bump up their cost 50 points....ok now they work better....
Breng77 wrote: I disagree that there is ample guidance being given now to make that statement....now what you get is Timmy trying to play in the circle because that is what he sees and Tom shows up with this Titan and Stomps Timmy's face. Now Timmy does not want to play games against Titans because they are no fun...So when Bobby goes out and buys a Titan because it is cool....Timmy refuses to play him and he cannot get a game....
Which won't happen if people learn that you don't simply "show up with X" without making sure it'll be a fun game for all participants.
And here you talk about "all participants" whilst using arguments that shut some people out.
Breng77 wrote: I disagree that there is ample guidance being given now to make that statement....now what you get is Timmy trying to play in the circle because that is what he sees and Tom shows up with this Titan and Stomps Timmy's face. Now Timmy does not want to play games against Titans because they are no fun...So when Bobby goes out and buys a Titan because it is cool....Timmy refuses to play him and he cannot get a game....
Perhaps Timmy should stop defining what is fun and what isn't based on whether or not he wins.
Again the superior mentality that other people should have to adapt to someone else's preferences instead of producing a better rules system so that Bobby can play what he thinks is cool and Timmy can play against without knowing he is going to auto-lose the battle. Again, the strange mentality that someone must be motivated by EITHER cool OR winning, and excluding anyone who might have a degree of both (which is most).
As Zweischneid said, if everyone is willing to discuss beforehand what would or would not make the game fun for the participants then you wouldn't have to exclude anyone or anything. Including adapting a better rules system.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Well, they should charge more then. And I haven't been in a single local play group that has changed the rules, except to play tournaments.
And if they only break even or lose money, why don't they charge more? Capitalism is a thing. Regardless of whether or not they're paid, it's an easier task to excise rules than it is to make up new ones from scratch.
And there are other viable units - I have a friend who routinely wins games fielding 72 kroot, three hammerheads, and a crisis commander.
.
The Riptide thing was an example (I don't actually see just riptides, but in general most Armies out there use the same units from each books, with little variety)
Also you are right Capitalism is a thing...which is why they don't charge more.....people are only willing to pay so much. As for it being easier to excise rules...it still ends up pissing people off when you do it at a large scale vs... Lets just use the riptide example.
Tournament thinks riptides are too good....well lets ban them. Or restrict to only 1 per army. Now Timmy cannot bring his multiple riptides at all, or he stays home.
Local Group agrees riptides are too good....well lets bump up their cost 50 points....ok now they work better....
Ok, if you see other things, what's the problem with someone who wants to field 5 riptides? or 5 units of kroot? or 5 anything?
Most Armies out there that copy and paste lists are for competitive tournament play. That mindset naturally will spam the best thing, whether it's 5% better than everything else or 50% better.
Breng77 wrote: I disagree that there is ample guidance being given now to make that statement....now what you get is Timmy trying to play in the circle because that is what he sees and Tom shows up with this Titan and Stomps Timmy's face. Now Timmy does not want to play games against Titans because they are no fun...So when Bobby goes out and buys a Titan because it is cool....Timmy refuses to play him and he cannot get a game....
Which won't happen if people learn that you don't simply "show up with X" without making sure it'll be a fun game for all participants.
And here you talk about "all participants" whilst using arguments that shut some people out.
The difference is, his way leaves the route open for discussion, while simply excising things from the rules removes them from the entire game everywhere.
And here you talk about "all participants" whilst using arguments that shut some people out.
I am not.
You still have the option to agree to "let's have a cutthroat competitive game" with "double-blind" lists.
Nobody is taking that option away from anyone. It's simply about adding other options as well, having more than just one "default way" to play the game.
I don't think they'll ever stop adding things to the game and adding models to the range, doesn't make fiscal sense to stop adding things.
As for 'beer and pretzels' I agree it never was that sort of game, it's a table top miniatures game. I have never drank beer or ate pretzels while playing. The game takes more concentration then playing monopoly or cards so I don't think it falls into that category. It's something for fun, although reading on these forums usually makes you think it's meant for argument and stalemate conversation.
Zweischneid wrote: You still have the option to agree to "let's have a cutthroat competitive game" with "double-blind" lists.
Except you don't, because when the game is badly balanced the chances of having an enjoyable game with "blind" lists go down significantly, especially if one or both players is making a list based on something other than pure winning potential. And then you have awkward situations where a player makes an army that they love and then someone else tells them they can't use it because it's too powerful.
Plus, there's all your complaining about how competitive players have done "damage to the game that will take decades to fix". It's pretty obvious that what you want is for the bad rules to push all the competitive players into their own little corner where they can't "ruin" the game for you.
Nobody is taking that option away from anyone. It's simply about adding other options as well, having more than just one "default way" to play the game.
And what you can't understand (or deliberately won't understand) is that a well-balanced game with clear rules benefits every style of play. A narrative game is better when both players can show up with appropriate narrative armies and have an interesting game with both players having a fair chance of winning. A "casual" game is better when the game is playable and fun "out of the box" without the players having to spend a bunch of time reading forums and understanding what units are overpowered so that they can negotiate properly about what will make the game more fun.
Literally the only reason that poor balance makes a game "better" is that terrible rules force the players to go through your beloved masochistic rituals about "making it their own game" instead of just deciding to play a game and playing it.
Plus, there's all your complaining about how competitive players have done "damage to the game that will take decades to fix". It's pretty obvious that what you want is for the bad rules to push all the competitive players into their own little corner where they can't "ruin" the game for you.
.
Because there is a difference between a certain group of players doing their thing, while also respecting and tolerating other styles, and a certain group dictating everyone's game.
I would equally argue against narrative players, if their style of game were to dictate everyone's game. Luckily, it doesn't, because you can tweak a loose (!) set of rules easily to get the competitive experience you want. At its most "competitive", perfect mirror-matches will always be perfectly balanced and provide the pure test of player-skill you crave, utterly independent of point costs, FoC, etc.. .
It just so happens, that competitive play (or players) exerted a strong influence over the game in the past years, not any other type of players. Just the way it is. I cannot apologize for historical circumstance. I can only repeat that the "competitive" slice of the pie isn't getting any smaller, just because the pie as a whole is growing to allow more people to join the feast.
Zweischneid wrote: Luckily, it doesn't, because you can tweak a loose (!) set of rules easily to get the competitive experience you want.
You must be an utter genius if you can take an unbalanced badly written rule set and ad lib a balanced, competitive game from it.
Zweischneid wrote: At its most "competitive", perfect mirror-matches will always be perfectly balanced and provide the pure test of player-skill you crave, utterly independent of point costs, FoC, etc.. .
And yet again, we must tell you that improved rules and better balance does not mean the "perfect mirror-match". You could at least pretend to argue against what people say rather than what you choose to hear.
And at both you and unit, nowhere did I talk about removing things from the game. Again, you just heard what you wanted to respond to.
There are a lot of good points from both sides of the argument, but there is something about this game that simply baffles me. I would argue that the majority of the people in opposition to a 'gentleman's agreement' approach to a fun game for both players legitimately dislike this game.
So many people on these forums literally do nothing but bemoan GW and bombast its ruleset.
Here is an honest question for you- why are you still posting here/playing the game?
If it's so bad, I want to know (it's not as if GW is holding a gun to your head).
The general attitudes towards what legitimately is supposed to be a ridiculous and over the top game where you roll some dice and blow gak up almost always devolves into legitimate animosity.
Are you really such masochists that you enjoy talking about things you hate and involving yourself with it? Perhaps it's time to find a hobby that upsets you less.
It's a hobby that requires a substantial investment in time, money and effort. Many have already done this, so to see the company plot a course toward the drain is understandably upsetting.
Saying this company was always this way is a cop out and nothing more.
Saying the game is just a light "beer & pretzels" game is also a fallacy.
Saying a game can't be a good narrative or interesting without imbalance is also a fallacy. For example, side A has 4+4+4 strength units and side B has strength 2+3+5+1+1 strength units. Both sides have the same strength despite different values.
How is 4+4 Vs. 6+5 a better game? If one prefers no accountability for any measured success in playing the game this is a great system. For anyone else, it simply sucks.
There are a lot of good points from both sides of the argument, but there is something about this game that simply baffles me. I would argue that the majority of the people in opposition to a 'gentleman's agreement' approach to a fun game for both players legitimately dislike this game.
So many people on these forums literally do nothing but bemoan GW and bombast its ruleset.
Here is an honest question for you- why are you still posting here/playing the game?
If it's so bad, I want to know (it's not as if GW is holding a gun to your head).
The general attitudes towards what legitimately is supposed to be a ridiculous and over the top game where you roll some dice and blow gak up almost always devolves into legitimate animosity.
Are you really such masochists that you enjoy talking about things you hate and involving yourself with it? Perhaps it's time to find a hobby that upsets you less.
We are optimists. We believe in the best of all possible worlds. Or at least in trying to make things better than they are and that they can be made better than they are. Few people play WH40K over other games for the rules. We play it because we love the fluff and the models, generally. But we see many people driven off both by the rules / game balance issues, and by attitudes that they are wrong for wanting the game to be balanced and the rules to be better. What we would like (and I do not pretend to speak for all arguing for better rules and balance in this thread, but I think most would at least agree), is to see the rules and balance improved so that (a) people who are bothered by rules and balance problems are not forced to choose between a setting they like and a rules set they like, thus increasing the number of people playing and helping the hobby we care about; (b) having more satisfying games ourselves and (c) encouraging more varied and thematic lists through improvements. It's not only boring to see, for example, yet another pack of Farseer and Warlock councils dominating the table, but it's not good for the fluff when you'd expect to see a variety of elder forces and not just the same outcome every time, but a variety of outcomes. Thus by improving the rules and balance, we not only get something that is better as a game, we get something that lets us tell better and more varied stories.
And we want it to be that when some poor kid spends their precious money on an Eldar titan because they think it's awesome, they don't show up at the club to find everyone calling them names / looking down on them / refusing to play them. Which is what happens.
There are a lot of good points from both sides of the argument, but there is something about this game that simply baffles me. I would argue that the majority of the people in opposition to a 'gentleman's agreement' approach to a fun game for both players legitimately dislike this game.
So many people on these forums literally do nothing but bemoan GW and bombast its ruleset.
Here is an honest question for you- why are you still posting here/playing the game?
If it's so bad, I want to know (it's not as if GW is holding a gun to your head).
The general attitudes towards what legitimately is supposed to be a ridiculous and over the top game where you roll some dice and blow gak up almost always devolves into legitimate animosity.
Are you really such masochists that you enjoy talking about things you hate and involving yourself with it? Perhaps it's time to find a hobby that upsets you less.
For me it is because prior to maybe the last 6 months (and even for some of that) I have really enjoyed the game (so much so that I run events for other people at a personal cost). I have also spent thousands of dollars and countless hours on the game...so to see the company running it essentially turn it into gak....pisses people off.
Honestly this is the first time I have really thought about just hanging it up because the game is so imbalanced (especially in casual play) that it is no longer enjoyable...I don't want to need to carry my whole collection with me down to the club, and negotiate a fair game....I already hold myself back plenty....I still fail to see how balancing units to their points cost in anyway hampers other ways of play.
XenosTerminus wrote: Here is an honest question for you- why are you still posting here/playing the game?
Probably involves people already being heavily invested in the game. its kind of a shame to just throw/sell/stow all those models away when you spend that much money and time on it. as well a lot of people enjoy the fluff and setting vs other more balanced games. (like i cant stand warmahords)
Seriously though something is wrong when you spend half the game play time looking up rules faqs and forums.
Edit and half the time even with narrative or competitive players, its near impossible to get an agreement in about a rules dispute with no clear answer. at which point you roll off and still feel cheated in the end. that makes for a bad time period.
Breng77 wrote: Honestly this is the first time I have really thought about just hanging it up because the game is so imbalanced (especially in casual play) that it is no longer enjoyable...I don't want to need to carry my whole collection with me down to the club, and negotiate a fair game....I already hold myself back plenty....I still fail to see how balancing units to their points cost in anyway hampers other ways of play.
Yeah. I'm a returning player. Started with 1st edition a long time ago. Returning to these boards full of enthusiasm I found that the competitive side consists almost entirely of a handful of deathstar lists and a whole crew of people who told me "get off my fething cross" when I said I thought D-weapons spoiled the game.
Damn near killed my enthusiasm and indeed I put the minis back in the box and stop posting for a while. Honestly, the attitudes in this thread and the sheer contempt I can feel makes me genuinely wonder whether I can be bothered getting back into it after all.
Apparently I "lack social skills" for not wanting to begin each game I hold with a stranger hashing out house rules and because I don't like telling them they can't use their choice of models.
I agree the game is a mess- GW has arguably ruined pick up games, and is forcing TO's to house rule in essence.
What I will say though is from the perspective of a player who has a small group of like minded friends with open minds to agree upon and improve the guidelines GW has given us, we have never enjoyed it as much as we have now.
As far as we are concerned, GW is a company that makes really nice models, provides a great background, and basic rules for which to craft your own enjoyable experience.
Hell, the fact GW no longer hosts their own tournaments, and in many cases have no available space in their own stores for pick up games may just illustrate that this is in fact the direction the game is going.
I wish all parties involved were sufficiently accommodated, but that does not appear to be the direction the game is going.
XenosTerminus wrote: I agree the game is a mess- GW has arguably ruined pick up games, and is forcing TO's to house rule in essence.
What I will say though is from the perspective of a player who has a small group of like minded friends with open minds to agree upon and improve the guidelines GW has given us, we have never enjoyed it as much as we have now.
And that's great. But I'm sure you agree that an improved rule set that required less in the way of agreements between friends would still be better. Especially if you don't only play with friends.
Absolutely. The reality is GW really should address their rules developmental issues. Honestly though, it's always been this way.
I started in 4th, and as long as I can remember the rules have been pretty mediocre. I am lucky to have a group that shares my ambition and vision for enjoying the game, and I certainly understand the frustration for people that do not have similar circumstances for which to approach GW's design philosophy.
I just think people could really redirect their frustration and try to embrace the game for what it is, and look for ways to improve it based on what we have been given.
XenosTerminus wrote: I just think people could really redirect their frustration and try to embrace the game for what it is, and look for ways to improve it based on what we have been given.
And that too, is fine. But people are passionate about what people are passionate about, and by no means object if someone finds it better for them to let their exasperation out than to bottle it up. Besides, you misjudge things if you think any of us who want change, want long unproductive threads that go round in circles. Had it just been Peregrine, myself and the others, we probably would have just all said our piece in answer to the OP's question and be satisfied we had answered. The reason this thread is so long is that having said our piece, we keep getting told things like it is not possible to improve the game without spoiling things for people who don't care as much about the rules (a nonsensical position the more you think about it) or that altering the points cost of some models violates some arbitrary venn diagram. Or my favourites - that wanting to avoid having to tell someone we've just met they're not allowed to use a model that the book says they can means we "lack social skills" and that players interested in competition aspects are best "shut out" from playing with others.
Faced with attacks like that, of course we write more. By all means "embrace the game for what it is" yourself - enjoy it! Sincerely! But don't object to the rest of us expecting better. Who knows - one day you might even benefit from our higher expectations.
knas ser wrote: we keep getting told things like it is not possible to improve the game without spoiling things for people who don't care as much about the rules (a nonsensical position the more you think about it) or that altering the points cost of some models violates some arbitrary venn diagram. Or my favourites - that wanting to avoid having to tell someone we've just met they're not allowed to use a model that the book says they can means we "lack social skills" and that players interested in competition aspects are best "shut out" from playing with others.
Faced with attacks like that, of course we write more. By all means "embrace the game for what it is" yourself - enjoy it! Sincerely! But don't object to the rest of us expecting better. Who knows - one day you might even benefit from our higher expectations.
Exalted
But ya, 6th ed has been the entitlement edition. You give people stuff and when you try and clear some of the clutter for organized play it's like you shot the person's dog or something. I hated fortifications from the get go, and it wasn't the concept or idea, it was the implementation. 40k games are at best a grid square on the map of a large conflict, one in which the initiative of a force is determined randomly from game to game. Assuming a pickup context where both opponents are going in blind and the mission is randomly determined, trying to mix fortifications in with that is a terrible idea. And I know that makes me sound like a debbie downer, and the reality is I'm totally fine for playing a big game where someone defends and someone attacks, but not all the god damn time. I like narrative battles, especially big ones if planned well and there is a lot of communication, but I understand from experience that that is the only method of quality control. I've played good apoc games and bad and the good ones required planning and balancing of sides and restrictions, it only took one game with flank march in for pretty much all sides to see what a fun sponge it was, the fact that both sides could take it balanced nothing, it was a race to the bottom.
There was a local tournament earlier in the year called golden marine, 1107 points. The idea or concept was to take something "fun" or "fluffy" or "goofy" something in that "spirit". To help underline the concept of a fun event, there would be no prize for top general. The problem as always is fun is a word and is terribly subjective. There was a lot of bad air before and after in terms of what people brought and played, accusations were made without knowledge of intent. Sometimes fluffly lists also do well, sometime goofy lists get a good matchup and steamroll. Sadly it wasn't a simple dichotomy of the waac player and the fluff bunny's, my no, it was far more complicated than that. The tournament allowed allies, any fortification, forgeworld, the whole thing; it even let you choose psychic powers and warlord traits. Everyone had a picture in their mind of what a "golden marine" army should look like and logically it tended to differ from person to person, and really how could it not? Adjectives don't make for good game organization. I saw that the concept just wasn't going to gel with the total lack of restrictions, especially seeing how people were commenting on eachothers army lists prior to the event, it became political. So I chose not play and instead just elected to take pictures; because like all things, there was a silver lining and that was that the tournament still had painting requirements and there were plenty of awesome armies on display. But sadly, this wasn't a game I wanted to play because everyone was fooling themselves if they thought it was "one game" and that everyone would miraculously have "fun" or "fluffy" or "goofy" armies.
I look no further than arma 3. It's a sandbox but it's not really a game, we, the gamers have to build games within it, the developer gives us the world and the units and the guns but we, the gamers have to build the game. And that's kinda the problem with arma 3 right now, not everyone has time for that, not everyone wants to sit in an editor for 12 hours defining what the game is to them. It's a lot of things to a lot of people and what that means is if I told someone I play arma 3, I'm not telling them very much. Their experience is likely so different and subjective it likely won't at all resemble my own. Right now if someone I just met told me they were into 40k, I don't even think I'd try to engage them on the topic because I don't even know what that is anymore. I did a few weeks ago, back when there was a wall between apoc and 40k,
I feel about GW the same way I feel about BIS (the arma 3 developer) I feel like they're not living up to their responsiblities. There's nothing wrong with demanding at the very least proper compartmentalization of rule sets from GW, at the very least. Updated faq's and errata's too, nothing wrong with expecting that. With arma 3, I expect there to be a game in there somewhere, one I don't have to make myself. A big sandbox with a bunch of toys in it is fine if I wanna play all by myself, the second pvp enters into it, there has to be a framework, a game, a semblence of balance, a purpose, a goal.
Games Workshop plc is a multinational multimillion pound corporation.
It charges a premium price for its game related publications.
It does NOT deliver a premium level of proof reading or editing in these publications.
Which is a basic requirement delivered by every other company selling these type of publications.
Despite these smaller companies having much fewer resources than GW plc , they seem more focused on delivering a better quality product.
A well defined intuitive rule set allows players to play the game with a minimum of fuss.
This makes the game better for everyone.
I am JUST talking about proper proof reading and editing so the instructions to play are clearly defined and reflect what the game developers actually intended in the rules.
Can every one agree this is a good thing?
Unless you are a rules lawyer who lives on exploiting these ambiguities perhaps?
IF you are into making up your own games by player agreement, based on senarios/campains etc.
ALL you need are clearly defined core rules to base your game on .
FOC and PV are NOT of any interest to you at all are they?
However, IF you are a new player wanting to play a few pick up games at the local GW shop- FLGS.
Then having ALL options as viable and enjoyable to play IS VERY IMPORTANT.
So clear well defined rules are important to everyone.
FoC and PV used to provide enjoyable pick up game balance for NEW PLAYERS , who do not have an established game group/experience to make up their own version of the game.
ARE important to GROW the customer base!
So those that say it is OK to ignore game balance issues are not really thinking of the long term future of 40k are they?
Ascalam wrote: When every box comes with a bottle of beer and a bag of pretzels, then it's officially a beer and pretzels game.
Until then it's every shade from uber-competitive to ultra-casual, depending on the mood of the players.
They have said that you can ignore any of the rules you like in favor of your own, if this makes your games more enjoyable. This is fine for home games/games with friends.
Random pickup games/tourneys tend to be played a lot closer to the rules, naturally, but even then there are local houserules/tweaks. This is fine too, as long as everyone knows what page they are on.
Then there is the RAW-only level of play, where people can spend hours debating the meaning of the word 'and'. Some people get off on this, lothers not so much. This is fine too.
40K is what you want to make of it.
Well that says pretty much everything, right there. Tournaments have always had their own "house rules" to try and fix things, so I doubt your precious 'competitive play' is in danger. GW has *always* (even in the glory "hobby-focussed" days of 2nd ed) favoured the newest Codex, and apparently so do other games.
For what it's worth, I prefer 'friendly' and 'fluffy' games above the WAAC mentality of "Competitive" *play*, and I see the new supplement (as well as all the Forge World products) as a chance to add some new toys to my collections
Peregrine wrote: And what you can't understand (or deliberately won't understand) is that a well-balanced game with clear rules benefits every style of play
I will never understand people that don't get this. When I used to play Magic, I could walk into any store, anywhere in the world and (barring lack of knowledge on the cards themselves) play a game with anyone in the store, regardless of language spoken. I didn't need to, and rarely did, bring out my FNM land destruction deck. I would bring out my cleric deck, and have fun. My friend would love to play his goblin deck, and would at any chance he got. It stopped being competitive when Skull Clamp was banned, but that didn't top him. He loved to toy with little kids with his sliver deck. I could bring out my Myr deck at any time. Hell, nothing was more fun than the 20 person round table game we played, where 3 of us conspired to bring sliver decks, or the guy that brought red DD, he removed someone from the table then died as the next 4 people all attacked him, but it was still hilarious, one guy brought a 200 card legendary deck.
The best part? We didn't need a rulebook. We didn't need to dice off, or argue about obscure rule interactions. We got to enjoy each others company, without sweating. My friends and I would even do the uber casual, 1-hour common deck build, where we raided everyone's common piles (shared piles because who cares about commons right?) to build a deck in 1 hour then have a tourney after. One of those spawned my favourite deck idea I ever had. The Ultimatum deck. Using cards like Book Burning, Blazing Salvo and such, where I used really obscure cards to do what I wanted, or my opponent could pay life points to stop me. Everyone always let Book Burning do it's thing once, and from then on paid the life.
All this was enabled through tight rules.
*edit to add* This isn't even talking about balance, that's neither here nor there. A better balanced game would be more fun, but a tight ruleset would be the first step, and better for everyone.
And what you can't understand (or deliberately won't understand) is that a well-balanced game with clear rules benefits every style of play.
No. It doesn't. Repeating it ad infinitum against all reason won't make it come true.
Zweischneid: the rules of a game determine the expectations of players sitting down to give it a go. It doesn't matter what kind of game you want to play, if it is unclear how to move your models or how two models interact then this is going to lead to various people unintentionally playing it differently. Which leads to conflict during a gaming session which is absolutely not desired in any setting as that sucks all of the fun out of it.
It's one thing for a group of people to come together and agree that all infantry move 8". It's quite another when a player, having read the book, thinks their infantry should move 8" while their opponent, having read the very same book, believes it's only 6". It doesn't matter which way those "dice off" rolls go or any type of negotiation, someone is going to come away from that game thinking that they were cheated.
How is a game that requires $200-300investment a "Beer and Pretzel" game? I always thought those games were uberly casual and easy to pick up. This game is anything but that. Not only are the rules needlessly complicated but they are incredibly vague. They also don't cover serious issues that can arise from their stupid rules like MFA.
40k as it stands now is a broken mess of half baked concepts, incompetent balance and poorly written rules. The all to common excuse of it "Not being designed for competitive play" is a pretty weak one, IMO. A ruleset that is made for a competitive style of play just means that it's well written and well balanced. I get the impression that, for some people at least, that a better written Warhammer 40,000 would be more boring and would only benefit competitive players. Wouldn't a ruleset that doesn't require you to make up stuff and is easy to understand be better for people who just want to roll dice?
A friend of mine has 4 armys and a lot of Forge World. I don't have as much disposable cash, if I did I'd be able to keep up. So to make the game more enjoyable he tones down the OP forge world, fortifications and masses of flyers. My BAs are still playing against chaos SMs with demon allies, but its certainly a game im willing to play. Will I win? Well, if my current ratio of 1-3 is an indicator my future games will continue to be disappointing. Its an uphill battle but its closer to a fare fight. The more and more expansions they throw out faster and faster the less I can keep up. Its coming closer to "buying a win" than it ever has before.
I think beer and pretzels is where the games headed because I cant expect that kind of charity from strangers. If I go to a store for a PUG im looking down the barrel of a lean, mean Taudar list with fortifications or SHs. Any pre-game negotiating would be weird, probably even rude. Why should I only be able to play my buddys? Why cant old dexes play new ones without a diplomatic effort? How come my budget of a $150 a year isn't enough to keep up anymore? Is GW engaged in a socio-economic crusade to make me only play in my own community or class? Change is the only constant. I understand GWs a company that needs to sell more models and make a profit. But the beefed up production schedule only for new material is creating a powercreep of epic proportions that's never been seen before. The self applied field dressing of charitable self handicapping is only gonna keep 40k going for so long.
Im really hoping that 7th edition is akin to 3rd. An edition where we get a serious reset. In 3rd there was a single pamphlet with all the army lists in it, and you waited to get a full codex. The only problem was back in the 90's there release schedule was 2 codexes a year. Nowadays they could easily pump out a codex a month. This way they could take a serious look at all the rules at once and make a more unified, balanced rules set.
Red Marine wrote: The self applied field dressing of charitable self handicapping is only gonna keep 40k going for so long.
Agreed. I'm lucky that a lot of my regular opponents have like 3000pts or more to make lists from. But other players literally only have like 1500-1850pts total, there is very little chance for them to adjust or tweak their lists game to game. It's nice that opponents are willing to tone things down but in my experience that has the potential to create resentment over time, often on both sides of things. And that's really part of the problem with trying to contain all this crap under a single banner and call it 40k. I think you wanna get to a point where your army can stand on its own before adding stuff like allies or fortifications or super heavies or all the other crap.
Red Marine wrote: The self applied field dressing of charitable self handicapping is only gonna keep 40k going for so long.
You say that but I'm on 20 years and counting.
I wanted to weigh in because in part I agree with Zweischneid. The social aspect of 40k has always existed, talking to your opponent before the game working out what you both want from the game. I've said it before but 6th ed is my favourite edition and my local group has never had such fun games. We have the core rules set, always used the cooperative terrain deployment rules but have also occasionally made up scenarios that seemed cool.
Now we may make some oddball lists but once we start playing we will use our tools to their optimum.
That said there are 1-2 things that could be tightened up rule wise but nothing particularly game breaking until D-Weapons in normal games. This caused quite a stir as we debated, some thought they were too strong (myself included) others weren't sure. We simply agreed to not field D-Weapons or 7/10" templates. Problem solved. Now while I disagree with some of what Zweischneid has said (competitive gamers poisoning the well as it were) my own opinion stands at only a minor tangent.
If both players talked first then both extremes of gamer WAAC, Fluff Bunny and everything inbetween could live in peace. No-one should be forced to compromise and no-one should be forced to play a game they don't want. It means more talking but the quality of game goes up.
Now the MtG example, this game has the same problem they are just being glossed over. In a 1 on 1 game (like most 40k) some decks will walk over others 99% of the time. For both players to enjoy themselves both need to be in the game (not necessarily winning but able to take actions that could result in victory whether they choose them or not) and the only way you can know this ahead of time that both your decks/lists/armies/meeple are in the same league is if the game is balanced to perfection (that has never been managed) or by talking.
In the days of the FPS "find me a random lobby so you can pwn some people you don't know" the reason I stick with 40k is that wonderful social aspect.
Now I'm not agreeing with the interpretation of Zweischneid's comments that people who are having these problems have no social skills, but, how many people who are having these problems with people abusing Escalation, Stronghold, 2++ rerolls etc are missing/skipping that conversational step?
Edit: Terrible punctuation hopefully made mediocre.
I approve of this discussion. I think its one that needs to be had. In my case, most everything that I wanted to say has already been said, so there isn't much point in beating a dead horse.
The one thing I do want to add is this: regardless of what direction you think the game is going or what the state of the game is now, it has gotten me to the point of questioning whether or not I wish to continue spending money on this hobby.
I consider myself a pretty devoted 40k fan. In my opinion, I'm their ideal customer: lots of disposable income and love of the game. Even still, with the recent changes to the game, I'm enjoying it less and less. To the point where I've decided to stop spending my money on the game. Sure, I still play it with friends, but when I see a new model, there's that thing inside my head that says "I choose not to support the direction this company is going".
Do I think that my viewpoint is representative of the whole hobby? Certainly not. But I also know I'm not the only one.
My one piece of advice to anyone else who is feeling this recently: try Malifaux. You can thank me later.
Red Marine wrote: The self applied field dressing of charitable self handicapping is only gonna keep 40k going for so long.
You say that but I'm on 20 years and counting.
I wanted to weigh in because in part I agree with Zweischneid. The social aspect of 40k has always existed, talking to your opponent before the game working out what you both want from the game. I've said it before but 6th ed is my favourite edition and my local group has never had such fun games. We have the core rules set, always used the cooperative terrain deployment rules but have also occasionally made up scenarios that seemed cool.
Now we may make some oddball lists but once we start playing we will use our tools to their optimum.
That said there are 1-2 things that could be tightened up rule wise but nothing particularly game breaking until D-Weapons in normal games. This caused quite a stir as we debated, some thought they were too strong (myself included) others weren't sure. We simply agreed to not field D-Weapons or 7/10" templates. Problem solved. Now while I disagree with some of what Zweischneid has said (competitive gamers poisoning the well as it were) my own opinion stands at only a minor tangent.
If both players talked first then both extremes of gamer WAAC, Fluff Bunny and everything inbetween could live in peace. No-one should be forced to compromise and no-one should be forced to play a game they don't want. It means more talking but the quality of game goes up.
Now the MtG example, this game has the same problem they are just being glossed over. In a 1 on 1 game (like most 40k) some decks will walk over others 99% of the time. For both players to enjoy themselves both need to be in the game (not necessarily winning but able to take actions that could result in victory whether they choose them or not) and the only way you can know this ahead of time that both your decks/lists/armies/meeple are in the same league is if the game is balanced to perfection (that has never been managed) or by talking.
In the days of the FPS "find me a random lobby so you can pwn some people you don't know" the reason I stick with 40k is that wonderful social aspect.
Now I'm not agreeing with the interpretation of Zweischneid's comments that people who are having these problems have no social skills, but, how many people who are having these problems with people abusing Escalation, Stronghold, 2++ rerolls etc are missing/skipping that conversational step?
Edit: Terrible punctuation hopefully made mediocre.
I mean no offense at all by this but the "Talk things out" defense is a bunch of boloney.
If a game was well written and competently balanced you shouldn't have to negotiate a proper game. Well, to be more specific, you shouldn't have to negotiate beyond what army you wish to play, points level and any expansions you wanted to play. The fact that you have to impose all these restrictions, in a conversation before a pick up game no less, is a glaring flaw with Games Workshop's design philosophy. The social aspect of 40k shouldn't be trying to balance the game yourself. It should be talking about whatever cool thing you're doing with your army, something amusing that happened or whatever.
To address one of your points about different player demographics I will say this: A fluffy bunny should be able to take on a WAAC player if the codices had proper internal balance. A "Fluffy bunny" is someone who writes lists according to a theme of some sort or more in step with what an army typically fields while a WAAC player takes whatever will win him the game. The main reason why a latter will stomp the former is because there is a huge divide between the "Tournament lists" and "Fun lists". This isn't to say all lists will have a good chance against each other. Obviously, someone who throws a bunch of random units together with no coherent strategy will lose to someone who had some forethought.
Does your argument have any merit? Sure, it could make the best out of the flying rodent gak insane ruleset we have right now. But it is no substitute for good rule design as not everyone wants to talk things out.
Honestly I feel this rule set and codices are utter garbage, if you pay for a ruleset you should get a ruleset, not a part of a ruleset that has many loopholes and ways to break the game e.x. a squad of 5 cron warriors enters a NS, the NS then goes boom since it can't move at least 18", the warriors are then put in reserves, what happens to the relic? It has already been removed from the table by the special permission that dedicated transports have and it has nowhere to be placed since the unit is in reserves. I used to be a big fan of this game back when it was more streamlined and had rules that didnt have so many loopholes and grey areas like in 5th. Because of the awfulness of this ruleset I have finally stopped buying GW and moved onto malifaux where the fluff player can play with the waac player with no problems with balance and can have plenty of variety and social interaction such as which crews/masters they would like to play against/dont feel like playing against and which missions they would like to play and how many points. I dont have to worry about certain situations that might break the game or units that dont work (the tau bomber comes to mind) and I also dont have to worry about units that are imbalanced and can ruin the game, all that I need to be concerned about is what masters/crews I think are fun/boring and which ones my opponent think are fun/boring.
TL: DR this game has too many loopholes and things that take away from the fun when other rulesets provide a more enjoyable experience for both sides and still can involve plenty of social interactions
TheCustomLime wrote: The main reason why a latter will stomp the former is because there is a huge divide between the "Tournament lists" and "Fun lists". This isn't to say all lists will have a good chance against each other. Obviously, someone who throws a bunch of random units together with no coherent strategy will lose to someone who had some forethought.
...
Does your argument have any merit? Sure, it could make the best out of the flying rodent gak insane ruleset we have right now. But it is no substitute for good rule design as not everyone wants to talk things out.
There is no game that involves list building where this is not the case. In 40k's case trying to balance over a dozen codicies each with a couple dozen units who each have a potential list of weapon options against each other with perfect balance is impossible.
If I walk into any local gaming store with any heavily tuned list a good proportion of the players in that store will not enjoy the game because they will spend all their time completely on the back foot/removing models/rolling for injured players etc with no control over the result regardless of the game system. Another finely tuned "list" however will create a game we both enjoy.
So you talk, I may sound like an old fuddy duddy but it's true that it's becoming a lost art. You don't need to have a 2 hour discussion on the merits of D-weapons and Riptides or whatever. A 5 minute chat about how *hard* your list is compared to your opponents will get the job done, everything else is just gravy. If you're gonna invest 2+ hours to play a game what 5 minutes to make sure your lists were designed to fight in the same league.
You may not want to talk but it does remove most of the issues of any list building system. Once you and your opponent are on the same page the fun begins.
Dunklezahn wrote: In 40k's case trying to balance over a dozen codicies each with a couple dozen units who each have a potential list of weapon options against each other with perfect balance is impossible.
Sure, perfect balance is impossible, but that's not the point. 40k's balance isn't even adequate. Release after release comes with massive balance problems (and broken rules) that even basic playtesting should have caught. You don't have to get to some impossible ideal of perfect balance to fix most of the balance issues and ensure that two players building lists with at least some understanding of the game and desire to win will be competing fairly evenly. It might be a 60/40 advantage in favor of the more competitive player, but that's a lot better than what we have now.
Peregrine wrote: Sure, perfect balance is impossible, but that's not the point. 40k's balance isn't even adequate.
I guess we have to agree to disagree, I find that by taking 5 minutes to talk to my opponent before hand and a willingness to say "I could never handle the Titan with what i have/my list is way harder or softer than yours etc" (something I don't even need at all with the close core of our gaming group that play outside of randoms) and walk away politely from those games I don't think 1 or both of us would enjoy the game becomes very balanced.
The problem lies not in the rules (Well there are some pretty stupid ones but those are outliers for me) but those people who choose to take rules for narrative play (Like D-Weapon fortifications which work great as part of a custom scenario) and try to use them purely for their game winning power. In that case let the Revenant fight the Warhound, sure it'll be a blast but you take your list and play someone else.
Such is the way of list building games, some lists are extremes of one kind or another by purpose or accident and they can (not will. but can) create a unfun situation for 1 or both players if the opponent hasn't got the right list.
Dunklezahn wrote: There is no game that involves list building where this is not the case. In 40k's case trying to balance over a dozen codicies each with a couple dozen units who each have a potential list of weapon options against each other with perfect balance is impossible.
If I walk into any local gaming store with any heavily tuned list a good proportion of the players in that store will not enjoy the game because they will spend all their time completely on the back foot/removing models/rolling for injured players etc with no control over the result regardless of the game system. Another finely tuned "list" however will create a game we both enjoy.
So you talk, I may sound like an old fuddy duddy but it's true that it's becoming a lost art. You don't need to have a 2 hour discussion on the merits of D-weapons and Riptides or whatever. A 5 minute chat about how *hard* your list is compared to your opponents will get the job done, everything else is just gravy. If you're gonna invest 2+ hours to play a game what 5 minutes to make sure your lists were designed to fight in the same league.
You may not want to talk but it does remove most of the issues of any list building system. Once you and your opponent are on the same page the fun begins.
Pop on over to the Infinity sub forum and take a peek at the threads on there. New players ask for list advice all the time and the answers they always get are 'Bring whatever you like' 'It's the player, not the list' 'This is not 40k, things are balanced here'.
There is not divide between tournament and fluff lists there, thye are one in the same because that game is, while not perfectly balanced, a shining example of good balance.
A 5 minute chat is 5 minutes more than a professionally developed game should ever need.
Pop on over to the Infinity sub forum and take a peek at the threads on there. New players ask for list advice all the time and the answers they always get are 'Bring whatever you like' 'It's the player, not the list' 'This is not 40k, things are balanced here'.
There is not divide between tournament and fluff lists there, thye are one in the same because that game is, while not perfectly balanced, a shining example of good balance.
A 5 minute chat is 5 minutes more than a professionally developed game should ever need.
But Infinity isn't exactly a runaway success.
Hell, the most successful miniature game of recent years, "dethroning" Warmachine from second-place, has been X-Wing, which is riddled with under-powered (Y-Wings, Interceptors) and over-powered builds (Tie Swarms), badly worded upgrade cards (Saboteur) and blatant "buy-this-expansion-pack"-buy-to-win fishing (e.g. Howl Runner, Advanced Sensors).
The X-Wing forums are already replete with the same "fluffy lists" vs. "competitive lists" discussions you have on Warhammer 40K, even though the entire game only has 2 factions (vs. 40K's .. um 12ish?) with barely 6 models each (vs. 40K's .. um 20-40?), as well as a highly basic and simply game-play (no "reserves", only one type of terrain, no moral rules, no hth-rules, standardized shooting, etc..) and, as a whole game, less possible combinations than just the Elite Section of the Space Marines Codex by itself.
And it's been outselling more balanced games like Warmachine, not to mention Infinity by crazy margins. People truly don't care about "balance".
Hell, the most successful miniature game of recent years, "dethroning" Warmachine from second-place, has been X-Wing, which is riddled with under-powered (Y-Wings, Interceptors) and over-powered builds (Tie Swarms), badly worded upgrade cards (Saboteur) and blatant "buy-this-expansion-pack"-buy-to-win fishing (e.g. Howl Runner, Advanced Sensors).
The X-Wing forums are already replete with the same "fluffy lists" vs. "competitive lists" discussions you have on Warhammer 40K, even though the entire game only has 2 factions (vs. 40K's .. um 12ish?) with barely 6 models each (vs. 40K's .. um 20-40?), as well as a highly basic and simply game-play (no "reserves", only one type of terrain, no moral rules, no hth-rules, standardized shooting, etc..) and, as a whole game, less possible combinations than just the Elite Section of the Space Marines Codex by itself.
And it's been outselling more balanced games like Warmachine, not to mention Infinity by crazy margins. People truly don't care about "balance".
Corvus Bellie grew by like 75% last year and again the year before. They are not a UK/US based company so it doesn't seem all that successful but it is doing well for something so young. Yes Star Wars swooped in and took the number 2 spot but it has the Star Wars name attached, of course it would. And while there are some things generally considered better than others a tie spam doesn't have nearly the advantage over a Y wing list (are the even bad, I thought they were good? Anyway inser sub par list of choice here) as a Ripetide spam list has over a.. not up with 40k but I want to say marine heavy Chaos Marine list (or other bad list of choice here).
And as for the 'pay to win' thing, I'll happily agree it's a bad system, but when it is so cheap (what, $60-$80 for a full, standard size fleet) that problem isn't nearly as glaring as it is in 40k.
X-wing is a very poor comparison. First it is not a hobby game, no painting etc...no effort put into crafting your army other than list building. Second it is much less expensive. Third it is built around a super popular IP so will get buy in from non miniature war game players.
Also while it may have a lack of internal balance at least the factions are better balanced so the choice of playing rebels is not an auto loss.
You are right obviously that balance is not the thing that sells a game above all else...if I put out a minis game called balance with crappy figs...no one is buying.
IP is what sells both x-wing and 40k. That does not mean people prefer unbalanced rules within the IP. Furthermore x-wing is in what it's first edition essentiall and have not had 25 years to work on things.
In reality x-wing is much closer to a CCg than a minature war game, because it lacks hobby aspect of other war games.
Let me put it this way if I acquired the star wars IP and made an army scale mini war game that was balanced...with factions like Jedi, droids, clone army, etc....with cool miniatures....people would buy it in droves and I too would outsell war machine.
Corvus Bellie grew by like 75% last year and again the year before. They are not a UK/US based company so it doesn't seem all that successful but it is doing well for something so young. Yes Star Wars swooped in and took the number 2 spot but it has the Star Wars name attached, of course it would. And while there are some things generally considered better than others a tie spam doesn't have nearly the advantage over a Y wing list (are the even bad, I thought they were good? Anyway inser sub par list of choice here) as a Ripetide spam list has over a.. not up with 40k but I want to say marine heavy Chaos Marine list (or other bad list of choice here).
And as for the 'pay to win' thing, I'll happily agree it's a bad system, but when it is so cheap (what, $60-$80 for a full, standard size fleet) that problem isn't nearly as glaring as it is in 40k.
Well, but you forget how much simpler the game itself is.
Only two factions (say... Eldar & Space Marines)?
Only 5 or so units per faction (X-Wings = Tac Marines, Tie Fighters = Dire Avengers, etc..).
No complexity as in Infantry/Beast/Vehicle Transport. Just 4 stats per unit. No things like moral rules, etc.. .
If it isn't possible (or, more likely, worth it) to balance such a simple tiny game, why bother with a complex game like 40K, where every single Codex has several times the power of ten more combinations and options (and thus possibilities where things might combine in better/lower-than-average effectiveness).
I find the problem in X-Wing to be infinitely more glaring than in 40K. Just imagine X-Wing with 12 factions, 50+ models per side on the table and 40K-style thousands of upgrade options. Still think the Riptides are worse than Tie-Swarms? I doubt it. Makes 40K look like chess in comparison.
And yes, it has the Star Wars brand attached. 40K has the 40K brand attached. Clearly, brand > balance as a means to have fun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote: Third it is built around a super popular IP so will get buy in from non miniature war game players.
My words... popular IP (40K, Star Wars) > balance.
People keep replying that "more balance" would improve 40K (other things notwithstanding), so that should be true for X-Wing too. Yet FFG doesn't bother taking the time to balance a game consisting of ~10 miniatures (because it seems to make no difference to the bottom line), but GW should take the time to balance a game of ~1000+ miniatures (for likewise no difference in the bottom line)?
In reality x-wing is much closer to a CCg than a minature war game, because it lacks hobby aspect of other war games.
True enough. Can't wait for the day that 40K requires you to have a "plasmagun-upgrade-card" for each plasmagun-marine in your army, which you only get 1 each by buying the Imperial Guard Platoon box.
Cause having the rules just once for several identical versions of it in an army clearly isn't good enough.
People claim GW is ripping off with the rules? They've seen nothing yet.
Great, now lets go back to the Infinity comparison and you can explain to me how GW doesn't look like idiots there.
9 factions, average of 2 sub factions (which actually seem to chance a lot more than a codex supplement does) each and a good number of units in each yet it makes 40k rules look like they were designed by amateurs.
@Zweischnied.
Well IF GW plc were growing their customer base,(increasing turn over at the same rate they were increasing prices.)
Then I would agree that there would be little to gain from writing a proper rule set, with professional proof reading and editing . And spending more than a few hours play testing the codex books before publishing them.
But as GW plc ARE LOOSING sales volumes year on year, and HAVE BEEN for EIGHT YEARS .
We might assume the POTENTIAL customers of GW would like a 40k rule set with better editing, proof reading and game play focus.
As other companies seem to GROW their customer base when they focus on quality rule sets, rather than flawed ineffective isolationist marketing in a chain of B&M stores.
It would be possible to improve the quality of the 40k rule set with professional proof reading and editing.
It would be possible to improve the quality of the 40k game play experience with more play testing and ACTUAL game development .
BUT why bother?
While there are enough people willing to do all the hard work for GW plc , they are laughing all the way to the bank!(For now.)
Dunklezahn wrote: The problem lies not in the rules (Well there are some pretty stupid ones but those are outliers for me) but those people who choose to take rules for narrative play (Like D-Weapon fortifications which work great as part of a custom scenario) and try to use them purely for their game winning power. In that case let the Revenant fight the Warhound, sure it'll be a blast but you take your list and play someone else.
IOW, 40k's balance is far short of adequate. If you publish rules that are so obviously overpowered that you have to remove them from the game and consider it TFG behavior to take them "just to win games" then you clearly either don't care about balance or you're so hopelessly incompetent that you don't notice there's a problem. There's just no excuse for that kind of thing when you're paying $50 a book for the rules.
Such is the way of list building games, some lists are extremes of one kind or another by purpose or accident and they can (not will. but can) create a unfun situation for 1 or both players if the opponent hasn't got the right list.
No, that's only the way of bad list building games. Balance may not always be perfect, but the extremes you're talking about only exist when you have a game like 40k, where the designers make up some random rules, publish them without any playtesting, and refuse to have any kind of sensible update cycle where any issues that do appear after publication can be fixed ASAP.
Zweischneid wrote: Well, but you forget how much simpler the game itself is.
You're confusing "depth" and "bloated mess". If you remove all of the pointless complexity from 40k you're left with a much simpler game.
I find the problem in X-Wing to be infinitely more glaring than in 40K.
Only because you don't understand balance in X-Wing. Not that this should surprise anyone, since you don't understand balance in 40k either.
Lol, no. TIE interceptors are great, and the biggest problem with y-wings has been the stock shortages that made them almost impossible to find until recently.
and over-powered builds (Tie Swarms)
Which are only overpowered if you define "swarm" as "any TIE list with more than four ships", which is like complaining that horde armies in 40k are overpowered because you lost to a list with 30 tactical marines. Or if you don't play with asteroids like you're supposed to and the swarm never has to worry about maneuvering problems.
badly worded upgrade cards (Saboteur)
There's nothing at all badly worded about it. The card does exactly what it says, and what it says is perfectly clear.
and blatant "buy-this-expansion-pack"-buy-to-win fishing (e.g. Howl Runner, Advanced Sensors).
What does that have to do with game balance? You might as well argue that 40k is unbalanced because a codex costs $50.
Plus, unlike GW, FFG publishes all of the rules online for free so you only have to pay for the cards if you want to play in sanctioned tournaments. Good luck finding a way to get free 40k models instead of paying ripoff prices for them.
The X-Wing forums are already replete with the same "fluffy lists" vs. "competitive lists" discussions you have on Warhammer 40K
Not in my experience.
People truly don't care about "balance".
You're right. People buy based on the fluff or models, or what their friends are all playing. But that doesn't change the fact that a balanced game is better than an unbalanced game from a pure gameplay perspective.
Lanrak wrote: @Zweischnied.
Well IF GW plc were growing their customer base,(increasing turn over at the same rate they were increasing prices.)
Then I would agree that there would be little to gain from writing a proper rule set, with professional proof reading and editing . And spending more than a few hours play testing the codex books before publishing them.
But as GW plc ARE LOOSING sales volumes year on year, and HAVE BEEN for EIGHT YEARS .
We might assume the POTENTIAL customers of GW would like a 40k rule set with better editing, proof reading and game play focus.
As other companies seem to GROW their customer base when they focus on quality rule sets, rather than flawed ineffective isolationist marketing in a chain of B&M stores.
It would be possible to improve the quality of the 40k rule set with professional proof reading and editing.
It would be possible to improve the quality of the 40k game play experience with more play testing and ACTUAL game development .
BUT why bother?
While there are enough people willing to do all the hard work for GW plc , they laugh all the way to the bank?
Perhaps, but one of the best things (financially) have been the allies rules. Whether or not they are balanced, they allow people to buy and play with the miniatures they like.
That's what changing. Games Workshop needs to square the appeal of "large games" (vs. the Skirmish-Game competition) in a time where fewer and fewer people have the time and inclination to go through the slog of painting 30 boring troops just to paint one "shiny".
Look at the christmas-bundles / dataslates. People love the Riptide, but they don't wanna paint 30 Firewarriors/Kroot to play with one. So here's a dataslate and box that'll allow people to slap on a Riptide to whatever miniatures they already have! Great. I am still surprised the Riptide-formation/data-slate isn't legal for Warhammer Fantasy too. That (!) would probably stop that games decline pretty quick.
Just from today's posts on the X-Wing Forums from the single top-thread...
[i]The Tie interceptors will alway's be hard to play because of the increased cost and same amount of hullpoints as a simple Tie fighter. They are not reliable or cheap enough to use in tournament play because their defense is not consistent, so they will not win tournaments because you have a hard time achieving consistency in multiple play rounds. The A-wing suffers the same problem. As soon as they become to cheap they will be used as swarm and will become too powerful.
Major really doesn't want anyone to use these guys Anyway, over/under cost doesn't really matter to a lot of people. not everyone plays to win all the time. For a lot of people it's about the fun, and these pilots will be fun to fly I'm sure of it.
The game is better, even for casual play, if it's balanced. I have had the game since December 2012 and have only ever played games at my house, so I fall more into the "casual play" category than "tournament play therefore must win" category.
because you can be more assured that you can randomly pick up any set of ships and they'll be at least semi-competitive.
Competitive level play is another story entirely, and that's what I was referring to.
I just feel the Y-wings need a turret to be competitive/a threat, or condemn them to blocking/annoyance duty.
Then again fluff and competitive have nothing to do with each other.
Sounds familiar? It seems you are so hell-bent on painting 40K into that bleak corner, that you're not only not looking at the upsides of 40K objectively anymore, you are not looking at ANY game objectively anymore.
For the record... I LOVE X-Wing. But if you look for balance, it's not there. Sorry.
Zweischneid wrote: Just from today's posts on the X-Wing Forums from the single top-thread...
Yes, let's. And we find:
* A post stating the obvious, that TIE interceptors require a lot of player skill to use effectively (their low HP makes them glass cannons and requires you to out-maneuver your opponent and avoid taking shots at all) and that, combined with their dependence on average dice luck over rawHP, makes them difficult to play in multi-round tournaments. That criticism has very little to do with their balance in a single game.
* A post stating the obvious, that y-wings usually need a turret to be effective. Yes, that's why they come with a shiny new ion cannon turret (with a nice picture of a y-wing) in the box. The y-wing is clearly a ship designed around its secondary weapon upgrades.
* Some vague talk about individual opinions on competitive vs. casual, which doesn't even come close to the competitive vs. casual hostility in 40k and even includes praise for most options in X-Wing being at least semi-competitive.
So yeah, not even close to your claim about X-Wing being horribly unbalanced. Instead we see the kind of "what is the best strategy" discussion that you expect in a game where player choices make a difference in your chances of winning, but balance is good enough that the game isn't reduced to "always take X because it's overpowered" or endless screaming matches about "WAACTFG SPAM NETLISTING".
Sounds familiar? It seems you are so hell-bent on painting 40K into that bleak corner, that you're not only not looking at the upsides of 40K objectively anymore, you are not looking at ANY game objectively anymore.
And it seems you are so hell-bent on finding excuses for GW's low-quality product and blaming the competitive players for "ruining the game" that you're unwilling to accept the obvious, that balance is good and 40k is not meeting the standards for "best game in the industry".
Peregrine wrote: Some vague talk about individual opinions on competitive vs. casual, which doesn't even come close to the competitive vs. casual hostility in 40k and even includes praise for most options in X-Wing being at least semi-competitive.
Well, obviously the hostility is missing, as X-Wing fans don't have to deal with a bunch of Trolls that continually try to convince them that the game they enjoy is gak and that it would be "better for everyone" if the game they enjoy would be more like some other game they have no interest in.
Peregrine wrote: Some vague talk about individual opinions on competitive vs. casual, which doesn't even come close to the competitive vs. casual hostility in 40k and even includes praise for most options in X-Wing being at least semi-competitive.
Well, obviously the hostility is missing, as X-Wing fans don't have to deal with a bunch of Trolls that continually try to convince them that the game they enjoy is gak and that it would be "better for everyone" if the game they enjoy would be more like some other game they have no interest in.
The topics are similar, however.
Hes not saying that 40k should be more like the other games he plays rules wise, hes saying that we are paying a premium for a incomplete and horribly imbalanced ruleset, and that if the rules met the standard you should expect for a roughly $70-150 ruleset (codex and rulebook)(depends where you buy from), then maybe more people would buy their product and they wouldnt be losing sales each year since it would be a more enjoyable game for everyone (I would imagine that the ork player would love to win at least 1 game against a serpent spam eldar list).
Think if you bought a ferrari but the interior was horrible (seats that are shaped awkwardly and are uncomfortable, missing radio, no windshield wipers, a few holes in the gas tank), it would look nice on the outside and it would still run, but on the inside you are struggling to even keep that thing going since you had to duck tape the holes in the gas tank, change the seats, and buy a new radio and wipers to make it more comfortable, but it turn out those wipers you bought just made your windshield even messier and garder to see through, and the radio just played static or obnoxious music that you dislike, then there is your buddy to the left that bought the newest radio and while it still plays bad music or static it occasionally gets a few songs that are good and has a port to play your own music in. Of course you would feel like you got ripped off since your radio that is just a month older cant even compare to the newest radio for the same car. Sure his radio needs him to go out and buy some of his own music but at least he can play what music he wants to listen to on his.
If you didnt get my references the car is the models that look nice and the brand name is the IP, the interior is the rules, the radio being the codices that are imbalanced, the wipers being the expansions that just make things even more unclear, the gas tank/seats being the core rules that need to be patched up and changed.
Think if you bought a ferrari but the interior was horrible (seats that are shaped awkwardly and are uncomfortable, missing radio, no windshield wipers, a few holes in the gas tank), it would look nice on the outside and it would still run, but on the inside you are struggling to even keep that thing going since you had to duck tape the holes in the gas tank, change the seats, and buy a new radio and wipers to make it more comfortable, but it turn out those wipers you bought just made your windshield even messier and garder to see through, and the radio just played static or obnoxious music that you dislike, then there is your buddy to the left that bought the newest radio and while it still plays bad music or static it occasionally gets a few songs that are good and has a port to play your own music in. Of course you would feel like you got ripped off since your radio that is just a month older cant even compare to the newest radio for the same car. Sure his radio needs him to go out and buy some of his own music but at least he can play what music he wants to listen to on his.
If you didnt get my references the car is the models that look nice and the brand name is the IP, the interior is the rules, the radio being the codices that are imbalanced, the wipers being the expansions that just make things even more unclear, the gas tank/seats being the core rules that need to be patched up and changed.
Well, but the analogy is wrong, because the "car interior" of Warhammer 40K, as you describe it, is perfectly fine. The seats might not be a colour you like and the radio might not play a music you enjoy, but that doesn't make it objectively worse.
That is the problem, all along. Warhammer 40K just happens to come with ... dunna .. black car seats, and people keep complaining that the designers are so incapable, they can't seem to get the white just right. But they are not supposed to be white. They are supposed to be black.
And thats the thing, people want it white and not black but the company cant realize they want it white, they think they just need more black and more bad music with even messier wipers and gas tanks with even more holes. Which is why they are constantly losing sales as more and more people give up on trying to get white seats and a decent radio etc.
I'd say the comparison is really good. I'd add that sometimes you will find leaked developer mail from your car company that the company workers will be performing a maintenance and an upgrade on your vehicle, repairing the radio, painting the seats white if you wanted them, all the while puncturing your tires, taking a whizz in the gas tank, shoving feces into the air vents and occasionally just tearing out your engine with the whole framework so your car won't work.
BUT
You have a prospect of buying the car you always wanted! Yellow seats, sedan, early thirties music playing, green paintjob and a beautiful frame - with some untested faults that you will find after the first several hours of exploitation. All for a bargain of your two kidneys.
A GumyBear wrote: And thats the thing, people want it white and not black but the company cant realize they want it white, they think they just need more black and more bad music with even messier wipers and gas tanks with even more holes. Which is why they are constantly losing sales as more and more people give up on trying to get white seats and a decent radio etc.
Wrong. Some people do like black. And that shouldn't be a problem, as there are plenty of other companies out there that offer white seats for those that want them.
So just leave GW's "black seats" to the people that like black seats and stop bitchin'
MaCa wrote: I'd say the comparison is really good. I'd add that sometimes you will find leaked developer mail from your car company that the company workers will be performing a maintenance and an upgrade on your vehicle, repairing the radio, painting the seats white if you wanted them, all the while puncturing your tires, taking a whizz in the gas tank, shoving feces into the air vents and occasionally just tearing out your engine with the whole framework so your car won't work.
BUT
You have a prospect of buying the car you always wanted! Yellow seats, sedan, early thirties music playing, green paintjob and a beautiful frame - with some untested faults that you will find after the first several hours of exploitation. All for a bargain of your two kidneys.
And for some cars you wont have any faults, you will find cars that get fixed up right away if there are any faults, or the faults are so miniscule it doesnt really matter that much (your radio might play the occasional bad somg while your friends doesnt doesnt) such as infinity, malifaux, or warmahordes. Also some of them might only cost you a big toe instead of a kidney
The issue is that at one point GW at least offered Grey seats which the white seat crowd was happy enough with...and there was an option for Black. Now I took my car into the shop for some work and my seats were spray painted black.
The whole point is they could provide well written, balanced rules that would provide Black, white, and grey seats but they don't.
They say ..."we know you liked our grey seats...but too bad...you are doing it wrong. I don't care that you spent a bunch of money on the car."
That is where I lose you...the people who bitch had seats they were ok with....that were essentially taken away...after investing money. I could understand saying what you are to new people if things had always been the way you describe...but they have not been. It is a bait and switch.
"There is no game that involves list building where this is not the case. In 40k's case trying to balance over a dozen codicies each with a couple dozen units who each have a potential list of weapon options against each other with perfect balance is impossible. "
I disagree. They could go electronic and update the 15 codices in real time based off real results. You are making excuses for a lazy, greedy company.
What you are missing is that many codices can't fight in the same leagues as some of the other codices. How is your magical discussion supposed to go between BA and Eldar player?
"Yo, man. Just don't take anything from your whole codex, okay?"
That is where I lose you...the people who bitch had seats they were ok with....that were essentially taken away...after investing money. I could understand saying what you are to new people if things had always been the way you describe...but they have not been. It is a bait and switch.
Maybe so. But changing 40K away from what it is now, would equally "take away" from the people that invested in it for what it is now. Swings and roundabouts.
I am not claiming there were no casualties on the way, or that there is no reason to be mad about GW's past behaviour. All I am saying is that there are people equally as much invested for what the game is now, because of the way it is now, and not everyone will benefit by changing things up to how it used to be (or to how other companies do it).
I have absolutely no problem if people say they don't like 40K the way it is now and would prefer it to be different either. I only object to the arrogance of people claiming to speak for everyone, claiming that GW's current direction has absolutely no beneficiaries and turning into grimdark-Warmachine would "benefit everyone".
A GumyBear wrote: And thats the thing, people want it white and not black but the company cant realize they want it white, they think they just need more black and more bad music with even messier wipers and gas tanks with even more holes. Which is why they are constantly losing sales as more and more people give up on trying to get white seats and a decent radio etc.
Wrong. Some people do like black. And that shouldn't be a problem, as there are plenty of other companies out there that offer white seats for those that want them.
So just leave GW's "black seats" to the people that like black seats and stop bitchin'
I'm sorry have I offended you somehow? I apologize if I did, my original reference to the seats was being that it was uncomfortable and needed to be changed to feel better, as in the rules are clunky and can need to be changed in some areas to be more comfortable (like the tons of pregame rolling you need to do for things or the mysterious terrain that needs you to pause the game to get the chart and get agree on a suitable way to mark it without forgetting). If you like the brand ferrari thats great so do I, I just dont to pay a premium for something tgat barely runs and is a pain to drive
Now granted I've been out of the loop for a decade now, but even when I last played and before that it's seemed like the "ideal" situation for Warhammer, 40k or WHFB, has been a "gaming club" with a few good buddies that build themed fluffy armies and enjoy playing in leagues/narrative campaigns with each other. I fondly recall in old and sadly lost White Dwarf issues the tales of Andy Chambers' home campaign with his Iron Warriors against his friends and, while I can't remember the details, a similar WHFB series of articles from a guy playing in as I recall the basement of a flat or something with a few buddies, some of which were good and some which were bad, but they always enjoyed it.
That seems to be what GW expects - you are playing with people you know, likely at someone's home in a spare room or basement, and are deciding beforehand the type of game you're playing; I also recall White Dwarf articles talking about how to link together battles to form a narrative campaign, or things like determining terrain based on whose place you were playing at (I think it was in the old 5th edition WHFB rulebook that said something like if you played High Elves and your friend played Orcs, if he came to your place to play a game you should set the table up to look like the High Elf land, because clearly it meant that his Orcs had invaded Ulthuan).
Somewhere along the line this got blurred to the concept of a pick-up game a la M:tG where you just go down to your FLGS with your army in tow and play against whomever happens to also be there with their army, and worse (IMO of course) the mentality has shifted to "competitiveness" versus just having a good time with people you enjoy being around. Maybe it's a USA thing as the articles I remember fondly were from a UK point of view where, as I understand it, things are more laid back and less "I need to win" like we have here in the states.
I'm not entirely sure and I'm speaking from a weird position as the last time I played I was a teenager, but I definitely recall the tone from GW then being more about having fun with your "mates" in Joe's basement with mediocre painted figures and haphazard terrain than trying to crush all comers at the FLGS to prove your superiority.
I'm sorry have I offended you somehow? I apologize if I did, my original reference to the seats was being that it was uncomfortable and needed to be changed to feel better, as in the rules are clunky and can need to be changed in some areas to be more comfortable (like the tons of pregame rolling you need to do for things or the mysterious terrain that needs you to pause the game to get the chart and get agree on a suitable way to mark it without forgetting). If you like the brand ferrari thats great so do I, I just dont to pay a premium for something tgat barely runs and is a pain to drive
You can pay premium for different things.
Some cars are made for "casual driving"...
Spoiler:
Other cars are made for "competitive driving".
Spoiler:
And sure, you could go on and on about how the latter, "competitive" car is "technically" superiour in every way, better engine, suspension, acceleration. But that is missing the point of what the former "casual" car is trying to do in the first place.
The very categories by which you compare them are already skewed in favour of the competitive car, because they are categories important for competitive racing, not categories important for casual cruising into the sunset.
The issue still is that at one point GW endorsed Tournaments...and then went ahead and trashed the idea screwing investments people made. So it is not as if people bought something to use in an unintended way. They bought a (crappy) race car...that when taken to the mechanic came back as a casual car.
I also don't see how having clearly written and balanced rules effects the casual car. Which would still benefit from better gas milage and comfier seats.
I'd have no issue if they released 40k "competitive" as a supplement of clear rules to use my army for competitive play. But they don't they say...you are having fun the wrong way don't do it. Essentially say my buds and I like racing our casual cars. What has happened is we got told...don't do that its not the right way to have fun.
Which is something that more balanced rules do to no one...more balanced rules don't prevent variety or narative or anything.
And sure, you could go on and on about how the latter, "competitive" car is "technically" superiour in every way, better engine, suspension, acceleration. But that is missing the point of what the former "casual" car is trying to do in the first place.
The very categories by which you compare them are already skewed in favour of the competitive car, because they are categories important for competitive racing, not categories important for casual cruising into the sunset.
Except for the price you are paying you can make that casual car just as competitive as the competitive only car while still staying just as casual
Breng77 wrote: Essentially say my buds and I like racing our casual cars. What has happened is we got told...don't do that its not the right way to have fun.
Which is something that more balanced rules do to no one...more balanced rules don't prevent variety or narative or anything.
Sure it is. M and my buds have been trying to game narrative for years, decades even, and every single pick-up game you get the same idiocy about "you cannot run Ultrarmarines 1st Company" or some such, cause Terminators are not "troops" (and you need to fill all kind a stupid "slots" to be "legal" and other such nonsense). And I cannot have a Space Wolves-Striking Scorpions double-force as described in the fluff section of the actual Codex, because you cannot mix armies, etc....
It's been a gaming climate that has been stifling, oppressive and outright hostile to anything approaching "creativity" for decades, despite being a supposedly "creative" hobby.
The balanced rules themselves my not hurt, but the associated "mind-set" that the rules are some sort of inviolable gospel, the holy script that must be adhered to (and, inversely, that everything that is technically possible within the set of rules is automatically "ok"), is incredibly harmful.
Except for the price you are paying you can make that casual car just as competitive as the competitive only car while still staying just as casual
No you can't. At the very least, it would be vastly cheaper to get yourself the second kind of "competitive car" for your competitive needs and keep the casual car for your casual needs. Not every car needs to be all things at the same time. Hell, even race-car drivers/managers who do own these kind of racing cars don't use them to go on a cruise with the kids on the weekend.
Breng77 wrote: Essentially say my buds and I like racing our casual cars. What has happened is we got told...don't do that its not the right way to have fun.
Which is something that more balanced rules do to no one...more balanced rules don't prevent variety or narative or anything.
Sure it is. M and my buds have been trying to game narrative for years, decades even, and every single pick-up game you get the same idiocy about "you cannot run Ultrarmarines 1st Company" or some such, cause Terminators are not "troops" (and you need to fill all kind a stupid "slots" to be "legal" and other such nonsense). And I cannot have a Space Wolves-Striking Scorpions double-force as described in the fluff section of the actual Codex, because you cannot mix armies, etc....
It's been a gaming climate that has been stifling, oppressive and outright hostile to anything approaching "creativity" for decades, despite being a supposedly "creative" hobby.
The balanced rules themselves my not hurt, but the associated "mind-set" that the rules are some sort of inviolable gospel, the holy script that must be adhered to (and, inversely, that everything that is technically possible within the set of rules is automatically "ok"), is incredibly harmful.
Which is where I disagree...it is not harmful at all for pick-up play...because unless we know each other, what reason do we have to find common ground. You and your buds were never stopped from doing anything in your own group....but instead stopped from taking that stuff outside your group to play people that don't agree. What the new scenario creates is every pick-up game being toxic because people often don't agree...so games don't get played and the scene dies (I've seen this happen). So while you and your buds still have games in your own garage or whatever doing what you like...me who thrives on pick-up games....gets none because the scene has died.
Essentially you could always have don't SW + Striking scorpions in your own group....as long as everyone agreed. Which is no different than now...except the expectation now is that if I show up to play you...and don't want to play against said army...we don't play because you came expecting anything was OK. Which in a for fun game...no one ever cared....but if one guy brings a broken competitive army...he either eats derision because of how badly broken his army is...does not get a game...or needs to change his army lest he be forced out.
Which never happens in casual groups.
That is where I see our impasse....I feel that the rules should not inhibit any kind of play (which they currently do without great effort) and should not stand in the way of "pick up" play (which they do now). Where as it seems you think they should force out people that want to use the rules competitvely because those people (who are not the game, but players) are somehow ruining things for you.
Which is where I disagree...it is not harmful at all for pick-up play...because unless we know each other, what reason do we have to find common ground. You and your buds were never stopped from doing anything in your own group....but instead stopped from taking that stuff outside your group to play people that don't agree. What the new scenario creates is every pick-up game being toxic because people often don't agree...so games don't get played and the scene dies (I've seen this happen). So while you and your buds still have games in your own garage or whatever doing what you like...me who thrives on pick-up games....gets none because the scene has died.
Essentially you could always have don't SW + Striking scorpions in your own group....as long as everyone agreed. Which is no different than now...except the expectation now is that if I show up to play you...and don't want to play against said army...we don't play because you came expecting anything was OK. Which in a for fun game...no one ever cared....but if one guy brings a broken competitive army...he either eats derision because of how badly broken his army is...does not get a game...or needs to change his army lest he be forced out.
Which never happens in casual groups.
There is absolutely no problems to pick-up games with the current rules, as long as everyone sticks to the fairly basic idea to spend a minute or so before each game to make sure both parties are having fun.
The only thing "toxic" is the rude attitude of "jumping" something on your opponent, which is an unfortunately widespread misconduct borne from the fallacy that "balanced" rules mean that everything within those rules is appropriate at all times, and that a given selection of X units means that all options are appropriate at all times. It has been incredibly detrimental to the game for years (net-lists, etc..) precisely because "narrative" and "mutual enjoyment" were put on such a low burner.
Frankly, the "pick-up-game-scene" feels a lot better these days than it did just 2 or 3 years ago, when the prevalent mindset was far more often :
- *wastes a perfectly good Saturday afternoon coming down to the store*
- Well, clearly your "own fault" for not bringing a "competitive" list!!!
- But it's just a store, not a tournament?
- Sucks to be you!!!
That (!) is (was?) the reason GW has been bleeding customers for years.
Where as I see the opposite because unless I bring every item I own...I show up and get...sorry I don't want to play against X because it is broken (I've seen this with Tau and Eldar even when lists were not broken).
Furthermore, if things were more balanced something like a "competitve" list would not even really exist.
Now GW is encouraging you to buy things...the people may not want to play against on a regular basis and telling your...they are part of the regular game. Which is much more likely to hurt people in the end.
Again...sounds like you want to punish everyone with bad rules because you play in an area with WAAC players...that would not even really exist if things were not broken in the first place.
TO me it is up to the company to provide good rules...and the community to encourage mutual enjoyment.
The only difference now is that Net lists are so broken the game is no longer enjoyable in anyway when they are involved.
Now you can say to people...well you shouldn't take x in a pick-up game...but that is the whole point...if I am a new player and I buy and want to use x...I then cannot play at all.
When I play malifaux I play extremely casually while some people at my flgs play rather conpetitively and we have no problem doing the same thing, I take my death marshal crew and have just as good a time with the competitive player with my fluffy list that is also competitive since the game is built around the fluffy lists being very synergetic and usually very competitive, all the different crews feel unique, and on top of that they are all balanced.
If I could take the fluffy list for my necrons and enter a tournament and be casual I cant expect the same results, I would be better off going to play a narrative campaign instead if I want to have fun. Or if I want to play competitively I would be better off avoiding the narrative campaign and going to a tournament.
And like others have said, I still dont see how having rules that work and are balanced make the game worse.
I cant see how 40k is really a beer and prezels game. Surely a game by that definition should be easy to just pick up and play. WIth the amount of special rules, FOC and other complexities I don't see how it fits into that category.
Peregrine wrote: Some vague talk about individual opinions on competitive vs. casual, which doesn't even come close to the competitive vs. casual hostility in 40k and even includes praise for most options in X-Wing being at least semi-competitive.
Well, obviously the hostility is missing, as X-Wing fans don't have to deal with a bunch of Trolls that continually try to convince them that the game they enjoy is gak and that it would be "better for everyone" if the game they enjoy would be more like some other game they have no interest in.
The topics are similar, however.
I'm not posting this stuff to troll. Nor do I think anyone else is. Why not put a check on your name calling, yes?
I'm sorry have I offended you somehow? I apologize if I did, my original reference to the seats was being that it was uncomfortable and needed to be changed to feel better, as in the rules are clunky and can need to be changed in some areas to be more comfortable (like the tons of pregame rolling you need to do for things or the mysterious terrain that needs you to pause the game to get the chart and get agree on a suitable way to mark it without forgetting). If you like the brand ferrari thats great so do I, I just dont to pay a premium for something tgat barely runs and is a pain to drive
You can pay premium for different things.
Some cars are made for "casual driving"...
Spoiler:
Other cars are made for "competitive driving".
Spoiler:
And sure, you could go on and on about how the latter, "competitive" car is "technically" superiour in every way, better engine, suspension, acceleration. But that is missing the point of what the former "casual" car is trying to do in the first place.
The very categories by which you compare them are already skewed in favour of the competitive car, because they are categories important for competitive racing, not categories important for casual cruising into the sunset.
And at this point, you broke the analogy by misrepresenting the comparative points. No-one wants to take fun away from gamers who are casual, no-one wants to take away from anyone's ability to do narrative gaming. The point of the original analogy was that there was one car and improving the seats inside, doesn't alter the brand name (IP) or the externals (fluff).
You keep coming back to this insistence that improving the rules or better balancing the armies will restrict casual players and limit people's ability to tell a story more than what is the case now. And in stark contrast to numerous people showing how the opposite is in fact the case, you've yet to convincingly show at all how your assumption stands up.
When people no-longer having to choose between fluff and effectiveness, when people are free to use their Scorpion Super-Heavy Tank or Warhound Titan without the other person viewing them as "unfun" or solely focussed on winning, when there is less pausing to try and puzzle out who is right and who is wrong over a rules interpretation, then this all facilitates narrative gaming and picking armies based on fluff or theme. Not takes away from it.
So go on - I talked earlier about lowering points costs for Banshees, and similar things. Instead of quickly deflecting everyone you argue with into a discussion over why a competitive gamers fun should be more important than a narrative gamer's fun (which you then immediately follow by saying WH40K isn't meant for competitive play so the narrative gamer's fun is by default the first consideration), try actually convincing anyone that well-written rules and better army balance necessarily harms narrative play. Because we don't believe it does. All I've seen you fall back on when pressed is vague comments about how people should be able to pick anything they want at which point why bother with anything?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Calling people trolls is a very subjective label and something I never use.
I was talking to Zweischneid where he calls those of us discussing or wanting rules improvements and better balance to be "a bunch of trolls".
I just ignore the foolishness. He can call us trolls, but that doesn't make the rules any less crappy or the game balance any less a joke. Every person who has made that argument and army swapped with my BA has cried blood when I was done with them.
Martel732 wrote: I just ignore the foolishness. He can call us trolls, but that doesn't make the rules any less crappy or the game balance any less a joke. Every person who has made that argument and army swapped with my BA has cried blood when I was done with them.
We should army swap sometime! I think it would be fun.
So my understanding of Zweischneid's stance is this.
IF the rules are better balanced...people can compete more easily so everything becomes competition...if the rules are broken we need to discuss which rules we are going to use. After all Banshees are powerful when used in Zone Mortalis, when faced with Tactical marines...so their points are ok...they just are not meant to be used in a standard mission.
So using creativity Players can "balance" the game on their own instead of the game doing it for us.
I have beaten my own BA with IG, CSM, Eldar, Tau, and Sisters. Not that the Tau and Eldar took much effort.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote: So my understanding of Zweischneid's stance is this.
IF the rules are better balanced...people can compete more easily so everything becomes competition...if the rules are broken we need to discuss which rules we are going to use. After all Banshees are powerful when used in Zone Mortalis, when faced with Tactical marines...so their points are ok...they just are not meant to be used in a standard mission.
So using creativity Players can "balance" the game on their own instead of the game doing it for us.
And this will land everyone in the hospital from fist fights.
Martel732 wrote: I have beaten my own BA with IG, CSM, Eldar, Tau, and Sisters. Not that the Tau and Eldar took much effort.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote: So my understanding of Zweischneid's stance is this.
IF the rules are better balanced...people can compete more easily so everything becomes competition...if the rules are broken we need to discuss which rules we are going to use. After all Banshees are powerful when used in Zone Mortalis, when faced with Tactical marines...so their points are ok...they just are not meant to be used in a standard mission.
So using creativity Players can "balance" the game on their own instead of the game doing it for us.
And this will land everyone in the hospital from fist fights.
I'm not that worried about being beaten with your army, Martel, I just think it would be an interesting exercise in using an army which I did not build.
And if people are ending up hospitalized because they had to have a discussion about how to play a game, perhaps they are taking it far too seriously?
No, no. I have pretty much all BA models. I let them build their own list from the BA book. It hasn't helped them yet. Most people fall into the trap units. (Which is 65% of the codex at least)
It's easy for people to take things seriously that they have sunk a lot of money into.
To me, it always has been a beer and pretzels game. However, it has incorporated players from other competitive games (like magic) into it. This I believed changed it in reality… Me? I say go go fun, fluff, thematic battles. Not always competitive.
Martel732 wrote: No, no. I have pretty much all BA models. I let them build their own list from the BA book. It hasn't helped them yet. Most people fall into the trap units. (Which is 65% of the codex at least)
It's easy for people to take things seriously that they have sunk a lot of money into.
Well, I play Iron Hands and Armored Company, so expect lots of Techmarines and Fast Predators. I may even deep strike a Land Raider for the lulz.
And perhaps people shouldn't worry so much about material goods. Money shouldn't define life.
All this talk about competitive and what not, I am not really competitive. But I would like a balanced rule set.
I don't mind loosing, I loose all the time, BUT when I play Dark Angles from 4th edition, against 5th edition codecs, my 1500 point army against a 5th edition codex is really like playing against 2000 points.
So is this fair? Or is the 500 point advantage for 5th edition codexes just for story telling? Why play a game when you are already at a disadvantage?
I guess, just want equal footing when starting, and then let may the dice roll where they do.
How much is power creep with each codex? Orks versus Eldar, no brainer, buut what about Eldar VS Tau? What about orks VS Tyranids?
What about just bad rules? How much is a broken BRB? When the faq gets longer & longer, heck when the faq comes out just 6 months after 2 pages long isn't that a problem?
The one thing I'm actually curious about is if they could (not that they WOULD, mind you) just have a single "Army Lists" book with all of the assorted armies, no need for a new Codex every few months with new OP goodies or, worse, new SM codexes while other factions haven't even had an update.
Of course that goes back to focusing on solid, tested rules and not trying to just upsell every few months with new overpriced models for the latest FOTM army. I recall when 3rd edition first came out there was a small period where there were no valid codexes, just the army list in the rulebook, and while they weren't really amazing rules it did have everybody on roughly the same page as there was no "arms race" at that time. I really wonder if that's a model to revisit. Publish thin (and cheaper) codexes with army background and general hobby tips (e.g. how to create your own army, staff members' own custom armies with tips, battle reports illustrating tactics, etc) and just have a single army list for everything at once and focus on updating existing models/rules to be better instead of just pushing new toys all the time.
Red Marine wrote: How much is power creep with each codex? Orks versus Eldar, no brainer, buut what about Eldar VS Tau? What about orks VS Tyranids?
What about just bad rules? How much is a broken BRB? When the faq gets longer & long, heck when it comes out just 6 months later 2 pages long isn't that a problem?
Where's the codex creep for C:SM? I want my creep!
Red Marine wrote: How much is power creep with each codex? Orks versus Eldar, no brainer, buut what about Eldar VS Tau? What about orks VS Tyranids?
What about just bad rules? How much is a broken BRB? When the faq gets longer & long, heck when it comes out just 6 months later 2 pages long isn't that a problem?
Where's the codex creep for C:SM? I want my creep!
Space Marines suffer from the fact that they're still paying the points for toughness 4 and a 3+ armour save, despite the fact those features are pretty worthless on the 6th edition battlefield.
They can't really drop the points any further than they have, and they can't change the marine profile (which is, to be frank, the profile against which everything is compared in 40k) and they're not willing to drop the "tactical squads are 10 men with special and heavy weapon" motif that has been around since Rogue Trader.
Consequently Marines are frozen in time as the 40k universe changes around them.
Of course it doesn't help that the bolter is a pretty poor weapon, and that Marines don't have the "rapid fire" rule from second that actually allowed them to gun down armies who outnumbered them two to one.
Basically to make Marines competitive they'd have to completely rethink how Marines are supposed to work.
"Of course it doesn't help that the bolter is a pretty poor weapon, and that Marines don't have the "rapid fire" rule from second that actually allowed them to gun down armies who outnumbered them two to one. "
The bolter was so bad in 2nd that this didn't help at all. But I get your drift.
Martel732 wrote: "Of course it doesn't help that the bolter is a pretty poor weapon, and that Marines don't have the "rapid fire" rule from second that actually allowed them to gun down armies who outnumbered them two to one. "
The bolter was so bad in 2nd that this didn't help at all. But I get your drift.
From what I recall of 2nd edition the main thing then was that armor saves had penalties applied based on the weapon's strength (like in WHFB, no AP then) so you still had a good chance of killing people if you dropped their 4+ save to a 5+. That and if I'm not mistaken, Marines could move AND Rapid Fire so you could move and still shoot 24", or rapid fire if within 12". I don't 100% remember though it's been a long time, but I recall that whole move or shoot stuff only being in play from 3rd onward.
The problem was that thing like hormagaunts gave you a -2 to even hit because they moved "fast". I did not win with BA once out like 18ish games in 2nd edition because of Eldar/Tyranids/CSM/Orks w/pulsa rokkits.
Yeah 2nd ed armor saves were worse for marines than now. EVERYTHING reduced your saves. All you had to do was shoot a little & wildly overpriced marines droped like flys. Seriously. A squad of IG could in one round of shooting drop their own price in SMs. Just with lasguns!
Yeah, 2nd edition was by far the most insane over all version of this game. It was frankly quite stupid. 6th edition could have been magnificent, but GW decided to make crazy army books.
I don't understand how people can argue that making the game more balanced is some how going to kill casual play.
To a beginner in 40k the fact they have to search out what units are good or not before buying an army to make sure they don't lose every single game discourages casual just for fun play. The imbalance forces people to use net lists and heavily search the current meta if they want to be even a little competitive.
Saying you should just house rule it is like saying in online games people should either use mods or start running servers that block large portions of the game.
For those who play poker I think much of the reason people who complain about 40k instead of just leaving is because they are pot committed. For those who dont play poker pot committed is when you have already invested so much in this current hand of poker it is worth paying a little more to see the hand through even if you have little chance of winning just because you have already put so much in. In much the same way lots of people here have put lots of time and money into 40k, they keep buying the next unit and going along hoping things get better, each time they do they have invested that little bit more in the game and become even more pot committed.
Not to mention that many people love the 40k models, the licence and the game world in general while hating the how the game currently plays and how GW operates in general.
People who don't want to have to spend 20 minutes discussing how to play before playing a game are not socially awkward they just shouldn't feel the need to negotiate to play a game. You simply shouldn't have to do that with a well built game. Games like Poker, Chess, Checkers, Football and Rugby don't need a large discussion before playing. You just play within a few seconds of sorting out the tiniest details. 40k shouldn't need any more than discussing the points you wan't to play at. I am often surprised at the amount people feel the need to defend GW's lazyness when they try to make their customers do their job for them.
GW bases everything around mediocrity. They release very low-quality miniatures (Finecast) and low-quality books with low-quality rulesets. Makes sense it'd extend to the psychology of the game itself.
It's largely because GW today is largely a corporate/shareholders juggling game to see how to make their reports look good each year. That's all 40k really is.
Dunklezahn wrote:
I guess we have to agree to disagree, I find that by taking 5 minutes to talk to my opponent before hand and a willingness to say "I could never handle the Titan with what i have/my list is way harder or softer than yours etc" (something I don't even need at all with the close core of our gaming group that play outside of randoms) and walk away politely from those games I don't think 1 or both of us would enjoy the game becomes very balanced.
I play warmachine, infinity and flames of war. None of these games require me to negotiate terms and conditions with my opponents as to what goes down on the board for a fair fight. Amusingly though, with all these games (especially our flames of war games), I'm still perfectly able to co-operate with the lads and discuss cool scenarios, specific forces available and create a narrative story. As a bonus, the rules don't get in the way, or hinder us. 40k is the only game that is so inherently unbalanced that it requires such a level of self policing in order to work. The others function naturally, and narrative games flow far more easily from that.
Dunklezahn wrote:
The problem lies not in the rules (Well there are some pretty stupid ones but those are outliers for me) but those people who choose to take rules for narrative play (Like D-Weapon fortifications which work great as part of a custom scenario) and try to use them purely for their game winning power. In that case let the Revenant fight the Warhound, sure it'll be a blast but you take your list and play someone else.
No, the rules are a mess. They're bloated, excessive and generally, just add clutter to the game, rather than add to the game. You have excessive rules(how many movement types do we have, and how many of these have their own unique exceptions? As compared to a' movement stat?), excessive dice rolling (roll to hit, wound, armour save, fnp/etc)- 4 rolls to resolve an issue ( and three of those answer the sane bloody question - does what hit you kill you?) when other games (warmachine, infinity, heck even dnd!)use 2 rolls to accomplish this, excessive bloated, abstract and counter intuitive mechanics (how you use ap to determine if you get through infantry armour, but strength to get through vehicle armour, and how an s10 ap6 lance weapon will melt a land raider, but will in all likelihood bounce off a fire warrior or guardsman) while other games use a universal damage system that is both intuitive, and yet works for all unit types. Then you've got the multiple saves thing. Marine in cover uses either his cover or his armour. He uses armour, and his cover disappears. He uses his armour, and cover no longer exists. What? One would assume that cover and armour would stack and would be greater than the sum of their parts. Other games integrate cover in a far better and more intuitive manner? Infinity does it. Warmachine does it. Flames of war does it. 40k used to, and they got rid of it fir the current clunky and counter intuitive monstrosity. Yeah, cheers. Compared to the streamlined beauty that is infinity, the gw systems are dinosaurs.
Dunklezahn wrote:
Such is the way of list building games, some lists are extremes of one kind or another by purpose or accident and they can (not will. but can) create a unfun situation for 1 or both players if the opponent hasn't got the right list.
This doesn't really happen in infinity. Whilst skew lists occur in warmachine, the multiple list format of tournaments both allows for these skew lists to exist and do well, and for other players to be able to counter them without specific tailors (if I face a hard counter, I take my other list. But the list I'm facing is still a valid and playable option. Pp manage to allow both to co exist quite well.
Zweischneid wrote:
But Infinity isn't exactly a runaway success.
.
Nor is it dead in the water. Remember, the size of the company is a lot smaller - iirc they have less than thirty people on the books. (and I'm quite certain a number of these are part time, or contract artists). And for its size, it's punching well above its weight.
Zweischneid wrote:
And it's been outselling more balanced games like Warmachine, not to mention Infinity by crazy margins. People truly don't care about "balance".
I think it's more to do with 'star wars' and the fact that as a game, it's far more accessible, and easy to play - I've had it described to me as being on the same wavelength as 'family' games like monopoly or hungry hungry hippos. Dunno if it's an apt description though.
----------------------
As for me, I'm fine with gw encouraging narrative, co operative and casual games. They're fun. I do these games with flames of war. Wouldn't think of working with 40k - it's just so... Flawed. I just wish the fundamental mechanisms of the game were better. See above. Those were the issues that drove me from the game. That, and the lack of balance. By all means, encourage narrative games with kooky lists (though if this is the case, I'd argue the game is best served with no codices, focs, or points costs as we understand them now and was instead based on a big list of unit types and officially pushed with more interactive story, scenario and campaign ideas. (I've actually got a wee system written up for my group based on this premise) Take what you want and build a story with it with your friends. And cool. Just base it on a better, more intuitive and functional set of game mechanics. And rather than a game you can major work with a lot of effort, you've got a game that simply works.
I have a question about the narrative games and people playing them . How do you do it . You go to a shop , pay for the table or not , and then what ? Because I never seen an narrative game played in my whole wargaming life.
Zweischneid wrote: That is the problem, all along. Warhammer 40K just happens to come with ... dunna .. black car seats, and people keep complaining that the designers are so incapable, they can't seem to get the white just right. But they are not supposed to be white. They are supposed to be black.
No, and this is the thing you refuse to understand: the problems with 40k that make it a bad competitive game do not make it a better casual/narrative/whatever game, they just make it a bad game in general. If you fix the problems that the competitive players hate you simultaneously improve the game for casual/narrative play. The only thing the game would lose is your bizarre masochistic idea that if the rules suck so badly that the game doesn't function without extensive pre-game negotiation you'll have to talk to your opponent and find out what they want to play. And that makes about as much sense as bragging about how the $50-per-meal restaurant you keep going to serves you rotting food with shards of broken glass mixed into it, which has the wonderful benefit of helping you stick to your diet.
Zweischneid wrote: Sure it is. M and my buds have been trying to game narrative for years, decades even, and every single pick-up game you get the same idiocy about "you cannot run Ultrarmarines 1st Company" or some such, cause Terminators are not "troops" (and you need to fill all kind a stupid "slots" to be "legal" and other such nonsense). And I cannot have a Space Wolves-Striking Scorpions double-force as described in the fluff section of the actual Codex, because you cannot mix armies, etc....
Sorry, but once again you fail to understand game design. Your Ultramarines dreams aren't banned because of balance issues, they're banned because of fluff. An all-terminator army is clearly fine (or even weaker than average) from a balance perspective, as demonstrated by the DA and their Deathwing option. However, Ultramarines are known for being a generalist army that goes strictly by the (fluff) codex. So an Ultramarines army is composed of a strong core of tactical squads with supporting elements from the other parts of the FOC. Asking to play an all-terminator Ultramarines army makes about as much sense as asking to play an all-terminator IG army.
It's been a gaming climate that has been stifling, oppressive and outright hostile to anything approaching "creativity" for decades, despite being a supposedly "creative" hobby.
Not really. You know what's hostile to creativity? Bad game balance. When the game isn't balanced you're forced to make unsatisfying choices between playing the army idea you love and playing the army that will give you a chance of winning games. When balance is good you don't have this problem, and you're able to have a lot more freedom in designing a viable list that will produce enjoyable games.
The only thing that a balanced game doesn't allow is the "special snowflake" armies that have a long essay about how all of the normal rules and fluff don't apply to them.
The balanced rules themselves my not hurt, but the associated "mind-set" that the rules are some sort of inviolable gospel, the holy script that must be adhered to (and, inversely, that everything that is technically possible within the set of rules is automatically "ok"), is incredibly harmful.
You know, it sounds like you don't actually like the rules to 40k. You talk a lot about how you don't want 40k to become like every other game, but I think what you really love is your own special version of the game, not the rules as published by GW.
Lets put it this way; balanced rules would not hurt you. You would still be free to make any fluff modifications you felt like. However, Unbalanced rules hurt anyone, casual/fluffy/competitive, who wishes to simply put models on the board with minimal fuss and bother. Personally, I would rather spend time before the game discussing fun scenario items or such to play, rather than negotiating with my opponent to get the game to work. This goes double when there is limited time; If I have only two hours to game, I don't want to spend half an hour actually getting a game to function.
It's worth saying, pretty much any game I've seen played at an flgs that purported to be "fluffy" or "narrative based" never had a good story as to why the various forces involved were composed primarily of grey plastic, bare resin or metal. I'm cool with occasional narrative game, but they're more spectacle than game more often than not, at least in my own experience. Don't get me wrong, I love spectacle, but you gotta bring it, it's gotta look good, at some point you have to require units to be painted.
The bottom line is, you can write a story with D6, but it'll be a pretty gakky story. If I ask a gamer friend how a game with so and so went, they generally give my specifics, you know, stuff about the game, not "oh it was glorious, sgt gragnor valiently defeated the blood angels veteran sgt blala bla bla challenge bala bla la allied tau commander bla bla bla".
There will be room for narrative no matter what because narrative can be good or really crappy. Anyone can write convoluted and contrived fluff to justify any army they come up with, here are my guard veterans, the end.
A bit more balance, fewer variables (at least at its core). Vanilla 40k and all its other flavours that you and your opponent can try, and a healthy dose of faq's and errata's for all of them, less ambiguity is what's at the heart of this and it lifts all boats. Rules that are incredibly specific you never see people arguing about.
The moment I have to memorize 100+ poorly written pages of rules, and better yet, end up having several debates about those rules in a single game, it stops being anything close to 'beer and pretzels.'
'Beer and pretzels' is something I can understand within 15 minutes, and play smoothly with little incident.
Martel732 wrote: "Of course it doesn't help that the bolter is a pretty poor weapon, and that Marines don't have the "rapid fire" rule from second that actually allowed them to gun down armies who outnumbered them two to one. "
The bolter was so bad in 2nd that this didn't help at all. But I get your drift.
From what I recall of 2nd edition the main thing then was that armor saves had penalties applied based on the weapon's strength (like in WHFB, no AP then) so you still had a good chance of killing people if you dropped their 4+ save to a 5+. That and if I'm not mistaken, Marines could move AND Rapid Fire so you could move and still shoot 24", or rapid fire if within 12". I don't 100% remember though it's been a long time, but I recall that whole move or shoot stuff only being in play from 3rd onward.
"Rapid Fire" was a rule only Marines (both Chaos and Loyalist) had. It meant that if they stood still they could fire all bolt weapons, pistol, bolter, storm bolter, twice in the shooting phase. Other units fired exactly the same whether on the move or stationary with basic weapons. Heavy weapons couldn't be fired on the move as now, and special weapons had their trade offs. Plasma guns were strong, although without much of an armour save modifier, S6 -1AS one sustained fire dice IIRC, but could only be fired every other turn as it had to recharge. Meltaguns slagged armour or single targets but had half the range of a bolter. Flamers hit a lot of targets (and could set targets on fire) but had an even shorter range than a meltagun.
Armour save modifiers meant that normally a Marine had a 4+ or worse save. Given that they then cost twice as much as they do now, they weren't particularly strong because they didn't have the numbers to either survive or dish out damage.
They also had no, "and they shall know no fear". What loyalists had was a rule that reduced their first failed break test to a shaken rather than broken status. They could still stand and shoot, or move away from the enemy into cover to regroup, but they couldn't advance towards the enemy. It meant they held their ground a little better, but it certainly wasn't as powerful as ATSKNF.
did no one notice this is exactly the opposite discussion as the "once GW goes non-competitive" discussion? does everyone here think GW made their flagship games as tourney prize makers? for that matter, any game? I remember playing Magic for *gasp* fun. I like to win, but the people who toss around the words "competitive", "meta", and "viable" are the ones who scream the loudest when being called out for being a WAAC player.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: I remember playing Magic for *gasp* fun. I like to win, but the people who toss around the words "competitive", "meta", and "viable" are the ones who scream the loudest when being called out for being a WAAC player.
I wonder why? Could it be because people like you keep insisting that they're WAACTFGs who can't possibly be having any fun, just because they're enjoying something that you don't enjoy? I mean, you'd probably be kind of annoyed if I made regular page-long forum rants about how much you suck because I hate your signature.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: I like to win, but the people who toss around the words "competitive", "meta", and "viable" are the ones who scream the loudest when being called out for being a WAAC player.
Well I get pretty pissed off when someone who clearly doesn't understand what I enjoy starts calling me pejorative terms that show they don't have the slightest idea why I actually enjoy it, so yes. Not really surprising people get upset when you insult / misrepresent them, is it? Here's a starting point for you: enjoying competitive play is not about winning at any cost. Easily proven by the fact some of the most fun squash matches I have ever had were ones I lost. I enjoyed them because I played my best, tried really hard and had found an opponent who really pushed me.
Try and get into that mindset and then realize it is completely different to what is usually meant by 'WAAC' which you know damn well is a pejorative term. What I read from your post is that you insult someone and then blame them for taking offense.
Makumba wrote: I have a question about the narrative games and people playing them . How do you do it . You go to a shop , pay for the table or not , and then what ? Because I never seen an narrative game played in my whole wargaming life.
Thats actually quite easy to explain. I will give you an example.
I sometimes play with a friend who has 2 very young kids and is just playing for the models. He doesnt have time to play very often and he never has a strategy but wants his gorgeously painted models see table time.
Last time we played we decided that new dimensional gate he build for his table would be able to be controlled by the player that is on top of it. This gives you control over a bloodthirster for the turn. If your opponent captures the gate he gets to control it etc. If its not spontaneous like when i play him normally you can sit down beforehand and think about a more deep story why the two armies are there and make several special rules to emphasize your theme on the tabletop. Like the example with the thirster.
Playing narratively is very easy ... instead of just putting your models down you get creative on how you spice up the game through cool special rules both players agree to.
Makumba wrote: I have a question about the narrative games and people playing them . How do you do it . You go to a shop , pay for the table or not , and then what ? Because I never seen an narrative game played in my whole wargaming life.
Thats actually quite easy to explain. I will give you an example.
I sometimes play with a friend who has 2 very young kids and is just playing for the models. He doesnt have time to play very often and he never has a strategy but wants his gorgeously painted models see table time.
Last time we played we decided that new dimensional gate he build for his table would be able to be controlled by the player that is on top of it. This gives you control over a bloodthirster for the turn. If your opponent captures the gate he gets to control it etc.
If its not spontaneous like when i play him normally you can sit down beforehand and think about a more deep story why the two armies are there and make several special rules to emphasize your theme on the tabletop. Like the example with the thirster.
Playing narratively is very easy ... instead of just putting your models down you get creative on how you spice up the game through cool special rules both players agree to.
That sounds very cool. I love backgrounded missions like that or with some intereting twist.
The problem many of us are having is someone saying that better rules or more balanced armies hinders people from doing the above.
And I guess also worth pointing out that the person you're replying to was talking about going to a club and playing a pick up game with some random person. What you describe is much easier (due to time and trust) with a friend than some random stranger met in a store where you both want to just sit down and game.
But you can do that with absolutely any ruleset. Better yet, a clear and well written one gives you a more solid base with which to expand from, since you have to worry about less rules disputes coming alone to interfere with the design of your house rules.
Martel732 wrote: No, no. I have pretty much all BA models. I let them build their own list from the BA book. It hasn't helped them yet. Most people fall into the trap units. (Which is 65% of the codex at least)
It's easy for people to take things seriously that they have sunk a lot of money into.
I don't think that being unable to make a list with a codex you're unfamiliar with proves anything.
Martel732 wrote: No, no. I have pretty much all BA models. I let them build their own list from the BA book. It hasn't helped them yet. Most people fall into the trap units. (Which is 65% of the codex at least)
It's easy for people to take things seriously that they have sunk a lot of money into.
I don't think that being unable to make a list with a codex you're unfamiliar with proves anything.
Yeah it does. It proves that a lot of the options in it just aren't viable. That's the point.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: ...but the people who toss around the words "competitive", "meta", and "viable"...
I will agree that I think "meta" in the context of the 40k community is quite possibly the most overused and misunderstood words in any hobby I've ever partaken of.
Martel732 wrote: No, no. I have pretty much all BA models. I let them build their own list from the BA book. It hasn't helped them yet. Most people fall into the trap units. (Which is 65% of the codex at least)
It's easy for people to take things seriously that they have sunk a lot of money into.
I don't think that being unable to make a list with a codex you're unfamiliar with proves anything.
Yeah it does. It proves that a lot of the options in it just aren't viable. That's the point.
true , if one codex can take more or less any combination of gear or units from their codex and the other have this one pre build army , then the second codex is bad. Even if those pre build choices include multiple helldrakes.
Martel732 wrote: No, no. I have pretty much all BA models. I let them build their own list from the BA book. It hasn't helped them yet. Most people fall into the trap units. (Which is 65% of the codex at least)
It's easy for people to take things seriously that they have sunk a lot of money into.
I don't think that being unable to make a list with a codex you're unfamiliar with proves anything.
Yeah it does. It proves that a lot of the options in it just aren't viable. That's the point.
So in your opinion, each unit in a codex should be objectively comparable to each other? There should never be one unit that is simply better than another?
Martel732 wrote: No, no. I have pretty much all BA models. I let them build their own list from the BA book. It hasn't helped them yet. Most people fall into the trap units. (Which is 65% of the codex at least)
It's easy for people to take things seriously that they have sunk a lot of money into.
I don't think that being unable to make a list with a codex you're unfamiliar with proves anything.
Yeah it does. It proves that a lot of the options in it just aren't viable. That's the point.
So in your opinion, each unit in a codex should be objectively comparable to each other? There should never be one unit that is simply better than another?
Ah, the old - 'take what someone has said to extremes' approach. Ever a favourite.
Note the word "a lot" in my post, Which you have turned into "never be one unit". Or to put it another way, it's the old argument of "you can't make it perfect so don't improve it" that is repeatedly used to argue against changing things as if everything is a binary.
Anyway, broadly speaking - yes, there shouldn't be a unit that is "simply better than another" without balancing factors. Dire Avengers are better than Guardians. But they also cost more points and Guardians have options like weapon platforms. Thus we have interesting tactical decisions. You have phrased things to imply we're talking about making all units the same. That is not so. We're talking about things like Dire Avengers vs. Guardians where they are balanced but different. If the same codex contained both Dire Avengers and Super Dire Avengers with the latter being the same cost but having 24" or something, then that would make the former Dire Avengers an obvious trap. No-one should ever take them from a competitive point of view and anyone who does want to take them is being forced to choose between effectiveness and fluff. There should be no universal "better". It should always be "better at X at the cost of something similarly valuable Y, or else have commensurate points adjustment".
Now take this to the BAs that we are talking about. If a large part of the codex consists of "trap" units - i.e. hideously inferior choices, then rather than it "not proving anything" as you wrote, it proves that a lot of the options aren't viable. As I wrote.
There's a marked difference between "no unit may be simply better than any other unit" and a codex where a new player can easily spend a small fortune no realizing they are picking units that can't really be used very effectively.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: I like to win, but the people who toss around the words "competitive", "meta", and "viable" are the ones who scream the loudest when being called out for being a WAAC player.
Well I get pretty pissed off when someone who clearly doesn't understand what I enjoy starts calling me pejorative terms that show they don't have the slightest idea why I actually enjoy it, so yes. Not really surprising people get upset when you insult / misrepresent them, is it? Here's a starting point for you: enjoying competitive play is not about winning at any cost. Easily proven by the fact some of the most fun squash matches I have ever had were ones I lost. I enjoyed them because I played my best, tried really hard and had found an opponent who really pushed me.
Try and get into that mindset and then realize it is completely different to what is usually meant by 'WAAC' which you know damn well is a pejorative term. What I read from your post is that you insult someone and then blame them for taking offense.
You miss my point entirely...
In this context, competitive rarely means "I did my best". In gaming circles, competitive means tier one, rules lawyering, and general superiority. Competitive means "play this list, because nothing else is viable", one reason why Blood Angels is rarely seen, but plenty of "power gamers" play Tau. Competitive means someone is plotting and planning every rules bend in order to get a cheesy advantage, which usually elicits a groan in a tournament, and a cold stare in a friendly game, both usually resulting in no more invites to play.
I am very competitive, in the normal sense of the word. I like to win when I can. But I am not Timmy, the Power Gamer "I need to win!". Threads like this, whining about how the game has "stopped" being compatible.for tournaments, are ridiculous. It's a game, people! Lighten up!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Harriticus wrote: GW bases everything around mediocrity. They release very low-quality miniatures (Finecast) and low-quality books with low-quality rulesets. Makes sense it'd extend to the psychology of the game itself.
It's largely because GW today is largely a corporate/shareholders juggling game to see how to make their reports look good each year. That's all 40k really is.
And pontificating about how poorly run a company is only cements one as not realmy being in it for the game. Who cares who runs the company? And are you really kidding about the quality of their product? Sometimes I think GW-bashing is the true hobby of the hipster wargamer. If it's so terrible, why play?
Orock wrote: How does ostracizing the tournament/competitive fans benefit GW in the long run?
The only way to truly know that is to find out what square the headless chicken GW uses to decide their business strategy landed on. Until we can learn that, we'll continue to be in the dark.
Orock wrote: How does ostracizing the tournament/competitive fans benefit GW in the long run?
The only way to truly know that is to find out what square the headless chicken GW uses to decide their business strategy landed on. Until we can learn that, we'll continue to be in the dark.
Well, let's see. FFG specifically stayed out of the tournament scene with X-Wing, and it sells well. Star Trek Attack Wing jumped right in to tournaments, and it sells well.
Again, some people try to have fun when they play a game. It's not all about Timmy thr Power Gamer.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: FFG specifically stayed out of the tournament scene with X-Wing...
What the hell are you blathering about? They held their own X-Wing tournament. At Gen-Con. I think they've even done a few others since then (the game hasn't been out that long) at their own big gaming store/centre in Minnesota. So now... they didn't "specifically" stay out of anything.
No one's saying it is. The problem Solo is that you're equating anyone playing competitively as some sort of TFGWAAC, which is silly, and downright dishonest on your part.
I honestly cannot believe that Falcon is not being facetious . There's no way someone can say something so ridiculous and actually consider that an informed opinion, and hold it so stubbornly.
40K has never been designed for tournament play. It has never been very good for it, and GW have never shown any interest in tournaments except as a marketing thing. With that in mind, I don't think GW are trying to make the game more "beer and pretzels".
Anyway, GW can't force anyone to do anything.
Tournament organisers can set their own criteria for what units are allowed in their event.
Players too, are not required to accept anything they don't want to play with.
Obviously there is a wavy line between standing on your right to enjoy the game for yourself, and being a bit of a miseryguts to someone who wants to play with the latest toys. That is the area where people need to make reasonable compromises, and it can't be legislated by "official" rules.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: I like to win, but the people who toss around the words "competitive", "meta", and "viable" are the ones who scream the loudest when being called out for being a WAAC player.
Well I get pretty pissed off when someone who clearly doesn't understand what I enjoy starts calling me pejorative terms that show they don't have the slightest idea why I actually enjoy it, so yes. Not really surprising people get upset when you insult / misrepresent them, is it? Here's a starting point for you: enjoying competitive play is not about winning at any cost. Easily proven by the fact some of the most fun squash matches I have ever had were ones I lost. I enjoyed them because I played my best, tried really hard and had found an opponent who really pushed me.
Try and get into that mindset and then realize it is completely different to what is usually meant by 'WAAC' which you know damn well is a pejorative term. What I read from your post is that you insult someone and then blame them for taking offense.
You miss my point entirely...
In this context, competitive rarely means "I did my best". In gaming circles, competitive means tier one, rules lawyering, and general superiority.
Bollocks. You've several entire threads here to refer from which to see how we're using the term competitive. And everyone who talks in detail about competitive play contradicts what you wrote it means. The only people using it in this sense are those in these threads arguing against it and creating strawmen about what it means. Look at what you yourself wrote: you stated that people who used words like "competitive", "meta" and "viabale" were quick to whine about being called WAAC and directly implied that such people actually are WAAC. Well people using such terms are actually all of us arguing for better rules and balance in this thread. And we explicitly say otherwise about what interests us. So you are directly calling us WAAC and assuming we're lying about what we enjoy. I repeat - bollocks. You're just being offensive and telling people you know better than they do what they do and don't enjoy and why.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: did no one notice this is exactly the opposite discussion as the "once GW goes non-competitive" discussion? does everyone here think GW made their flagship games as tourney prize makers? for that matter, any game? I remember playing Magic for *gasp* fun. I like to win, but the people who toss around the words "competitive", "meta", and "viable" are the ones who scream the loudest when being called out for being a WAAC player.
Unbalanced games aren't fun. The outcomes are too trivial.
I suppose there is an interesting outcome from Games Workshop not supporting tournament play. Where they did they could enforce rules like, "you must use GW models."
Now they don't, enforcing such rules is entirely up to the tournament organisers. If they can't be bothered, and of course GW has provided no incentive to care, then any models which adequately represent the units concerned can be used.
GW is a model company first and foremost. Their rules exist solely to sell models. In a sense creating imbalanced rules could benefit their bottom line by promoting sales of whatever the new hotness is, although as with Deathwing, Nephilim, Mutilators and Centurions I'm not sure they actually thought that far ahead.
I love that 'model company, not a rules company' line.
With the latest releases we are potentially up to a rulebook, a codex, a supplement, an allied codex, their supplement, escalation, the fortress one and a dataslate or two all for 1 list, each of which is sold separately and would cost like $600 AU in rules.
Sure that's a bit excessive and no one is making you play with anything more than a codex and rulebook (still over $200 here I believe) and is two separate purchases.
GW are the only guys on the market I can think of that force you to buy anything other than the core rulebook, most other companies sell that (for half the price I might add) then the rules for individual models and the like are given out for free.
For what it's worth, I remember when the codecies were still $30. Compared to other rulesets, that was still ridiculously expensive for a supplement, but it seems like almost nothing since they doubled in price.
To a similar end to my point about how mammoth and obfuscating the rules are in their complexity, a game which requires so much material to play at such a high price point is also not conductive to a 'beer and pretzels' atmosphere, either.
Fafnir wrote: But you can do that with absolutely any ruleset. Better yet, a clear and well written one gives you a more solid base with which to expand from, since you have to worry about less rules disputes coming alone to interfere with the design of your house rules.
Yes you can do that with every ruleset of course. 40k is simply the best option for it because of its fluff (at least for us). You can recreate battles out of books or come up with something you thought about yourself - the universe is diverse enough for almost every crazyness you can think of.
I dont say you cant do that with other games too but for us 40k is what we play since ~1998 and we know our fluff and rules. The 40k ruleset isnt very good ... but generally i dont care and have fun.
And I guess also worth pointing out that the person you're replying to was talking about going to a club and playing a pick up game with some random person. What you describe is much easier (due to time and trust) with a friend than some random stranger met in a store where you both want to just sit down and game.
Of course this playstyle is better for people that know each other. I dont always play narratively but i enjoy it. Its especially enjoyable to play that way with newbies or people that have subpar armies (or if your own is too cheesy).
Fafnir wrote: But you can do that with absolutely any ruleset. Better yet, a clear and well written one gives you a more solid base with which to expand from, since you have to worry about less rules disputes coming alone to interfere with the design of your house rules.
Yes you can do that with every ruleset of course. 40k is simply the best option for it because of its fluff (at least for us). You can recreate battles out of books or come up with something you thought about yourself - the universe is diverse enough for almost every crazyness you can think of.
I dont say you cant do that with other games too but for us 40k is what we play since ~1998 and we know our fluff and rules. The 40k ruleset isnt very good ... but generally i dont care and have fun.
So then you don't play the game because of its narrative opportunities. You play it because that's what you've always played.
@Mywik.
I understand there are lots of veteran 40k player that have their own like minded groups , that house rule 40k to suit their own style of play.
They have years of experience , and can generally put the extra work in required to get an enjoyable game experience from GW40k rules.(And some may enjoy this extra work.)
However, how is this applicable to newbs who play in the local FLGS /GW store?
Poorly defined rules, and poor game balance just sets these new players up for a BAD gaming experience.
They have little knowledge of 40k, and get judged on what units they pick , some gamers refuse to play them for being WAAC, or they get horrible one sided battles where no one enjoys the game.
These new players can be put off playing 40k , and war gaming in general, due to the awful 40k rules.
GW plc write rules for new customers that do not actual get around to play the game, or those experienced enough to fix the rules the way they want.
So while GW plc are writing rules for those that do not actually play , or those that do not actually care about the rules .
Is it surprising GW plc are loosing sales volumes year on year?
I hope that some time very soon GW plc realize that the quality of the rule set is far more important that they give it credit for.
With a BRB, a codex, dice & templates set, starter battalion and some paints your ready to start playing. This doesn't include Escalation, or Stronghold Assault or the cool extra IC/unit you'd like to have.
Then you realize you coulda bought the new Xbox One. Throw in any of the optional crap I mentioned & you just got yourself a online membership & rented a game. Your watching Hulu & playing the coolest new game with 50+ people. You didn't even have to negotiate terrain or argue about forgeworld.
GW needs to take all that new money they're getting from the shiny new 'Nid codex and buy themselves a clue.
Red Marine wrote: With a BRB, a codex, dice & templates set, starter battalion and some paints your ready to start playing.
But you really don't. The starter boxes don't have enough points to play a normal game (and certainly don't have a competitive mix of units), so you're pretty much limited to playing small games with the occasional person willing to play a special teaching game for you.
Red Marine wrote: With a BRB, a codex, dice & templates set, starter battalion and some paints your ready to start playing.
But you really don't. The starter boxes don't have enough points to play a normal game (and certainly don't have a competitive mix of units), so you're pretty much limited to playing small games with the occasional person willing to play a special teaching game for you.
yeah that is very true. not only are there different points in battalions boxs ,but they aren't legal to play with. And most of them have units that will never be used in normal games . The IG starter gives maybe 800pts , when someone maxs up the points and does counts as . that is still 700less then normal games, For WFB it is even worse , because normal games are played at 2500pts
Throw in that most Battle Force Boxes don't come with an HQ choice. Many don't have 2 legal troop choices, and some armies don't even have a battle force.
Fafnir wrote: But you can do that with absolutely any ruleset. Better yet, a clear and well written one gives you a more solid base with which to expand from, since you have to worry about less rules disputes coming alone to interfere with the design of your house rules.
Yes you can do that with every ruleset of course. 40k is simply the best option for it because of its fluff (at least for us). You can recreate battles out of books or come up with something you thought about yourself - the universe is diverse enough for almost every crazyness you can think of.
I dont say you cant do that with other games too but for us 40k is what we play since ~1998 and we know our fluff and rules. The 40k ruleset isnt very good ... but generally i dont care and have fun.
So then you don't play the game because of its narrative opportunities. You play it because that's what you've always played.
I play a game where i know the fluff good enough and where i know enough of the ruleset to create special houserules that arent massively overpowered. Lets say i'd play Kings of War from Mantic and wanted to do a narrative game than i would have to first learn what the world of KoW is about and had to understand the rules. I dont have to do that with 40k. But you are right, 40k isnt a special snowflake that is somehow easier adaptable to house rules. Its just what we are used to. Still theres not a single wargame i played so far that has fluff that is even comparable in quantity and (sometimes even) quality to 40k.
Lanrak wrote:@Mywik.
I understand there are lots of veteran 40k player that have their own like minded groups , that house rule 40k to suit their own style of play.
They have years of experience , and can generally put the extra work in required to get an enjoyable game experience from GW40k rules.(And some may enjoy this extra work.)
However, how is this applicable to newbs who play in the local FLGS /GW store?
Poorly defined rules, and poor game balance just sets these new players up for a BAD gaming experience.
They have little knowledge of 40k, and get judged on what units they pick , some gamers refuse to play them for being WAAC, or they get horrible one sided battles where no one enjoys the game.
These new players can be put off playing 40k , and war gaming in general, due to the awful 40k rules.
GW plc write rules for new customers that do not actual get around to play the game, or those experienced enough to fix the rules the way they want.
So while GW plc are writing rules for those that do not actually play , or those that do not actually care about the rules .
Is it surprising GW plc are loosing sales volumes year on year?
I hope that some time very soon GW plc realize that the quality of the rule set is far more important that they give it credit for.
Beginners should stick to learn the game mechanics that are official instead of making house rules that they dont know the interaction with the official rules. Its not the fault of narrative games that pickup games with strangers that just started out the game arent the best starting point for a narrative game. Also this has a lot to do with environment. In a gw store with 14 year old TFGs ... of course this wont work. In a grown up wargaming club with regular players (like the one i play in) its a lot easier.
Casual and HAAC players are the worst imo, eat some beer drink a pretzel and loosen up, it's just a game and sometimes you just loose to a better opponent/ better prepared army.
tiger g wrote: It has always been a beer and pretzel game
No, it has never been a beer and pretzels game. No beer and pretzels game in the world requires 100+ pages rulebooks and codieces, 4 hours of time to play the game, hundreds of dolars and countless hours devoted to it off table.
Peregrine wrote: If GW can convince you to be proud of how little you care about the quality of the product you're buying then they don't have to waste money on improving their product.
Yes
jonolikespie wrote: It's amazing how after doing that they turn around an make claims about being the Ferrari of the minitures world too.
Well as long as it's about their plastic kits, I'd agree with them tbh.
da001 wrote: And thinking that there is an "official" set of rules somewhere does not change the fact that if you show up with 3 Riptides (to use an example) your opponent will be perfectly within their rights to say no, claiming that they are way overpowered, and that playing against an overpowered list is utterly boring and unfun.
Playing against overpowered list is pure joy, unless you're a WAAC and can't stand loosing. Pulling a rare well deserved win against it is shivers down the spine . Not to mention the book series you can write about the battle especialy if lost.
You always have right to say no but that does not make your reason valid. And if the guy hates the fact that power lists exist, well it's GW fault not the gamer fielding such list.
Zweischneid wrote:None of that changes the fact that if you show up to club night or to your FLGS with a "3 Heavy Slot" list that sticks pedantically to the rules, but looks like it'll offer no fun to play (e.g. 3 Wraithknights), nobody will have to play against you. And if the guy over there with his 4 HS-slot list seems to offer the more enjoyable Saturday-afternoon, he'll get my game, not you.
Sounds like WAACimo, "I won't play with you because you will be winning and I can't have fun then. So, I'll rather refuse you a game".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: If you fix the problems that the competitive players hate you simultaneously improve the game for casual/narrative play.
Yes
carlos13th wrote: Its much harder to be a powergamer in a balanaced rule set.
Jesus yes, how simple is that.
Kilkrazy wrote: 40K has never been designed for tournament play.
Except it was, as stated by Rick Priestley in one of the interviews, not sure 3rd or 4th. Also I remember crazy Matthew and other 6th ed designers whining about Allesio making 5th edition "too competitive"
I thought all add ons aside from core rule book and a codex where optional to the foc. They don't have to be used. If the game is not competitive as some say then why is there a winner and loser.
If the game as some say is beer and pretzels, then how would you feel about loosing every game, to say a rev Titan. That sounds like a lopsided narrative.
The onus IMHO is on GW to at least try and guide us with a better rule set so we can stop the sky is falling mentality, and have fun games of 40k. Lacking that kind of support we will have to rely on ourselves as players to unbreak the game. Simple as that.
Lanrak wrote: @Mywik.
I would suggest that IF 40k is a narrative game , GW plc should avoid using PV and FoC at all costs.
Other wise its like GW plc are LYING to the people that BUY 40k specifically TO PLAY 'pick up and play games' in GW stores.
Dont you agree?
You know you're not required to play with a FoC, right? Says so right there in the BRB. Make up your own rules if you like, amongst you and your friends. Go nuts, have fun.
Right lets clear up my stance on a few things floating around this thread.
a) Not everyone (I would hope no-one) is arguing bad rules make for a better narrative game. They are however suggesting that by making sure both players are trying to get the same thing out of the game with conversation 40k rules produce a fun and enjoyable experience for both players, which is the whole point.
b) List building is imbalanced. Now I preface this with the fact I have not played Infinity or FoW and I am a reformed munchkin and I have yet to find a single list building game I couldn't break in half with a little practice. Some people are inherently or by practice better at producing powerful lists for any environment and so produce stronger lists that can make the game completely unfun for their opponent who has lost before models/cards even hit the table.
Now at a tournament or a pick up game where you are playing "tournament style", which for me is basically an excuse to create broken in half lists regardless of imbalance, that's fine because everyone is doing it and why I no longer take part. In *any other game* I consider it poor sportsmanship not to match my list roughly power wise accounting for their experience as well. Now once I'm on the table I will play to the best of my ability and if you keep up or outplay me you will potentially win. Short chat, problem solved. I can't see why people wouldn't do this.
c) We are a community. Newbs are having bad experiences with bloated rules someone quote several pages back, this is not something I've ever had a problem with when showing someone the game but hey. We veterans are supposed to helping them, we no doubt have years of tips and tricks, rules knowledge and ways of remembering things under our belt. Without new players a community dies so it's to our benefit to do it.
Now I don't think 40k is a beer and pretzels game (too expensive with lots of rules) but I like the casual game bias as it's the kind of game I play. Like I say, I've yet to find a list building game where it was truly suitable for hardcore tourney play but I am having vast amounts of fun playing 40k 6th.
@Dunklezahn.
A) A quick chat to determine the level of 'zeal' and 'attention to detail' players want to put in the game is a natural part of a social interaction in ANY war game. Having to negotiate how they interpret poorly defined rules, or deal with poor levels of game balance. seems mainly confined to 40K/WHFB in my experience.
B )Perfect game balance only exists in theory.However, extensive play testing can arrive at game balance that can use 'list building for pick up games' to arrive at enjoyable games over 98% of the time.
The only reason 40k tournament play revolves around a few over powered lists, is because 40k is very poorly balanced game.
C) 40k rules are bloated mess , compared to most other popular war game rules.(Most GOOD game rules you can TOTALLY understand ALL the game play options in less than an hour).Even vets disagree on how they interpret some 40k rules, after YEARS of PLAYING the game! (All the posts on YMDC sort of back this up.
(Every other game rules questions are addressed DIRECTLY by the game devs on the game companies OWN forums.)
So 40k is fine for relaxed narrative games between mates that agree to fix the rules in the same way.
But AWFUL for new players wanting an enjoyable pick up game in the local GW shop/LFGS.
If you are looking for a list building game that isnt broken then try out some of the other games people have mentioned (the game I play mostly is malifaux and have had no issues with balance in 2e so far regardless of units as long as you can pay attention to synergy/fluff/theme and not slap together random units since the game thrives on themed lists and fluff for making balanced lists) so I would reccomend trying out some of the other games that require building lists that people here appraise for good balance
This game has never been balanced in the slightest, and has always been a clunky convoluted mess. This is what I don't understand from the majority of the people that are the most outspokenly vocal (and almost always negative) towards this game.
Would a more balanced ruleset benefit everyone? Absolutely. That it has taken this many editions for many of you to accept that this game has never been or will never be balanced is what boggles my mind. Clearly that is not the intention of the designers, regardless how great this would be.
Every iteration of this game has had glaring weaknesses and aspects that can be construed as broken. History is just repeating itself.
What I grow tired of is what is quite honestly the vocal minority (yes, people on these forums ARE the vocal minority when it comes to overall opinions and thoughts on GW game analysis) who have done nothing but complain for the last X editions, repeating their opinions incessantly how this game SHOULD be.
Well, it isn't. Either do something about it (as many people have suggested- this hobby is what you make of it) or deal with it. Clearly something has kept you around long enough (and unfortunately complaining the entire time). There are endless possibilities with this, and any involved hobby. If one aspect is not to your liking, concentrate on another. Flex some creative muscles and utilize all of your effort to actually better the experience for you and others around you. Stop poisoning the hobby.
I think the negativity of the people who decry the game for everything it is are what is harming this game more so than any ruleset or pricing issue.
I think the negativity of the people who decry the game for everything it is are what is harming this game more so than any ruleset or pricing issue.
Seriously? Complaining about something on the internet (this alleged minority, at that) is somehow more harmful than the flaws with the ruleset or blatant price gouging?
Now I'm curious, enlighten me how a few dozen regular forum goers are harming an internationally played game more than the policies of the company producing it.
Simple. Other than pricing (which people are still willing to pay for it- even those that bemoan it)- the false assumption that this game is 'unplayable' or not 'enjoyable' because of internal balancing issues is largely irrelevant to the average GW consumer, or target audience.
They have made it abundantly clear that they no longer care for tournaments or the competitive scene both in practice and implied with their rules writing (spirit of the game).
They have also made it abundantly clear that the game is meant to be played 'for fun'. While fun is defined differently for everyone, again, the average player (who likely doesn't turn to forums and just plays with their friends or at their FLGS) just does not experience many of the issues often portrayed in places like Dakka.
It's much rarer, then, to hear some minor criticisms from within a local setting than online, where forums tend to degrade into miasmas of negativity.
Quite simply- the GW rules, while flawed and unbalanced, are largely fine for most people. The more people complain about said rules the more apparent the issues become, despite the fact in reality it does not matter for most people.
You still haven't explained how a few dozen forum posters have somehow negatively impacted the game for everyone.
This forum is where people come with the specific intent of posting about miniature wargaming, and this particular sub-board is meant for those who wish to discuss 40k. Its no surprise the discussions here are a little more critical of the game than in real life at your FLGS. No one enjoys listening to constant whining and whinging in person, but forums can be quite nice for critical discussions.
But again, my point is that your claim that the game is being made worse by the discussions on a single forum is absurd.
XenosTerminus wrote: Simple. Other than pricing (which people are still willing to pay for it- even those that bemoan it)- the false assumption that this game is 'unplayable' or not 'enjoyable' because of internal balancing issues is largely irrelevant to the average GW consumer, or target audience.
They have made it abundantly clear that they no longer care for tournaments or the competitive scene both in practice and implied with their rules writing (spirit of the game).
They have also made it abundantly clear that the game is meant to be played 'for fun'. While fun is defined differently for everyone, again, the average player (who likely doesn't turn to forums and just plays with their friends or at their FLGS) just does not experience many of the issues often portrayed in places like Dakka.
It's much rarer, then, to hear some minor criticisms from within a local setting than online, where forums tend to degrade into miasmas of negativity.
Quite simply- the GW rules, while flawed and unbalanced, are largely fine for most people. The more people complain about said rules the more apparent the issues become, despite the fact in reality it does not matter for most people.
This was viable before the internets. Now if one person at a FLGS gets a net list, the whole thing blows up quickly.
I never stated a single forum, more so lumped most of the mainstream 40k forums/blogs as the vocal minority.
Let me explain it another way. If an FLGS or GW store is a gateway to the hobby, many may look to these forums or blogs for additional information. And what do they find? That these communities are largely comprised of overly competitive/critical complainers who have evidently been playing this game for 10+ years, yet somehow have not tired of this activity to this day.
It paints an entirely poor picture for the hobby overall and would be extremely confusing for a new player. Why are these people so negative towards a game they supposedly care about?
While for some it may stem from passion (if you could call it that), for most it just seems like a waste of time. Deeper discussion about the game/hobby is one thing, unfortunately I don't think it can be said that the majority of content on any of these outlets is anything but toxic.
That's life, though. People like to bitch and moan about everything. The strange thing though is that typically if people dislike something enough to complain about it for nearly a decade, you would think they would have the sense to call it a day on something that seemingly gives them no joy anymore.
XenosTerminus wrote: This game has never been balanced in the slightest, and has always been a clunky convoluted mess. This is what I don't understand from the majority of the people that are the most outspokenly vocal (and almost always negative) towards this game.
Would a more balanced ruleset benefit everyone? Absolutely. That it has taken this many editions for many of you to accept that this game has never been or will never be balanced is what boggles my mind. Clearly that is not the intention of the designers, regardless how great this would be.
Every iteration of this game has had glaring weaknesses and aspects that can be construed as broken. History is just repeating itself.
What I grow tired of is what is quite honestly the vocal minority (yes, people on these forums ARE the vocal minority when it comes to overall opinions and thoughts on GW game analysis) who have done nothing but complain for the last X editions, repeating their opinions incessantly how this game SHOULD be.
Well, it isn't. Either do something about it (as many people have suggested- this hobby is what you make of it) or deal with it. Clearly something has kept you around long enough (and unfortunately complaining the entire time). There are endless possibilities with this, and any involved hobby. If one aspect is not to your liking, concentrate on another. Flex some creative muscles and utilize all of your effort to actually better the experience for you and others around you. Stop poisoning the hobby.
I think the negativity of the people who decry the game for everything it is are what is harming this game more so than any ruleset or pricing issue.
Seriously? The "vocal minority" attack? I'd bet if we surveyed people as to (a) whether they thought rules and balance could be improved in WH40K and (b) whether that was desirable, you'd find the majority opinion was "yes" to both questions. You just call us a "vocal minority" as a way of dismissing what we say, because you wouldn't say it otherwise.
And you make a Hell of a lot of presumptions about us. As one of the "vocal" people in this thread, I can say that you're wrong to assume I've been complaining every edition. I've never even played 3rd, 4th or 5th. But I do remember playing 1st and 2nd as a kid and finding it pretty un-fun to have my eldar swept off the table by endless hordes of plastic ork boyz every single game. I actually recall several instances of bad blood being caused by rules disputes and unbalanced gaming. Probably one of the reasons my group lost enthusiasm for WH40K.
I mean really? People wanting better rules is "poisoning the hobby" to you? Are a religious fanatic or something that dissension is such a terrible thing? When I was a kid losing to ork hordes every game, the chances of my complaining to others at my school resulting in any actual changes were around zero. There was no World Wide Web, we were just disparate voices. Now those of us that care can actually get together and find others who feel the same. And we can start projects to improve the rules, discuss ways to deal with balance problems and maybe get GW to start paying more attention to these issues. Getting together and complaining is the first prelude to doing something.
So quite frankly, you don't like people complaining, well complaining about us complaining is just more complaints. You can argue why an improvement is flawed - that's welcome. You can argue that you don't need the improvements. That's fine. But telling other people to shut up because they're "poisoning the hobby"? That's just another way of trying to stifle debate. You're not forced to read this thread. If you're happy go and play. Don't leap on other people telling them to just accept things if they're not, though. That's just an attitude of "I got mine".
XenosTerminus wrote: Why are these people so negative towards a game they supposedly care about?
Because we do care. Do you understand that many could be considered masochists because of the pain we put ourselves through to play this game. Yet as you ointed out we still do and that is because we care about it, the game , the fluff, other players, our hobby. As a whole we realize that this game could be so much better if it was made with at least a semblence of balance in mind. That is why we are negative we know that 40k could be better but the company we pay to play does not see complaints as a concern and thinks that the status quo from 1990 is still good in 2014
You put an awful lot of effort into quoting me out of context/misconstruing my words.
I never said a better ruleset, or requesting/discussing one is poisoning the hobby, or that the game cannot be improved. Hell, that is the entire point! There is a lot of discussion of ways TO improve this game because of the way it is.
My main point, along with others, is that many people that incessantly complain about the state of the game DO NOTHING BUT COMPLAIN.
If you are unwilling to take many of the steps to improve this game because of self imposed limitations (it isn't BRB, shouldn't be my responsibility, etc etc) then that is your own decision. I fully endorse any rules discussions or efforts made to improve this game and its rules through logical discussion/debate. That is NOT the issue here.
The issue is how many people carry themselves when such conversations begin in the first place.
XenosTerminus wrote: That's life, though. People like to bitch and moan about everything. The strange thing though is that typically if people dislike something enough to complain about it for nearly a decade, you would think they would have the sense to call it a day on something that seemingly gives them no joy anymore.
Speaking as one of the most vocal people in this thread and therefore one of the primary people you're talking about, you don't know me. You know very little about me. So where do you get the information that I've been complaining about it "for nearly a decade". I played a bit as a kid with 1st / 2nd ed. Now I've just bought 6th and that's my first exposure to WH40K Table Top for around fifteen years. So whoever you think you're arguing with, it's a phantom of your own imagination. If you really think someone can't pick up WH40K today and just make a criticism, then I don't know what to say other than you're delusional.
And as to the "no joy anymore". You may find that many of us our passionate about the painting. Or the fluff. And we want to bring the third member of the trinity up to scratch. We're not masochists. We're not here because we enjoy suffering. That's just the weird idea that you have of us. We're here because we're optimistic and we believe that things can be improved. For everyone. Whereas you are just here being negative with your complaints about people voicing their legitimate opinions, telling people to just "deal with it" and your fatalistic "it's always been this way so it always will be" attitude.
Well first of all, don't confuse GW/40k with the entire wargaming hobby. It doesn't paint the hobby in a poor light, it simply paints 40k/GW in a poor one. You'll find most of the boards for other games are significantly less negative, for reasons quite obvious.
Secondly, 40k isn't the only wargame, nor is it quite the monolithic entity it once was. There are dozens of other games I'd recommend to a new wargamer before I'd recommend 40k. People searching for more info on 40k might turn them away from 40k/GW, but in to another wargame, which is positive for the entire hobby community.
Many of us who 'bitch' on here as you put it have invested in other games. We still have our 40k armies and have a vested interest in other aspects of the 40k universe. Discussing things politely is not toxic or any other negative connotation you want to give it. That's your perception, and mine is that discussing aspects like balance are healthy for the community.
You put an awful lot of effort into quoting me out of context/misconstruing my words.
I never said a better ruleset, or requesting/discussing one is poisoning the hobby, or that the game cannot be improved. Hell, that is the entire point! There is a lot of discussion of ways TO improve this game because of the way it is.
My main point, along with others, is that many people that incessantly complain about the state of the game DO NOTHING BUT COMPLAIN.
If you are unwilling to take many of the steps to improve this game because of self imposed limitations (it isn't BRB, shouldn't be my responsibility, etc etc) then that is your own decision. I fully endorse any rules discussions or efforts made to improve this game and its rules through logical discussion/debate. That is NOT the issue here.
The issue is how many people carry themselves when such conversations begin in the first place.
I don't believe that I took anything out of context. I responded directly to what you wrote and as to "out of context", I quoted the entirety of your post. The reason this thread is nine pages long is not because people want to complain, as you suggest. It is because we are arguing against people who say (a) our complaints are not legitimate, (b) we should not complain because that's just the way things are or (c) both of these things.
If you disagree with that, then before replying, please go and read the last few pages and see how many of our posts are "I want to complain" and how many of them are us defending our complaints against attacks by others. I guarantee you that 9/10 posts by us are of the latter kind.
If you are complaining about all of this discussion, the correct faction to blame would be those that keep attacking our arguments. If no-one had, this thread would be a few pages of people agreeing there were problems and then discussing positive ways to change that. Instead, it's a stream of defending our position against attacks. Which is how I believe some people want it to be rather than for anything to actually change.
This is like having your significant other hurting you, and your friend telling you "don't tell him/her that he/she is hurting you, you'll only make it worse". Seriously.
I think part of the problem in general is that GW has no reason to balance rules and do things correctly (read: "fairly"), and all the reason NOT to. The game is the definition of "pay to win" where whoever has the most money gets the biggest advantage (see Escalation and superheavies), and the fact that for a decade or more now every new codex to come out is bigger and badder than the rest, resulting in a never-ending arms race as new things come out that are just better than the old ones, enticing you to buy more or even start over again.
Even back in 2nd edition which is what, almost 20 years ago now, the game was never balanced because they want you to buy more, they want you to keep buying every new codex that comes out and start every new army so you can continue to buy the latest and greatest "game winning" unit or model for their outrageous prices. 2nd edition was Herohammer like WHFB at the time, where you had one guy that was half the cost of your army ripping through everything else like it was butter, and since then it's been "Buy the latest new shiny toys for an advantage!" all the time. Armies have no updated Codex while GW will write several Space Marine codexes because that's what sells the most, and they only care about selling Space Marines to kids instead of actually having a hobby game.
People complain because they like the game and want to see it succeed, not become a perpetual arms race where you can steamroll opponents just because you have $400 to spend on an overpowered Forgeworld model that magically is now legal in the game, because that's $400 on one purchase into GW's pockets.
You put an awful lot of effort into quoting me out of context/misconstruing my words.
I never said a better ruleset, or requesting/discussing one is poisoning the hobby, or that the game cannot be improved. Hell, that is the entire point! There is a lot of discussion of ways TO improve this game because of the way it is.
My main point, along with others, is that many people that incessantly complain about the state of the game DO NOTHING BUT COMPLAIN.
If you are unwilling to take many of the steps to improve this game because of self imposed limitations (it isn't BRB, shouldn't be my responsibility, etc etc) then that is your own decision. I fully endorse any rules discussions or efforts made to improve this game and its rules through logical discussion/debate. That is NOT the issue here.
The issue is how many people carry themselves when such conversations begin in the first place.
But we are helping, I improve the hobby by getting poeple into other game. If GW fix their system I gladly get people into it, until then I just be a donkey-cave getting friends to waste money on a company that "hates" them. Until then I do my best to get people to start games where you play a game, instead of waiting around for the other guy to finish, becouse you have no effect on the other guys turn (you cound sleep if you wanted to while playing GW game and not miss anything). So yes, making sure people start a game they will like to play years from now is important, I don't want them staying becouse the invested to much in GW.
WayneTheGame wrote: I think part of the problem in general is that GW has no reason to balance rules and do things correctly (read: "fairly"), and all the reason NOT to. The game is the definition of "pay to win" where whoever has the most money gets the biggest advantage (see Escalation and superheavies), and the fact that for a decade or more now every new codex to come out is bigger and badder than the rest, resulting in a never-ending arms race as new things come out that are just better than the old ones, enticing you to buy more or even start over again.
Even back in 2nd edition which is what, almost 20 years ago now, the game was never balanced because they want you to buy more, they want you to keep buying every new codex that comes out and start every new army so you can continue to buy the latest and greatest "game winning" unit or model for their outrageous prices. 2nd edition was Herohammer like WHFB at the time, where you had one guy that was half the cost of your army ripping through everything else like it was butter, and since then it's been "Buy the latest new shiny toys for an advantage!" all the time. Armies have no updated Codex while GW will write several Space Marine codexes because that's what sells the most, and they only care about selling Space Marines to kids instead of actually having a hobby game.
People complain because they like the game and want to see it succeed, not become a perpetual arms race where you can steamroll opponents just because you have $400 to spend on an overpowered Forgeworld model that magically is now legal in the game, because that's $400 on one purchase into GW's pockets.
The issue with that is GW fails even at pay to win in a lot of ways. They put out new models with terrible rules all the time. Buff models people already have etc. Now I think how things sell certainly effects their decision to improve the balance. If large quantities of people stopped buying they might change. But that is not what happens.
Martel732 wrote: Breng77 speaks the truth. The codex creep and model buffing are uneven and illogical.
I think what disappoints me the most is that they don't seem to care about quality rules, just slap something out there so we can sell models. Same goes with most of their things. I picked up a copy of White Dwarf for the first time in... oh god it must be 10 years now. It was trash. No tactics/strategy/unit articles. A few bits about the Tyranids (expected as it was for their codex), some okay painting articles (I like them more than before) but the "heart" of it was gone. I loved the days of Chambers of the Horned Rat, Stillmania, and Tale of Four Gamers and the slew of articles showing a staff member's personal army and having painting and gaming tips/tricks from them based on how they built their own force, not how the studio army was done.
It's little things like that which just... I don't know. I want to like the game, hell I've become interested in it again after 12 years but it just feels like they've stopped caring in general about everything. It almost seems like they'd be happier just redoing the rules to allow for Space Marine vs. Space Marine and that's it, and screw everything else. They cancelled the specialist games that were great little things to play, they constantly increase their prices to near ridiculous amounts, and it just makes me wonder what their actual business plan is; I wonder sometimes if they actually want to be a games company, or just a miniatures company in which case they might as well offload the rules to a third party and focus only on figures. The game's always seemed like it was "meant" to be played with 4-5 friends in somebody's basement, where you had themed armies and narrative battles where the outcome of one affected another, and not the MTG style of show up at the game store with your army in tow and see who's around for a game. There's no substance to that kind of gaming IMO. They need to go back to promoting leagues and campaigns and having ways to actually tell a story with the games you play, even if its something as simple as vying for control of a planet and the overall league winner conquers it.
I've actually considered coming up with some simple league rules to propose to my store's gamers. Just something simple to encourage playing and getting to know the locals (I'm new to the store myself) and get in some good 40k games. No prizes or anything at the end except maybe a photo of the winner with their army (and jokingly maybe something like a toy crown) on the store/group's facebook page that they're the winner of the league and that such and such army conquered the planet.
Let me clarify by saying not EVERYONE in these forums, or other 40k outlets online falls into the complainer category, but surely most of you cannot argue that there are 'lurkers' who wait in the shadows for any thread to crop up so they can offer their insightful opinion on the game and how 'horrible things are', etc.
It's not uncommon to see any news or rumor post quickly devolve into complaints about a new rule, book, etc. Sometimes it's even entertaining to have a countdown until one of these people inevitably show up.
I guess I am just tired of it. Like many of you, I just want to have discussions about the game we all love. It's incredibly disheartening and depressing to come home from a gakky day at work and just read up on some hobby aspects you enjoy only to see yet another negatively spun thread, or a seemingly innocent one be taken over by negativity. That's really the crux of it.
Back on topic though, I agree that GW really isn't sure where it is going with it's flagship product. One thing I can say though is that a lot of the things people are complaining about, was requested (people have been asking for super heavies in standard games for ages). It's just funny to me that even when GW listens to their fanbase people still find reasons to moan about it.
I guess I am just tired of it. Like many of you, I just want to have discussions about the game we all love. It's incredibly disheartening and depressing to come home from a gakky day at work and just read up on some hobby aspects you enjoy only to see yet another negatively spun thread, or a seemingly innocent one be taken over by negativity. That's really the crux of it.
Why are you reading threads you don't enjoy reading?
I guess I am just tired of it. Like many of you, I just want to have discussions about the game we all love. It's incredibly disheartening and depressing to come home from a gakky day at work and just read up on some hobby aspects you enjoy only to see yet another negatively spun thread, or a seemingly innocent one be taken over by negativity. That's really the crux of it.
Why are you reading threads you don't enjoy reading?
Seems like a pretty simple solution, really.
No joke, it is not like the thread title makes it look like people are going to talk all warm and fuzzy about GW.
Because like I said, most threads don't start this way. It is generally easy to tell when a thread will be bad news from the get go (based on initial rants or sensitive topics), but any sensible conversations are usually hijacked, like this one was.
I also get a good laugh out of people who reply to people that point out blatant whining/complaining with the 'you are just complaining about complainers' comment. There is a difference- commenting about your distaste for overall complaining/negativity is far and between someone who abuses the privilege, if you could call it that. It gets tiresome.
This thread has been largely sensible as far as forums go. Its been true to the topic at hand, which started out as largely GW negative. I don't know what you expected from this thread, to be honest.
Martel732 wrote: It gets tiresome being target practice for Eldar.
Curious- do you typically play pickup games via FLGS? How many people do you see playing 'competetive 40k' style lists?
I ask this seriously, because I rarely play pickup games. The issues with 40k many people speak of are really only an issue for pickup games, which as stated earlier does not appear to be a format that is friendly any longer with the current 'take whatever you want, abuse whatever you want' configuration GW has given us.
The game really does favor structured/more narrative play, but then again that is the way GW has always intended the game be played.
Martel732 wrote: It gets tiresome being target practice for Eldar.
Curious- do you typically play pickup games via FLGS? How many people do you see playing 'competetive 40k' style lists?
I ask this seriously, because I rarely play pickup games. The issues with 40k many people speak of are really only an issue for pickup games, which as stated earlier does not appear to be a format that is friendly any longer with the current 'take whatever you want, abuse whatever you want' configuration GW has given us.
The game really does favor structured/more narrative play, but then again that is the way GW has always intended the game be played.
The people I usually play with like to win. Are you going to blame them for wanting to win? They keep up fairly well on the meta and bring close approximations to competitive lists. I have never seen or heard of a "narrative" game in 18 years and three cities of play. People seem to like the structure of list building and trying to defeat another list.
I blame GW for allowing abusive lists and printing dozens of trap units in their codices.
Martel732 wrote: It gets tiresome being target practice for Eldar.
Curious- do you typically play pickup games via FLGS? How many people do you see playing 'competetive 40k' style lists?
I ask this seriously, because I rarely play pickup games. The issues with 40k many people speak of are really only an issue for pickup games, which as stated earlier does not appear to be a format that is friendly any longer with the current 'take whatever you want, abuse whatever you want' configuration GW has given us.
The game really does favor structured/more narrative play, but then again that is the way GW has always intended the game be played.
This is spot on and bears repeating again. Most of the complaints about OP and cheese seem to be the result of the MTG mentality of show up at the store with your army and see who's also decided to show up at the store with their army, or if you're luckier having a dedicated "miniatures" night in between MTG drafts. This is a far cry from having a friendly narrative league/campaign with buddies where you know that nobody is going to plonk down a Reaver titan just because they spent $400 and the rules let them.
Here's another analogy: I play World of Warcraft somewhat seriously and have for a couple of years now. When you use the random matchmaking for group content (i.e. a pick-up group) you run into all kinds of people. Sometimes they're good folks and you have fun, but sometimes they are scummy who do rude things just because they can get away with it. It's a similar thing here - if all you play is pick-up games against random people (even people you play often) at your FLGS, you're basically dealing with whatever random person decides to show up, with whatever they choose to bring and if they want to bring a titan, well they are technically allowed and it's a random one-off game of 40k.
I really wish they'd go back to promoting league/narrative play and leave the entire concept of "pick up games" to tournaments where they belong and where you can basically expect people to pull all the stops. Facing a Taudar or Cron Air or Screamerstar or whatever the fromage du jour is at a tournament where you're paying an entry fee and the winner gets a prize is a far cry from going to your FLGS on "Miniatures Day" so you can actually play the hobby you've put money into and running into some maniac who only cares about winning so they can brag about it on facebook.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to win. I also enjoy list building. The problem comes with different opinions of 'fun', or how the game is enjoyed. Some people enjoy the experience, others just want a means to win. I would argue 40k is not the optimal choice for the 'just want to win' style of gameplay (unless you want to spend a lot of money via an arms race). The unfortunate thing about it is GW doesn't playtest with this methodology. Just look at the White Dwarf Battle Reports. Their lists are what many people would consider to be 'noncompetitive' or 'unfocused'. Basically, fluffy lists or just whatever they wanted to bring/the new models for a release.
A better way of handling the FOC would fix a lot of these issues and also make list building a bit harder, which would be a good thing. It's too easy to scour through a codex, find the best/optimal configuration, and in some cases simply pay the 'troops' tax to unlock it. Or.. even worse- just take a specific HQ to unlock the unit you want to min/max AS a troop.
Their design, I think, never assumes people will abuse ANYTHING, because quite honestly their play testers/designers don't think this way. If they had community play testing I am sure more effort would be placed into ensuring some of these balance issues don't crop up, but that is not how they analyze it/don't really care.
This is spot on and bears repeating again. Most of the complaints about OP and cheese seem to be the result of the MTG mentality of show up at the store with your army and see who's also decided to show up at the store with their army, or if you're luckier having a dedicated "miniatures" night in between MTG drafts. This is a far cry from having a friendly narrative league/campaign with buddies where you know that nobody is going to plonk down a Reaver titan just because they spent $400 and the rules let them.
Here's another analogy: I play World of Warcraft somewhat seriously and have for a couple of years now. When you use the random matchmaking for group content (i.e. a pick-up group) you run into all kinds of people. Sometimes they're good folks and you have fun, but sometimes they are scummy who do rude things just because they can get away with it. It's a similar thing here - if all you play is pick-up games against random people (even people you play often) at your FLGS, you're basically dealing with whatever random person decides to show up, with whatever they choose to bring and if they want to bring a titan, well they are technically allowed and it's a random one-off game of 40k.
I really wish they'd go back to promoting league/narrative play and leave the entire concept of "pick up games" to tournaments where they belong and where you can basically expect people to pull all the stops. Facing a Taudar or Cron Air or Screamerstar or whatever the fromage du jour is at a tournament where you're paying an entry fee and the winner gets a prize is a far cry from going to your FLGS on "Miniatures Day" so you can actually play the hobby you've put money into and running into some maniac who only cares about winning so they can brag about it on facebook.
The problem is I can play league/narrative play with the other system I play as well (MY imagination does depend on the system I play) and I can play pick up game too. Both without working out the what offical rules we are going to use first between us, so we can focus on the game or the story we are telling. And, if the game had a 400 dollor model he can play it becouse it is balanced system.
XenosTerminus wrote: There is nothing wrong with wanting to win. I also enjoy list building. The problem comes with different opinions of 'fun', or how the game is enjoyed. Some people enjoy the experience, others just want a means to win. I would argue 40k is not the optimal choice for the 'just want to win' style of gameplay (unless you want to spend a lot of money via an arms race). The unfortunate thing about it is GW doesn't playtest with this methodology. Just look at the White Dwarf Battle Reports. Their lists are what many people would consider to be 'noncompetitive' or 'unfocused'. Basically, fluffy lists or just whatever they wanted to bring/the new models for a release.
A better way of handling the FOC would fix a lot of these issues and also make list building a bit harder, which would be a good thing. It's too easy to scour through a codex, find the best/optimal configuration, and in some cases simply pay the 'troops' tax to unlock it. Or.. even worse- just take a specific HQ to unlock the unit you want to min/max AS a troop.
Their design, I think, never assumes people will abuse ANYTHING, because quite honestly their play testers/designers don't think this way. If they had community play testing I am sure more effort would be placed into ensuring some of these balance issues don't crop up, but that is not how they analyze it/don't really care.
Here is the issue with the "they don't anticipate abuse" line of thinking. So I'm Joe Shmoe hobbiest and I go pick up the latest Tau book, and I really love the idea of battle suits. So I pick up say 2 riptides, and some crisis teams, and some broadside teams. And when farsight comes out I make a list of all my suits..,because hey cool l love me some battle suits, and I painted them up all awesome and stuff...and I play my buddy with his thousand sons csm army....and obliterate him. Now I have an army I love that I cannot play my buddy with because I'm going to stomp him...and it is not really any fun. So now we are stuck either making up rules to make the game fair or one of us is spending more money on units to make the game fun.
Right- and if your buddy is a level headed person with the same basic goal in mind (to have fun)- this would be easy to fix via some simple house ruling. Nobody would have to buy anything else, and both players could enjoy their lovingly crafted armies.
This is an example of a situation that is not problematic, because even GW suggests you use their rules as a guideline to play the game how you want to. To those that view the BRB, despite this, as sacrosanct that must be played to the T with no wiggle room, is the issue.
So pickup games are still the issue, unless the other person is willing to relent a bit and adjust things (I know that this may require the awkward situation of conversing with a human being through a medium other than the internet, but sometimes social interaction is necessary).
If the entire method of having fun requires disregarding the written rules to write your own, then why the hell do you buy and play their games in the first place?
How would I do that? Believe me, I am not a god. Not yet.
