Instead, this is more about the game of 40K itself, as it currently stands.
Of course, many of the reasons why 40K is in the state it is now can probably be blamed on GW's current state, but...
I stumbled across this post recently, and it pretty much sums it all up nicely, at least for me:
What I see when I look at the Tyranids codex is that GW has completely painted themselves into a corner with this edition, allies and sub-codexes.
When you put out a codex that isn't allowed to ally with anyone, all of a sudden they have a tremendous issue...the disparity between the types of armies that competitive 40k players use these days is so wide between what most would consider a 'fluffy theme list' that it's almost like two different games. There was a time when you'd go to a tournament and you'd see the guys who were playing army lists that they built just cause they liked the way the army looked, and those guys would get their butts handed to them, but their armies weren't THAT far from being viable. Now, with allies, and sub-codexes allying with their parent codex, etc, you're getting insane deathstar special rules combos, 2++ re-rolls, etc...the 'casual' army guy just gets utterly blown out of the water now.
I honestly don't think that GW even recognizes all the insane combos that combining codexes provides, or if they do, they just don't care like they don't care about how stupid D weapons are for no additional points cost (compared to other weapons Lords of War can take).
So against most armies built from a single codex, I think the Tyranids have a fighting chance...but when you run up against a Broadside unit joined by a Buffmander and an allied Farseer casting perfect timing, you're now talking about shooting units that can obliterate one MC a turn pretty much no matter what. So what the heck does GW do at this point since Tyranids don't ally with anyone per GW's own fluff reasons? Do they make the codex so amazingly powerful that it can walk over most over single-codex builds to compensate? If so, what happens if people are playing in a non-ally setting or GW later goes and cancels or limits allies (like they could with 7th edition)? All of a sudden then the Tyranid codex becomes perhaps *too* powerful.
The other common suggestion is that they should have just let the Tyranids ally with themselves...because all of a sudden the way to 'balance' things is to completely break the force org chart and that's the *only* way to save the day?
It's just nuts. GW have broken their game.
You can still have fluffy themed games as long as both players purposely agree to play that way. Or you can play competitively (with most armies), using allies, etc, but those 'armies' sure don't look like anything you've ever seen or read about in GW's background.
And that's really what it comes down to. Any game system is going to be competitive if players have access to the same units; they can always find similar types of things to pit against each other and play in a competitive environment. But those competitive armies do not match the background of the game anymore, and once you've hit the point where your game rules fail to represent the fiction the game is drawn from, then you have failed as a game based on it's background (which 40k is supposed to be).
The problem now seems to be - what's the way back for GW and 40K?
It's an excellent summary of the state of 40k currently.
Personally, I think nothing short of a full reboot of the rules - from the ground up - would be enough to stop the rot but I think there is little appetite for that, both internally at GW because of the cost involved in doing it, and externally with the fanbase, because imagine how pissed off people are going to be at having to buy rulebooks and codexes yet again, so soon after 6th.
It's a delicate situation for GW. Stick with the status quo and accept the flaws in the edition and try to fix them next go around or be pro- active in trying to solve them now at the risk of alienating customers further.
To be honest, GW could get rid of 95% of the problem with allies by removing the battle brothers aspect.
Bugs can pretty much do anything the other armies can through biomorphs and then some so the oly thing they are missing out on are the possible extra slots.
To fix that, let them ally with themselves or bring out the genestealer cults and let them be allies. From the looks of it though, with them bringing out the 3 sub-codices for bugs, it looks like that will be covered.
The article appears to just be another sour grapes one that can be added to the list of others. If GW were to wake up and learn some basic econmonics, they wouldlearn that just jacking up prices and tossing out unready product is notthe way to increase revenues. Lowering rices would being them an expoinential ammount of new customers and revenue and being more careful of what they release to ensure it has been playtested properly (heck, even proofREAD would help) would ensure more customers stayed customers and increase stability.
If GW stays the GW that is in there today, there's no doubt that they'll just be 'sticking with it' and release more incomplete Codices, DLC and expansions that further tilt the balance even more out of whack.
I wonder what the weekly "White Dwarf" will end up doing to the game as a whole if there really are going to be new rules in it as well.
Especially as it is not something that is going to be widely available...
I don't think I have ever seen GW print anything about supporting the kind of GT game we all play here in the states. I have seen them print in a White Dwarf and the BRB that they want the game to be non competitive and that you should just play to have fun. I think they have added all the data slates, D weapons, and fortifications because they want the game to be fun and more exciting. I have to agree with them. I have played the game with the new stuff and it has made it like no game I have ever played. The added units make it into a richer and more complex game that is fun and unpredictable. The game that it's rival, Warmahordes is very competitive, but every game is a "line up my toys and walk across the board" kind of game. It is played on a 4 x 4 with little art or style of maneuver. The players all say Horses are a joy so don't play them competitively so I know that game suffers from the, " why bother making that model" syndrome, but that is my favorite kind of unit. My biggest issues is that, the one unit the would make the game competitive is outclassed by the rule set. I would submit that the game GW makes is much more a game and much more fluid in game play than any I have played to date.
Interesting summary...but then I've also yet to see a convincing argument that a balanced game that would work on a competitive/tournament level would be a bad thing for any type of game though.
I think we've already seen that GW will not balance their game for the players sake.
Rather, it does have to be balanced by the community in order to address any issues we see.
GW makes the models and lays out the rules. It's us the players who have to find a way to make it fit into our wants and dreams for what we would like to do with the two things GW provides us.
I'd have to disagree that GW makes a fluid or colorful game. The way GW prints it's rules alone makes me feel more like a librarian than a tactician. All the additional books just keep piling up just to add a bit of flavor onto a jumbled mess already.
Here's a good example:
I'm going to Play Tau.
-Starting off with BRB and Codex: Tau Empire.
But not just any Tau. I'm playing Farsight Enclave.
-So now BRB, Tau codex, and Farsight Enclave.
But now I want to try out these allies. I'll try Eldar.
-BRB, Tau codex, Farsight Enclave, and Eldar.
Oh, but you guessed it. I'm going to play the Eldar supplement too.
-BRB, Tau Codex, Farsight Enclave, Eldar, Eldar supplement.
Now throw in some superfortifications and lord of war
-BRB, Tau Codex, Farsight Enclave, Eldar, Eldar supplement, Escalation, and Stronghold Assault.
8 rule books does not make for a very casual game. There shouldn't be any game like that. Especially from a company that claims it's a model company first. When looking into the actual power imbalances in the game it's disgusting. To write it off as just rules for "casual" games is just saying you have no idea on how to make rules but still willing to charge a premium price for it.
I think the summary is a good one, but the sequencing is probably off.
The financial report shows numbers running up to December 1st. It doesn't include the time of Escalation, crazy Christmas datasheets, etc.. .
They are, more probably, a reaction to the mess they saw coming over the past year.
The time period that shows the poor performance covers, roughly, the Eldar Codex, the new Apocalypse, the Space Marines Codex and some Fantasy stuff, most notably the massive overhaul of Dark Elves. That was, by 6th Edition standards, not yet the crazy time of Lord of War-slots and tank-hunting Riptide-formations for everyone.
The same 6th months the year before, when GW did so much better, included the Ork Flyers, a little Daemons-wave (Plaguebearers, Blue Scribes), 40K 6th Edition, Dark Vengeance and the CSM Codex.
Savageconvoy wrote: 8 rule books does not make for a very casual game. There shouldn't be any game like that. Especially from a company that claims it's a model company first. When looking into the actual power imbalances in the game it's disgusting. To write it off as just rules for "casual" games is just saying you have no idea on how to make rules but still willing to charge a premium price for it.
DnD gets like that sometimes with the number of different books needed in order to play a game and have options available, but that is roleplaying which is a savage beast all unto itself.
Savageconvoy wrote: I'd have to disagree that GW makes a fluid or colorful game. The way GW prints it's rules alone makes me feel more like a librarian than a tactician. All the additional books just keep piling up just to add a bit of flavor onto a jumbled mess already.
Here's a good example:
I'm going to Play Tau.
-Starting off with BRB and Codex: Tau Empire.
But not just any Tau. I'm playing Farsight Enclave.
-So now BRB, Tau codex, and Farsight Enclave.
But now I want to try out these allies. I'll try Eldar.
-BRB, Tau codex, Farsight Enclave, and Eldar.
Oh, but you guessed it. I'm going to play the Eldar supplement too.
-BRB, Tau Codex, Farsight Enclave, Eldar, Eldar supplement.
Now throw in some superfortifications and lord of war
-BRB, Tau Codex, Farsight Enclave, Eldar, Eldar supplement, Escalation, and Stronghold Assault.
8 rule books does not make for a very casual game. There shouldn't be any game like that. Especially from a company that claims it's a model company first. When looking into the actual power imbalances in the game it's disgusting. To write it off as just rules for "casual" games is just saying you have no idea on how to make rules but still willing to charge a premium price for it.
You have a point. years ago, they did this and were always releasing new rules and such in white dwarf. In my area I was the only one with a subscription and had to bring my white dwarfs to games to use the new rules and they other guys were always mad cause i was the first to get the rules and they didnt always take the time to borrow the magazine off of me and worldwide it got so bad that after a while GW made the change to get away from that and go to the codex without those extras or to just put the extras in the codex to bgin with. Now, they have gone back that route where in order to do anything different ya gotta buy more and more books. Add to that that half of them dont have hard copies but are only available on computer readers and it is made worse. a large portion of players dont have the money to buy those fancy lil hand computers (we spend it all on models lol) and dont really have access to them.
i would say if they want to add in those extras, just hold off on the release of the codex till they are done and just put them in there to begin with.
Savageconvoy wrote: Point conceded. There should be some games with 8+ books.
Eh...not that there should be, but because roleplaying is supposed to simulate pretty much any concept (within an alternate reality such as a fantasy setting), many, many books will be needed in order to cover all the variables, the different tastes of each player, the different campaign settings, ect.
You are correct though that for GW's 40k game specifically especially with time constraints on games to keep them manageable, 8 or more different sources gets crazy after a while.
Gonna spoil how the train can derail here:
Spoiler:
Imagine starting your DnD adventure simple such as on Oerth with the standard fantasy tropes such as fighers, rogues, wizards, clerics, ect. You need at least four books (3 core, 1 campaign setting). One of the characters dies so he wants to reroll something special such as a monstrous humanoid fighter. You'll need the rulebook detailing monstrous humanoid characters (or the core book that might have such a character. Then as the campaign progress several of the characters want to invest in prestige classes or mutliclass. Tack on 1 or more books here. Now the challenges are not stimulating enough so you invest in other books detailing other dangers and monsters (assume another book or more). Gak gets weird as the campaign now involves other dimensions of reality which could also involve other Prime Material Plane settings. Well, you've just probably landed on book 20 or so by then so at this point you might as well have your own personal library or digital collection tabbed ad infinitum just to keep up with all the things that are now going on in the campaign setting.
Savageconvoy wrote: I'd have to disagree that GW makes a fluid or colorful game. The way GW prints it's rules alone makes me feel more like a librarian than a tactician. All the additional books just keep piling up just to add a bit of flavor onto a jumbled mess already.
Here's a good example:
I'm going to Play Tau.
-Starting off with BRB and Codex: Tau Empire.
But not just any Tau. I'm playing Farsight Enclave.
-So now BRB, Tau codex, and Farsight Enclave.
But now I want to try out these allies. I'll try Eldar.
-BRB, Tau codex, Farsight Enclave, and Eldar.
Oh, but you guessed it. I'm going to play the Eldar supplement too.
-BRB, Tau Codex, Farsight Enclave, Eldar, Eldar supplement.
Now throw in some superfortifications and lord of war
-BRB, Tau Codex, Farsight Enclave, Eldar, Eldar supplement, Escalation, and Stronghold Assault.
8 rule books does not make for a very casual game. There shouldn't be any game like that. Especially from a company that claims it's a model company first. When looking into the actual power imbalances in the game it's disgusting. To write it off as just rules for "casual" games is just saying you have no idea on how to make rules but still willing to charge a premium price for it.
Ahem. You just chose two armies with four supplements... Not what I call "very casual game". You remind me guy who goes to car salesman and want basic car...but with extra aircon...oh and special tyres...aaand...another engine...and of course different color...HOW MUCH? I just wanted basic model!
Wasn't my point that adding in supplements and expansions, to the point of feeling like a librarian, isn't exactly a casual game?
Which was the point made a few posts above. That GW markets 40K as a casual game, but makes the most confusing way of managing rules into as many books as possible.
Zweischneid wrote: I think the summary is a good one, but the sequencing is probably off.
The financial report shows numbers running up to December 1st. It doesn't include the time of Escalation, crazy Christmas datasheets, etc.. .
They are, more probably, a reaction to the mess they saw coming over the past year.
The time period that shows the poor performance covers, roughly, the Eldar Codex, the new Apocalypse, the Space Marines Codex and some Fantasy stuff, most notably the massive overhaul of Dark Elves. That was, by 6th Edition standards, not yet the crazy time of Lord of War-slots and tank-hunting Riptide-formations for everyone.
The same 6th months the year before, when GW did so much better, included the Ork Flyers, a little Daemons-wave (Plaguebearers, Blue Scribes), 40K 6th Edition, Dark Vengeance and the CSM Codex.
If sells go down in the time they bring out their flagship product the sm codex , and sm are huge part of their sells , then they are in real trouble.
Good or bad there is nothing in w40k or WFB that can compare to SM as far as sells go .
And about the books . The supplements they have now aren't what other games would call supplements . Their content should be in the codex. They are closer to DLC , but w40k is not a game . Most of the players are used too much to actual models and physical things .
I am in two minds about this - in particular with regard to supplements...
On hand GW have, with these, done exactly what alot of us have been asking to do for a long time - bring out the Codexes quikcly and also do more unusual and intersting stuff.
The problem is not the concept but the execution, an army should be fully playable with a basic codex for the most part they are - asupplement or similar, should in my view offer you a new way of playing within your own army choice or different advantages /challenges. What it should not do is be is a automatic purchase if you want to play an army.
Now there is the ultra competative crowd who are always going to look for the most explotiotative combinations but thats just a fact of life and needs to be considered to some degree in creation of the codexes.
I am happy that we might actaul get some form of Codex fro all the armies before a new eiditon comes out plus some new stuff. I dont really understand some of the decisions behind the Codexes/Supplements however - does anyone?
We have a cool idea for the Combat Tactics for different Marine Chapters - but we don't do the same for Chaos Marine Legions, Sororitas Orders or Tryanid Hive Fleets which all would have been cool.
We have supplements for individual Companies not Chapters - why? Digital say its a Crusade butdo we get units for all the Crusade elements and enemies - nope.
We create lots of fluff about the Farsight splintering off but then let them have all the usual Tau units.............
We create Special characters int eh books but don;t actually make them in the game - except when they do - so the Farsight Enclave gets what 8 Special Characters, Iyanden and Iron Hands none - why - their fluff has them ready and able to go but no game stats?
Esculation has a eceltic selection of units - including dubious availability of the Revenant for the Dark Eldar and nothing for the Sororitas.
Savageconvoy wrote: Point conceded. There should be some games with 8+ books.
Eh...not that there should be, but because roleplaying is supposed to simulate pretty much any concept (within an alternate reality such as a fantasy setting), many, many books will be needed in order to cover all the variables, the different tastes of each player, the different campaign settings, ect.
You are correct though that for GW's 40k game specifically especially with time constraints on games to keep them manageable, 8 or more different sources gets crazy after a while.
Gonna spoil how the train can derail here:
Spoiler:
Imagine starting your DnD adventure simple such as on Oerth with the standard fantasy tropes such as fighers, rogues, wizards, clerics, ect. You need at least four books (3 core, 1 campaign setting). One of the characters dies so he wants to reroll something special such as a monstrous humanoid fighter. You'll need the rulebook detailing monstrous humanoid characters (or the core book that might have such a character. Then as the campaign progress several of the characters want to invest in prestige classes or mutliclass. Tack on 1 or more books here. Now the challenges are not stimulating enough so you invest in other books detailing other dangers and monsters (assume another book or more). Gak gets weird as the campaign now involves other dimensions of reality which could also involve other Prime Material Plane settings. Well, you've just probably landed on book 20 or so by then so at this point you might as well have your own personal library or digital collection tabbed ad infinitum just to keep up with all the things that are now going on in the campaign setting.
You make a good point however I don’t 100% agree so I want to make some comments.
First, some might say that the D&D example shows only that the D&D people are as greedy and excessive as GW. There are plenty of (arguably equally good) games that manage with much fewer books. If you want to play Savage Worlds you just buy the core rulebook and a background book if you want one.
Another thing is that Farsight Enclave used to be in the Tau Codex. GW increased that from 64 to over 100 (?) pages yet included enough less content that they had to release it as another book? Looks like a money grab. I don’t want to bog down into price arguments, though.
If you want to play Eldar Allies too... a lot of us think it’s allies that help break the game, so we don't want to allow it. That brings the total of books down.
My final point is about Escalation and so on. Looking at the old Cities of Death supplement, it gives you detailed rules for expanding an aspect of the core game. Escalation etc introducing superheavies and fortresses with mega weapons isn’t like that. It’s more like having nuclear weapons in a modern naval war game. They exist, but the option to use them completely changes the game and makes it tactically less interesting.
To sign off, I would like people to consider that a lot of us who are moaning about the 6th edition are keen, experienced long term players who had fun throughout 4th and 5th. If we think 6th has gone badly wrong, maybe it really has.
Savageconvoy wrote: Wasn't my point that adding in supplements and expansions, to the point of feeling like a librarian, isn't exactly a casual game?
Which was the point made a few posts above. That GW markets 40K as a casual game, but makes the most confusing way of managing rules into as many books as possible.
Or you can just buy basic rules, codex and play. Believe me, its fun. And when you want, you can add this and that...if you need to. Extra tires...
Alpharius wrote: Interesting summary...but then I've also yet to see a convincing argument that a balanced game that would work on a competitive/tournament level would be a bad thing for any type of game though.
Bad for the game? No.
Bad for GW? Yes, because they would have to be involved with the community and provide continual support and updates for the product.
The only real fix for 40K is an all new edition with all new codexes all released at the same time (let's face it, 4th - 6th are just revisions of 3rd, not actual new editions). There's nothing wrong with the idea of allies, flyers, fortifications, or superheavies in the game. It's been the integration of them into a game that wasn't originally designed for them that is causing the problems.
I believe the 40k game has broken under the strain of trying to sell too much , the current game rules simply can not cope with the variety of models GW currently want to push into it.
The rules could cope quite happily with a large skirmish game .But as time has gone on and the model count in the game kept rising.
And so the game play has move firmly into the battle game genre.
If a new rule set was written using more appropriate game mechanics and resolution methods , it would be possible to cover much more of the 40k universe, delivering more game complexity , without the over complication the rules currently suffer from.
When rules are written with clarity , brevity and elegance ,It is possible to have a 'unit creation' system where players can make up their own units and FOC s if they want to.
There would be core rules and army lists suitable for pick up and play games.
And then have expansions for narrative campains where templates for new units and FoCs for several armies could be released together.(Armies with similar play styles could be covered with one expansion book.)
So the players just buy the core rules (including basic army lists,) for 'balanced pick up games' eg suited to competitive play.
Then the expansions can take the game , (and set factions,) in set directions for more narrative fun armies.
Still fun to play and reasonably balanced forces against other forces in the same expansion.
And the really wacky match ups, (just because you want to), forces from different expansions to see what happens just for fun.
So at the very most you would need a core book and 2 expansion books, to cover the spectrum of balanced competitive play to completely wacky fun.
But the only way to fix all [i][ut]he current problems with 40k, is a complete rules re-write, focusing on game play , not short term product sales.
Or you can just buy basic rules, codex and play. Believe me, its fun. And when you want, you can add this and that...if you need to. Extra tires...
You're still missing the point. GW is pushing more and more books for what used to be in the standard army books while still under the premise of being a friendly casual game.
Running the standard army: One book
Wanting to use a fluffy or themed supplement (As already mentioned with Farsight by Kilkrazy): One additional book.
That's for one stand alone army.
If you want to use an ally: One additional book.
If your ally uses a themed or fluffy supplement: One additional book
If you want more than the brb fortifications: one additional book
If you want a LoW: At least one additional book until you start getting into FW territory.
Also if you want any FW units: One additional book.
You can go stock. Yes. But the company that is pushing a casual friendly game is making it difficult by adding more and more books onto the pile.
I could play without allies, but then why is GW making allies if not to enrich the casual friendly gaming experience.
I could play without supplements, but then why is GW making supplements if not to enrich the friendly gaming experience.
I could play without extra fortifications, but then why did GW release Stronghold Assault if not to enrich the friendly gaming experience.
I could play without a Lord of War, but then why did GW release Escalation if not to enrich the friendly gaming experience.
I could play without Forgeworld units, but then why did GW give them the 40K stamp of approval if not to enrich the friendly gaming experience.
The problem is that when there is the possibility to take 8+ books for a single army you have to ask were all of those really necessary, desirable, or even asked for. I don't remember anyone complaining in 5th about how they ONLY had to use two books for a standard game, maybe three or four if playing Apocalypse.
The moronic inclusion of allies and superheavies have made the game rather silly.
Our gaming group does not allow these things and in turn, we are having a blast playing 6th edition.
Collectively we find it interesting reading about complaints of overpowered armies and such, when the solution is simply to us a single force org with no allies.
I would fix Nids by writing a Gene Stealer cult BB supplement. (Of course, I'm a retro-geek, so I'd stick zoats in there somewhere.)
Fixing the rules themselves would need a complete re-write. A d-6 base is for skirmish games but tedious for large-scale battles. Otherwise, the only way to polish that turd is by yanking out rules left and right. In the end they'red be very little of substance left.
Zothos wrote: Indeed. However what they are promoting is silly. If more people recognized and rejected such idiocy out of hand, we would not have these issues.
Allies and escalation are blatant money grabs. I dont mind a money grab from a company, but allies are an abomination to the game.
I do hope people start seeing how bad for they are for the game as a whole soon...
Am not saying that the new codex are not stupid , they are . But making them illegal is a dangerous game . If escalation or stronghold is removed , then what will stop people from saying that this or that codex isn't legal too.
Savageconvoy wrote: I'd have to disagree that GW makes a fluid or colorful game. The way GW prints it's rules alone makes me feel more like a librarian than a tactician. All the additional books just keep piling up just to add a bit of flavor onto a jumbled mess already.
Here's a good example:
I'm going to Play Tau.
-Starting off with BRB and Codex: Tau Empire.
But not just any Tau. I'm playing Farsight Enclave.
-So now BRB, Tau codex, and Farsight Enclave.
But now I want to try out these allies. I'll try Eldar.
-BRB, Tau codex, Farsight Enclave, and Eldar.
Oh, but you guessed it. I'm going to play the Eldar supplement too.
-BRB, Tau Codex, Farsight Enclave, Eldar, Eldar supplement.
Now throw in some superfortifications and lord of war
-BRB, Tau Codex, Farsight Enclave, Eldar, Eldar supplement, Escalation, and Stronghold Assault.
8 rule books does not make for a very casual game. There shouldn't be any game like that. Especially from a company that claims it's a model company first. When looking into the actual power imbalances in the game it's disgusting. To write it off as just rules for "casual" games is just saying you have no idea on how to make rules but still willing to charge a premium price for it.
I look at 40K, and indeed any tabletop game the same way I look at a PC game: If I don't like something, I mod it. 40K is really best with custom scenarios, special rules, custom units/wargear and slight modifications anyway. Same with Skyrim; kinda crappy vanilla, huge fun with mods.
Zothos wrote: Indeed. However what they are promoting is silly. If more people recognized and rejected such idiocy out of hand, we would not have these issues.
Allies and escalation are blatant money grabs. I dont mind a money grab from a company, but allies are an abomination to the game.
I do hope people start seeing how bad for they are for the game as a whole soon...
You are wrong. The allies mechanic is not the problem, the problem is that the different codices are not properly balanced.
Am not saying that the new codex are not stupid , they are . But making them illegal is a dangerous game . If escalation or stronghold is removed , then what will stop people from saying that this or that codex isn't legal too.
'illegal' and 'legal' are concepts entirely created by competitive players and not something GW recognizes in the least. They simply make rules, and they expect players to use or not use them as they see fit.
To be fair, GW used to go out of their way to say rules were 'trial' or 'official' but that is long since gone. People mistake the 40k or Apoc 'stamps' in the recent FW books as a call back to the old 'official' stamp, but that's not what they are...they're just stamps that say whether the unit is used in either standard 40k or apoc.
At this point, every rule GW makes is 'official' from their standpoint (except for perhaps the 'experimental' FW rules PDFs)...but they are just unwilling or unable to grasp the concept that a fairly large continent of players would like to have certain rules flagged as being 'standard' 40k and others as clearly being 'optional', but GW doesn't want that distinction anymore. They just want players to play with the rules they like, tournaments be damned.
Zothos wrote: Indeed. However what they are promoting is silly. If more people recognized and rejected such idiocy out of hand, we would not have these issues.
Allies and escalation are blatant money grabs. I dont mind a money grab from a company, but allies are an abomination to the game.
I do hope people start seeing how bad for they are for the game as a whole soon...
Am not saying that the new codex are not stupid , they are . But making them illegal is a dangerous game . If escalation or stronghold is removed , then what will stop people from saying that this or that codex isn't legal too.
Slippery slope arguments exist in any discussion such as this. The simple answer in this case is " then dont play them".
I realize in a game store or such environment, that this is not as easy as it sounds. That said, if someone starts trying to say you cannot use whats in your actual Codex, they are usually trying to be spiteful or breaking Wheatons Law in some way, shape or form.
Keep in mind that I am only speaking for myself and my immediate group. The no allies rule we all agreed on unanimously, with no lobbying or argument. The second escalation came out we all immediately said " no friggin way".
yakface wrote: ..but they are just unwilling or unable to grasp the concept that a fairly large continent of players would like to have certain rules flagged as being 'standard' 40k and others as clearly being 'optional', but GW doesn't want that distinction anymore. They just want players to play with the rules they like, tournaments be damned.
Which seems the least problematic. Tournaments have a tournament-document where they (can) outline what they want to use and don't want to use anyhow.
A hard-coded distinction into "standard" and "optional" has no impact on tournaments either way. However, such distinctions (in the past) did facilitate a sort of "tournament-mentality" in non-tournament-games, where people thought that everything labeled as "standard" is always appropriate in all circumstances, no matter what.
Anything that help fight that perception is a good thing. Perhaps one of the few remaining good things GW does.
Zothos wrote: Indeed. However what they are promoting is silly. If more people recognized and rejected such idiocy out of hand, we would not have these issues.
Allies and escalation are blatant money grabs. I dont mind a money grab from a company, but allies are an abomination to the game.
I do hope people start seeing how bad for they are for the game as a whole soon...
You are wrong. The allies mechanic is not the problem, the problem is that the different codices are not properly balanced.
Lol, I assure you I am not wrong.
No game with this many game rules will ever be perfectly balanced. I do think it is something they should strive for, but its not truly attainable.
So if we are in a place where we know a single codex is not truly balanced, how can we then say letting them use a second not truly balanced rule source will not make it exponentially worse?
Which is EXACTLY what has happened. And just to rub salt in the wound, they decided that one army shouldnt even get that??
How anybody except Games workshop executives ever thought allies were a "good idea" is beyond reasoning.
The simple answer in this case is " then dont play them".
The only time I have seen someone say I won't play you , was when a guy who lived a long time in London tried to play his FW army in a FLGS . At all other times people just won't ask people they don't like and you won't even find people supporting two different factions in the same store , because you would have fights outside of it all the time .
'illegal' and 'legal' are concepts entirely created by competitive players and not something GW recognizes in the least. They simply make rules, and they expect players to use or not use them as they see fit.
Not here . Here if it is a codex or core rule book it is legal . No one will even think about saying no to someone taking X or Y . We opposed escalation and strongholds for time , till the actual books were here and they didn't have supplement in it , like CoD or flyer one , but codex . And now everyone is looking for the cheapest way to get D weapons and fortifications . This how it always worked here . People that never play in tournaments , play the game that way too . So it isn't linked to tournaments in any way .
Which seems the least problematic. Tournaments have a tournament-document where they (can) outline what they want to use and don't want to use anyhow.
A hard-coded distinction into "standard" and "optional" has no impact on tournaments either way. However, such distinctions (in the past) did facilitate a sort of "tournament-mentality" in non-tournament-games, where people thought that everything labeled as "standard" is always appropriate in all circumstances, no matter what.
Anything that help fight that perception is a good thing. Perhaps one of the few remaining good things GW does.
I totally agree to a degree (I rhymed!). People get waaaay to hung up on what is 'official' or part of the 'core' 40k and what is supposedly not, and that's why they just won't let it go even when GW has stopped classifying their rules like that years ago and they hang onto even the slightest hint of 'opponent's permission' talk in the rules to label it as being not part of the 'true' 40K (like many people see FW).
But with that said, there is/was something very comforting knowing you could just take a 1,850 point army to a store and get a random pick-up game with a stranger and have a reasonably good time.
Now, you can totally have one player showing up with an Escalation list and another guy showing up with just a standard list and the two of them can't really play each other.
So yeah, breaking down the barriers and just accepting that 'everything' is 'legal' is a nice way to broaden players' gaming horizons, it also tends to torpedo the ease at which you used to be able to play a random stranger a fun game of 40K.
Allies is a good idea though. It allows the slow build up of a secondary army and adds a bit of flavor.
However the key thing lacking in the current allies set up is moderation. To me allies should have been limited to something like the Tau Firebase dataslate (though a lot less... everything wrong with that). Basically if they had a specific detachment available and a list of what armies could purchase it.
It's not perfect, but it's a big step away from being able to cherry pick the best units and avoiding any of the downfall.
Not here . Here if it is a codex or core rule book it is legal . No one will even think about saying no to someone taking X or Y . We opposed escalation and strongholds for time , till the actual books were here and they didn't have supplement in it , like CoD or flyer one , but codex . And now everyone is looking for the cheapest way to get D weapons and fortifications . This how it always worked here . People that never play in tournaments , play the game that way too . So it isn't linked to tournaments in any way .
Well, but that is not truly GW's fault if you cannot say "no" to something.
It's like sitting in a Hotel, complaining the buffet is too large, because you "must" take something from everything, so the Hotel should make a smaller buffet. Well, just don't. Take a healthy meal from the selections that appeal to you most.
Not here . Here if it is a codex or core rule book it is legal . No one will even think about saying no to someone taking X or Y . We opposed escalation and strongholds for time , till the actual books were here and they didn't have supplement in it , like CoD or flyer one , but codex . And now everyone is looking for the cheapest way to get D weapons and fortifications . This how it always worked here . People that never play in tournaments , play the game that way too . So it isn't linked to tournaments in any way .
I said competitive players, not tournaments.
And that is my whole point. You guys have applied 'legal' and 'illegal' to certain rules while GW has no such distinction. An 'expansion' is an expansion to the rules. A 'supplement' is a supplement to the rules. Players can (and do) try to define why one term should mean it is more or less 'legal' but you won't find ANYTHING like that from GW (since their 'trial' rules back in the day)...it's all 'official' to them.
So yeah, your shop should feel free to use or not use whatever rules you want, but if you think there is some 'official' line in the sand that GW actually supports, you're fooling yourselves.
But with that said, there is/was something very comforting knowing you could just take a 1,850 point army to a store and get a random pick-up game with a stranger and have a reasonably good time.
Now, you can totally have one player showing up with an Escalation list and another guy showing up with just a standard list and the two of them can't really play each other.
So yeah, breaking down the barriers and just accepting that 'everything' is 'legal' is a nice way to broaden players' gaming horizons, it also tends to torpedo the ease at which you used to be able to play a random stranger a fun game of 40K.
Probably true.
Ultimately, I don't think they had a mission to "break down barriers". They had a mission to make money, and the way allies or Escalation (in theory.) make them more money seems obvious.
Injecting a bit more ... civility ... into the non-competitive gaming-scene is possibly only a "collateral upside"? Of course, the "perfect world" would be one where you have both the easy access of a "standard game" and (!) respectful, civil players, that are always open to amends of "standard rules" if it benefits the mutual experience of both players.
Makumba wrote:]
Not here . Here if it is a codex or core rule book it is legal . No one will even think about saying no to someone taking X or Y . We opposed escalation and strongholds for time , till the actual books were here and they didn't have supplement in it , like CoD or flyer one , but codex . And now everyone is looking for the cheapest way to get D weapons and fortifications . This how it always worked here . People that never play in tournaments , play the game that way too . So it isn't linked to tournaments in any way .
Well, but that is not truly GW's fault if you cannot say "no" to something.
It's like sitting in a Hotel, complaining the buffet is too large, because you "must" take something from everything, so the Hotel should make a smaller buffet. Well, just don't. Take a healthy meal from the selections that appeal to you most.
You are taking to someone who cares for nothing but the competitive aspect of the game and recommends people stop playing armies that he sees as noncompetitive. His priorities are a bit different, they're not wrong but they are different.
This was a self inflicted injury.
Stopping independent stores from using their images, to promote their product. Very stupid as it hampered sales.
Stopping instore gaming, and tournament support freed people from needing 100% GW models.
Playing at independent shops exposed them to other aftermarket parts, and alternative games.
Alienating the customer by raising the prices, codex creep, basing the core rules on the need to sell bigger more expensive models.
The sun not setting on the union jack, was a sign of the British empire.
That’s no longer true.
Anywhere you go you can get a game of warhammer. That was a sign of GW’s empire.
That’s no longer true as well.
loki old fart wrote: This was a self inflicted injury.
Stopping independent stores from using their images, to promote their product. Very stupid as it hampered sales.
Stopping instore gaming, and tournament support freed people from needing 100% GW models.
Playing at independent shops exposed them to other aftermarket parts, and alternative games.
Alienating the customer by raising the prices, codex creep, basing the core rules on the need to sell bigger more expensive models.
The sun not setting on the union jack, was a sign of the British empire.
That’s no longer true.
Anywhere you go you can get a game of warhammer. That was a sign of GW’s empire.
That’s no longer true as well.
This is why I'm fully in support of Hasbro taking Warhammer away from GW. They're a highly (perhaps even ruthlessly) competent gigantic corporation that knows how to deal with a fanbase while still expanding it.
Savageconvoy wrote: Allies is a good idea though. It allows the slow build up of a secondary army and adds a bit of flavor.
However the key thing lacking in the current allies set up is moderation. To me allies should have been limited to something like the Tau Firebase dataslate (though a lot less... everything wrong with that). Basically if they had a specific detachment available and a list of what armies could purchase it.
It's not perfect, but it's a big step away from being able to cherry pick the best units and avoiding any of the downfall.
No, that's not good, people should be able to use models they like, not just one specific combination on a dataslate.
This was already discussed in other thread, but most problems with allies would vanish, if allies of convenience would be the bets ally level available. Allies themselves is not the problem, it is the battle-brothers creating ungodly buff combinations that is the problem.
The funny thing is, the way allies (as a money-maker) would work best, is if GW had one (or more) skirmish-type games to coax people into getting a few miniatures for different armies.
One way I used allies was to add a Blood Angels HQ and 10 Assault Marines to go with my Space Hulk Blood Angels Terminators. Perfect use of cool models I already had, without needing to go for a "full" Blood Angels army.
If they had the a "draw" for people to build small "Kill Team"-sized units for different armies (though Kill Team itself is a bit ... bare), and allies-rules (even without Battle Brothers) in the main rules, it would have precisely the effect of "people getting sucked into muli-army-collections" that was presumably the goal.
Savageconvoy wrote: Allies is a good idea though. It allows the slow build up of a secondary army and adds a bit of flavor.
However the key thing lacking in the current allies set up is moderation. To me allies should have been limited to something like the Tau Firebase dataslate (though a lot less... everything wrong with that). Basically if they had a specific detachment available and a list of what armies could purchase it.
It's not perfect, but it's a big step away from being able to cherry pick the best units and avoiding any of the downfall.
No, that's not good, people should be able to use models they like, not just one specific combination on a dataslate.
This was already discussed in other thread, but most problems with allies would vanish, if allies of convenience would be the bets ally level available. Allies themselves is not the problem, it is the battle-brothers creating ungodly buff combinations that is the problem.
No. Allies ARE the problem.
They are fine in a special scenario or something of the like. But in general use they are silly beyond reason.
Armies should have strengths and weaknesses. Not strengths and strengths.
I disagree that people should be able to bring what they want. Unlimited choice is not a good thing. It is the limitations which force hard choices and hence, better gaming.
If the 40k tourney scene is such a big deal why not have GW produce a digital download / dataslate that sets the rules for a particular tournament season?
This is in this other thing is out ect ect?
Zakiriel wrote: If the 40k tourney scene is such a big deal why not have GW produce a digital download / dataslate that sets the rules for a particular tournament season?
This is in this other thing is out ect ect?
Because those that run tourneys would scream their heads off that who is GW to tell them how to use their game.....
They might have to allow things in that that they personally do not like... perish the thought..
Zweischneid wrote: The funny thing is, the way allies (as a money-maker) would work best, is if GW had one (or more) skirmish-type games to coax people into getting a few miniatures for different armies.
One way I used allies was to add a Blood Angels HQ and 10 Assault Marines to go with my Space Hulk Blood Angels Terminators. Perfect use of cool models I already had, without needing to go for a "full" Blood Angels army.
If they had the a "draw" for people to build small "Kill Team"-sized units for different armies (though Kill Team itself is a bit ... bare), and allies-rules (even without Battle Brothers) in the main rules, it would have precisely the effect of "people getting sucked into muli-army-collections" that was presumably the goal.
Now you're finally making sense!
And all kidding aside, it would be a good and a smart thing for them to do.
Witness the excitement a while back over the total ghost that was Inquisition Skirmish 40K or whatever we thought it was going to be called...
It will be interesting to see just how everything works out for GW in the next 6 months.
As of right now, their current way of doing business doesn't seem to be working too well - but the next half year will really show this, or not!
Sadly, even making the rather large assumption that GW does finally decide that 'fixing' 40K is one of the steps it needs to take in the road to redemption, I strongly suspect that it will be rushed and poorly executed, the habit of short termism won't die easily, and probably won't achieve what we would hope for it.
They've actually had some pretty good ideas recently, but the creation and presentation of those ideas has been flawed (overpriced, limited access, light on content, blatant omissions/oversights, overpowered)
To see the game make such a leap back on to the straight and narrow would be glorious, but I just don't think 'current' GW has the chops to do it.
Savageconvoy wrote: Allies is a good idea though. It allows the slow build up of a secondary army and adds a bit of flavor.
However the key thing lacking in the current allies set up is moderation. To me allies should have been limited to something like the Tau Firebase dataslate (though a lot less... everything wrong with that). Basically if they had a specific detachment available and a list of what armies could purchase it.
It's not perfect, but it's a big step away from being able to cherry pick the best units and avoiding any of the downfall.
No, that's not good, people should be able to use models they like, not just one specific combination on a dataslate.
This was already discussed in other thread, but most problems with allies would vanish, if allies of convenience would be the bets ally level available. Allies themselves is not the problem, it is the battle-brothers creating ungodly buff combinations that is the problem.
No. Allies ARE the problem.
They are fine in a special scenario or something of the like. But in general use they are silly beyond reason.
Armies should have strengths and weaknesses. Not strengths and strengths.
I disagree that people should be able to bring what they want. Unlimited choice is not a good thing. It is the limitations which force hard choices and hence, better gaming.
I think what you are overlooking is that the absolutly craptastic external balance between codexes is what necessitates allies, I'd say... about 80% of the time. The other 20% are WAAC type players wanting to double-down on strengths, and people like that will be around with or without allies.
Savageconvoy wrote: Allies is a good idea though. It allows the slow build up of a secondary army and adds a bit of flavor.
However the key thing lacking in the current allies set up is moderation. To me allies should have been limited to something like the Tau Firebase dataslate (though a lot less... everything wrong with that). Basically if they had a specific detachment available and a list of what armies could purchase it.
It's not perfect, but it's a big step away from being able to cherry pick the best units and avoiding any of the downfall.
No, that's not good, people should be able to use models they like, not just one specific combination on a dataslate.
This was already discussed in other thread, but most problems with allies would vanish, if allies of convenience would be the bets ally level available. Allies themselves is not the problem, it is the battle-brothers creating ungodly buff combinations that is the problem.
No. Allies ARE the problem.
They are fine in a special scenario or something of the like. But in general use they are silly beyond reason.
Armies should have strengths and weaknesses. Not strengths and strengths.
I disagree that people should be able to bring what they want. Unlimited choice is not a good thing. It is the limitations which force hard choices and hence, better gaming.
I think what you are overlooking is that the absolutly craptastic external balance between codexes is what necessitates allies, I'd say... about 80% of the time. The other 20% are WAAC type players wanting to double-down on strengths, and people like that will be around with or without allies.
I am not overlooking that. Nothing makes allies "necessary" except that GW wants more money. My point is that allies do nothing to alleviate the problem and in fact makes that 20%, as you say, even more douchey.
I went from 2nd edition to 6th edition, so I'm thoroughly bemused to see people talking about how allies are a blatant money grab! To me, they are a thing that makes sense and has always been there.
The moral of the story, I think, is that buffs and debuffs are really powerful and need to be carefully managed. The easy way to do that is to make most of them only apply to the same faction - so only Eldar units would benefit from Eldar buffs and debuffs. To my knowledge this is a little bit different to Allies of Convenience, who would benefit from each other's debuffs (e.g. Doom), though I don't have the 6e Eldar codex so I don't know if that's still an issue.
Of course, the downside to it is that it can make allied units a lot less appealing even when they would be thematically appropriate. I think they'd need to handle each buff/debuff on a case by case basis, and would need to keep the possible combinations of buffs/debuffs/allied units in mind.
I am not overlooking that. Nothing makes allies "necessary" except that GW wants more money. My point is that allies do nothing to alleviate the problem and in fact makes that 20%, as you say, even more douchey.
Not necessary, but fun and somewhat fluffy. Remember the Battle of Helmsdeep where Elrond sent a squad of the most hated elves to fight besides the humans instead of boarding the rainbow boats to Sunshine Town?
It's hard to label one thing as "THE" problem when the system is bad enough as it is. Adding some flavor, like allowing a single Troop and HQ into an army to provide help seems fine both rule and fluff wise. Things that are super rare or precious, not so much. I'd be fine seeing a Fireblade and firewarriors added to an army, but not a Shas'O and a brand new Riptide straight from the assembly line.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: I went from 2nd edition to 6th edition, so I'm thoroughly bemused to see people talking about how allies are a blatant money grab! To me, they are a thing that makes sense and has always been there.
I got into 40K during 2nd edition too.
Allies were a problem then, and they're a problem now.
I am not overlooking that. Nothing makes allies "necessary" except that GW wants more money. My point is that allies do nothing to alleviate the problem and in fact makes that 20%, as you say, even more douchey.
Not necessary, but fun and somewhat fluffy. Remember the Battle of Helmsdeep where Elrond sent a squad of the most hated elves to fight besides the humans instead of boarding the rainbow boats to Sunshine Town?
It's hard to label one thing as "THE" problem when the system is bad enough as it is. Adding some flavor, like allowing a single Troop and HQ into an army to provide help seems fine both rule and fluff wise. Things that are super rare or precious, not so much. I'd be fine seeing a Fireblade and firewarriors added to an army, but not a Shas'O and a brand new Riptide straight from the assembly line.
Remember when people actually read the Lord of the Rings and knew that elves did not show up at Helms Deep? Oh, you saw the movie!
As I have stated before, allies are fine in a special scenario. They should never have been opened up for anything else.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: I went from 2nd edition to 6th edition, so I'm thoroughly bemused to see people talking about how allies are a blatant money grab! To me, they are a thing that makes sense and has always been there.
I got into 40K during 2nd edition too.
Allies were a problem then, and they're a problem now.
For many of the same reasons.
Oh, sure. I have no idea how much of a problem they were because I was a little kid at the time and totally clueless! I don't mean to say anything on 2e's balance or lack thereof, just that the idea of them being a cash grab rather than a sensible part of the universe is confounding/entertaining.
Alpharius wrote: That's a good point - I rather enjoyed 40K 4th and 5th.
6th, not so much.
I'm the opposite really. Hull Points, wound allocation and not being able to assault out of stationary vehicles all grind my gears, but I'll take them over the game's most boring edition (4th Ed) or the game where you can kill things out of LOS and range (5th). 6th was "not too terrible" enough to get me back into the game (though that new 'Nid Codex is making a good argument for me to leave again) and I want to continue playing it.
I don't think 40K is broken as such, but more in a place where GW doesn't know what to do with it. They’re flailing in the dark when they need to knuckle down and take a good critical look at their game. They need to strip away the fat – part of the reason I wouldn’t mind a 6.5 edition book that includes elements of Strongpoint and Escalation – and realise that the barriers to entry have become too high.
Remember when people actually read the Lord of the Rings and knew that elves did not show up at Helms Deep? Oh, you saw the movie!
As I have stated before, allies are fine in a special scenario. They should never have been opened up for anything else.
Not going to lie, I only got into the third picnic of the Fellowship before I stopped reading it. Regardless, the movie tells a decent tale and the battle still works as an example.
I just don't see why it would be needed to be limited to scenario games. I mean a scenario where two forces join sides to stop an enemy from claiming an ancient alien McGuffin works just as well in the Relic as it would in a scenario. Unless the scenario strictly calls for a limited FOC, which is what I was suggesting in the first place really.
Savageconvoy wrote: Allies is a good idea though. It allows the slow build up of a secondary army and adds a bit of flavor.
However the key thing lacking in the current allies set up is moderation. To me allies should have been limited to something like the Tau Firebase dataslate (though a lot less... everything wrong with that). Basically if they had a specific detachment available and a list of what armies could purchase it.
It's not perfect, but it's a big step away from being able to cherry pick the best units and avoiding any of the downfall.
No, that's not good, people should be able to use models they like, not just one specific combination on a dataslate.
This was already discussed in other thread, but most problems with allies would vanish, if allies of convenience would be the bets ally level available. Allies themselves is not the problem, it is the battle-brothers creating ungodly buff combinations that is the problem.
No. Allies ARE the problem.
They are fine in a special scenario or something of the like. But in general use they are silly beyond reason.
Armies should have strengths and weaknesses. Not strengths and strengths.
I disagree that people should be able to bring what they want. Unlimited choice is not a good thing. It is the limitations which force hard choices and hence, better gaming.
I think what you are overlooking is that the absolutly craptastic external balance between codexes is what necessitates allies, I'd say... about 80% of the time. The other 20% are WAAC type players wanting to double-down on strengths, and people like that will be around with or without allies.
I am not overlooking that. Nothing makes allies "necessary" except that GW wants more money. My point is that allies do nothing to alleviate the problem and in fact makes that 20%, as you say, even more douchey.
No.argument here. It was a blatant cash grab, but it could have expanded the game for the better. Unfortunately the implementation was akin to a monkey fething a football with the silly matrix and battle brothers. However in the current state of affairs where we have match ups like BA vs Tau in Hammer and Anvil, most people are willing to ignore all of the above in hopes of improving their gaming experience. If there was.a.reasonable external balance between the codexes I have no doubt that allies would be viewed much the same way as escalation where the vast majority would be more than willing and able to see it/ call it out for being what it is and refuse to play with it.
I think it's sad that every single army has allies (Except Tyranids of course. The purpose to their existence is to emphasise the power of allies). Is noone else nostalgic about the times when Eldar still fought against Space Marines, and we didn't have some triple book armies vs double book armies every game? The tournament games (large or small scale) were played with a single codex per army for two decades. That's a lot of tournaments and a lot of happy customers. Then GW in their infinite wisdom ended that, and also brought in fortifications and superheavies.
Imbalance between army books has always existed, but every army still had a weakness of sorts to exploit. Allies remove all weaknesses, and dataslates just push that even further since GW is adamant in removing the meaning of the FOC and codex limitations altogether. D weapons on the other hand remove the meaning of toughness and armour values etc.
In short the 'play anything you want' approach does work when two friends play against eachother with friendly armies, picking units for both armies together in an attempt to make an even game. It doesn't work for any other type of game.
Considering the 'play anything you want' approach between two best friends was always available to them for casual games, I've yet to see a good reason why 'play anything you want' was made a core rule and design priority of the game. The only explanation is the burning of all bridges, integrity and balance in an attempt to sell guys with complete armies an extra unit or two. It has a negative value since it drives more people out of the game than what income it brings in.
Zweischneid wrote: I think the summary is a good one, but the sequencing is probably off.
The financial report shows numbers running up to December 1st. It doesn't include the time of Escalation, crazy Christmas datasheets, etc.. .
They are, more probably, a reaction to the mess they saw coming over the past year.
The time period that shows the poor performance covers, roughly, the Eldar Codex, the new Apocalypse, the Space Marines Codex and some Fantasy stuff, most notably the massive overhaul of Dark Elves. That was, by 6th Edition standards, not yet the crazy time of Lord of War-slots and tank-hunting Riptide-formations for everyone.
The same 6th months the year before, when GW did so much better, included the Ork Flyers, a little Daemons-wave (Plaguebearers, Blue Scribes), 40K 6th Edition, Dark Vengeance and the CSM Codex.
At least, some voice with reason appear, i didnt read the financial report, becuase i know nothing about finacial and economics or manage of big companys, like lots of people, so i dont want to give a vacum opinion to reflect some nerd rage, instead i want to ask, in the report appear the invesment make by the company, becasue to have an giant and huge update like we have right now, with all the codex getting an update that mean lots and lots of money, and when you have a giant spent like this one its mean you gonna have a huge losses over some time, this kind of losses (when you make a giant invesment) are spected and to recover in short term (lets said 6 months more less)
Kilkrazy wrote: 40K is a game. Everything should be looked at first from the angle of whether it works well to make a good game.
Space Marines and IG fighting side by side isn't stupid in terms of fluff but if it is stupid in terms of game balance it should not be allowed.
Fluff appropriateness is part of a good game.
Tau + Eldar isn't stupid in terms of fluff, but from what I have read it wrecks game balance.
Only because they're battle brothers. Making them allies of convenience would solve most of the WAAC problems, but would still allow people who like to ally for the sake of the fluff to do so.
The official stand point on fluff right now is that anything is possible , all fluff is smoke and mirrors propaganda , even if the two sides fighting are nids and demons etc. The only constant in w40k fluff is no female space marines and that is it . Everything else is not only possible , but totaly fluffy.
Necron and marines ? happened in BA dex. the GK traded tech with the necron to get tessaract vaults .
The marines on the tau side fighting the rogue farsight maybe fallen , they work as mercs in the fluff and they work for anyone . Imperials , non imperials , xeno etc.
Chaos +necron . Easy mode. Necron tomb world got invected or is being infected by the obliterator virus , and the necron are either chaos friendly but not fully turned or they work with the chaos dude , so they take away their virus . Ah and let us not forget that those necron could be chaos androids , those weren't retconed out of the fluff and they look exactly like necrons only with chaos star motifs added.
What do you mean fanfic . All of it comes from GW own books . BA codex , GK codex , the fluff about fallen working as mercs is common too . Chaos andriods had their own models in RT and were mentioned in fluff in 2ed . And fluff about anti AI is there , because of the whole android rebelion thing that happened before the age of strife.
The there is no cannon thing , other then no female space marines was said more then one time by writers from BL and GW more then one time . In WD , articles , blogs etc.
No apologies needed my friend . I dislike w40k fluff in general.
Also if GW wants us to play with what we want and how we want. And they even base their whole our rules are the way they are , because we want people to forge the narrative and stuff like that . So if GW thinks that stuff like FW , multi shot D weapons under 1501 pts games are cool and fun . Then there shouldn't be a barrier to run someones orcs with necron ally , specialy when the rules say that someone can .
How can GW break something that was never truly functional? Do people even remember 2nd edition? This game has always been poorly written and even more poorly balanced. If anything, I'd say it's the player base that's finally breaking, specifically their ability to deny that there was ever a problem. Playing 6th edition without house rules is insane.
The problem is that the game should be balanced to allow for winning via strategy and tactics, and instead it revolves around gimmicky/cheese lists. Someone who picks an army they like the look/fluff for and builds a thematic army is going to get stomped by the "Take 3x of the most powerful unit" armies. Nobody is going to want to pick a cool army and then enjoy losing every single game they play because they don't want to go the cheeseweasel route.
Same thing applies to WHFB - the game should be balanced and the winner is whomever is the better general, not whoever has the most elite troops or biggest gimmick unit.
Alpharius wrote: That's a good point - I rather enjoyed 40K 4th and 5th.
6th, not so much.
I'm the opposite really. Hull Points, wound allocation and not being able to assault out of stationary vehicles all grind my gears, but I'll take them over the game's most boring edition (4th Ed) or the game where you can kill things out of LOS and range (5th). 6th was "not too terrible" enough to get me back into the game (though that new 'Nid Codex is making a good argument for me to leave again) and I want to continue playing it.
I don't think 40K is broken as such, but more in a place where GW doesn't know what to do with it. They’re flailing in the dark when they need to knuckle down and take a good critical look at their game. They need to strip away the fat – part of the reason I wouldn’t mind a 6.5 edition book that includes elements of Strongpoint and Escalation – and realise that the barriers to entry have become too high.
You forgot Metal Box and Transport hammer (5th) where Razorback style and Vehicles ruled.
As a newer player It's a bit overwhelming, we went into the store today to get my first stuff and a lady helped me with what all I'd need. I was under the assumption of just getting a few boxes of crons, some paints and brushes, and the glue. Yet low and behold she started packing on books so quick I felt like it was the first day of college all over again.
Juicifer wrote: How can GW break something that was never truly functional? Do people even remember 2nd edition? This game has always been poorly written and even more poorly balanced. If anything, I'd say it's the player base that's finally breaking, specifically their ability to deny that there was ever a problem. Playing 6th edition without house rules is insane.
1) Funny name and a fantastic avatar! I haven't seen you before now, so, welcome to Dakka Dakka! 2) I don't know about 40K never having a good, functional ruleset...
I liked 5th, and with a few changes and tweaks, it would have...it could have become something truly epic...
Having played since the middle of second edition...
[I can't remember if the Chaos Termie with Heavy Flamer, or Reaper Autocannon, had JUST come out...]
I can say that I really enjoy 6th edition, in it's basic format. Two guys with single FOC, single codex armies is quite fun and easy enough to wrap my head around. Even allies don't bother me too much, and have encouraged me to start a second army, since I can play with them as I build them up. [IG with newly added BA]. I played a lot of 4th and 5th, but found the games grew stale rather quickly. Especially 5th, where the metagame locked up sooooo quickly and with so few missions to play? Highly repetitive.
There are rules in 6th that I find poorly designed, like the "Hard to Hit" rules for flyers and "D" weapons. Both ignore key elements of models that are critical to their pricing. Same value to hit, even though you're a better shot? I wreck a Land Raider just as easily as a Rhino? Two rules that just ignore the internal balance of the game. That said, I'd say that the rules are reasonable for the most part. They're fun. They still encourage strategy while at the same time being random enough to require tactical flexibility.
Best thing is that the game has shifted to a primarily shooting game, and less, "Hey, have you got a Power Fist? Forget our Lascannons, jump in a Rhino and flat out to that thing in front of you, and punch it! Punch it again! And again! Yay, we won!"
All of the extra books feel like a cash grab, to me. I didn't like the "expansion" books the last time, and I dislike them even more now. They're things that should be in the basic codex. When you need to release a supplement for "Black Legion", the Ultramarines of Chaos, something went wrong. I don't mind the Stronghold Assault, though I think it could have been folded into the main rule book. From my initial glances at Escalation, D weapons could be fixed with a couple of house rules. I've already seen tourneys do that in SW Ontario. [S10, AP1, D3 wounds / HP, most recently]
Really, my GW hasn't changed any since these new, "game breaking" changes have dropped. I'm not a regular tourney goer, though. I enjoy the challenge of that level of play, but I tend to build strong lists anyhow. All without resorting to triple this or that. [You only play ONE Vendetta?] It is a game for two or more players. Even if I were inclined to venture into Escalation or Stronghold, which I'm not really, I wouldn't mind playing the "standard" version of the game if my opponent preferred. That's what my GW is telling people. Bring two lists if you want to play with the new rules. One with goodies, one without.
I find it unfortunate that it seems GW is pricing new players out of the game. I've been playing long enough that I've seen units double or even triple in price, so I find it tough to encourage young folks to dive in, when it is so expensive. The only positive I can point out, is that the value of models never drops. There will always be guys with guns and tanks to play with. Unless they get Squatted. I find 6th edition refreshing, and I have just chosen to not get wound up in needing to have "everything".
I can't help but feel that a closed and open beta test/serious playtesting in house would improve the game by leaps and bounds. Much of the excess bloat could be trimmed away for the game to run smoother and with less ambiguity in the rules.
It would require a small staff of dedicated GW PR people and a core of beta testers, but it would help with every facet of the game. I'm just doubtful they'd ever invest the time in building up such a team to engage with the community.
Spartan Games have done this, and Firestorm Armada 2.0 is leaps and bounds better than 1.0 or the interim 1.5 rules. Its amazing what can be accomplished when the community can help and participate with the game.
I don't think inhouse play-testing is going to solve anything. It needs to be pushed outwards. Let someone who cares about writing rules write the rules - someone like FFG.
Well, if we read what Rick Priestly said in my sig, its pretty obvious GW stopped caring about the game and how its played.
Its like movies that are made to make money vs movies that are made to tell a story. It's an art form to tell stories and the second art is done for money as the 1st priority then the soul and love is gone.
Life is too short to spend in bad relationships, GW lives and breathes on our money, and the contempt and malice their give back to us is unbearable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: I don't think inhouse play-testing is going to solve anything. It needs to be pushed outwards. Let someone who cares about writing rules write the rules - someone like FFG.
The Nid dex had a design studio and 7 play testers (they even printed their names in the dex!) and it some how got passed them.
Juicifer wrote: How can GW break something that was never truly functional? Do people even remember 2nd edition? This game has always been poorly written and even more poorly balanced. If anything, I'd say it's the player base that's finally breaking, specifically their ability to deny that there was ever a problem. Playing 6th edition without house rules is insane.
There's always been problems, but IMO it's just become a mess. Allies isn't the ONLY thing wrong with 40k, it's one of many things wrong. 2nd edition was a time when I thought "hmm, solid game, needs a few tweaks". 3rd edition I thought "well, they kind of threw out the baby with the bath water, but I can see what they were trying to do, however there's a few fundamental flaws in the game design and it needs some tweaking... maybe they'll fix that in the future". Now it's like "What... happened...? The rules are unbalanced to their core. There's excessive amounts of overly complicated special rules and rules exceptions. They're trying to squeeze large scale models in to a mid scale game. The rules are fundamentally unbalanced AND looking at the Tyranid codex they can't even internally balance an army let alone balance it against other armies".
theloststory45 wrote: As a newer player It's a bit overwhelming, we went into the store today to get my first stuff and a lady helped me with what all I'd need. I was under the assumption of just getting a few boxes of crons, some paints and brushes, and the glue. Yet low and behold she started packing on books so quick I felt like it was the first day of college all over again.
I can identify with this. I am a newer player too and all of it just seems like a ton. Not a game you can simply pick up and play. Too many rules. Rules in books you don't have and depend on your opponent to tell you ( I have been cheated on with rules not in my codex. ) if you don't know their units you can't make the "correct" tactical play. You need to field all the cheezy combo to stand a decent chance of winning against some opponents. There are just a lot of barriers to entry to playing the game. I am glad I like the model building and painting aspect of the game, or I don't think I would stick around.
There really needs to be less supplements, less rules. Cleaner game experience. You honestly spend more time leafing through rule books and describing how this power or that power works to your opponent than you do playing the game. That is just not a sign of a good game.
It's pretty obvious that GW can't, won't, is incapable, has no incentive, and in all probability, has no idea HOW to make a good, solid table top miniatures game out of 40K.
The game has been around for over 25 years and is in it's 6th edition. If it ain't good/playable by now...
The future is pretty murky where GW is concerned. Disappointing financials, still no leadership at the top except to make a buck, closing and closed a bunch of stores, letting people go, White Dwarf replaced with two magazines that will cost more, etc. etc.
Watch as the death spiral of GW tightens up and accelerates over the next year or two until BOOM. No more GW. It's gonna happen fast, and it's going to come from left field.
Here's a good example:
I'm going to Play Tau.
-Starting off with BRB and Codex: Tau Empire.
But not just any Tau. I'm playing Farsight Enclave.
-So now BRB, Tau codex, and Farsight Enclave.
But now I want to try out these allies. I'll try Eldar.
-BRB, Tau codex, Farsight Enclave, and Eldar.
Oh, but you guessed it. I'm going to play the Eldar supplement too.
-BRB, Tau Codex, Farsight Enclave, Eldar, Eldar supplement.
Now throw in some superfortifications and lord of war
-BRB, Tau Codex, Farsight Enclave, Eldar, Eldar supplement, Escalation, and Stronghold Assault.
This man has the way of it. I'm a casual gamer. Some people don't like that term, but they can go to hell. I want to play a buddy or maybe a new guy once in a while. I want to throw down 1500 points, chit chat about their week and life in general. Play about 2-3 hours. Relax and unwind from the work week.
I don't want to flip through 8 fething books to play a game. I don't want to watch you flip through 8 fething books to find some dumbass rule.
The ONLY time that 8 books should hit the table is 2-3 times a year Apocalypse game, when everyone has set asside a 12 hour playing block (or more).
I am not happy about how the 40K game is going. I think they are rushing to pump out books to satisfy the shareholders. I think that Stronghold Assault and Escalation should have been combined into one book, and was only made into 2 books for financial reasons. I have no interest in playing games of regular 40k against super heavy tanks. I have no interest in hauling 8 books across town to play a pick up game. I have enjoyed the game since 2008, and initially liked 6th edition better than 5th edition. The past month has really soured me about 40k and GW in general, to say the least.
Here's a good example:
I'm going to Play Tau.
-Starting off with BRB and Codex: Tau Empire.
But not just any Tau. I'm playing Farsight Enclave.
-So now BRB, Tau codex, and Farsight Enclave.
But now I want to try out these allies. I'll try Eldar.
-BRB, Tau codex, Farsight Enclave, and Eldar.
Oh, but you guessed it. I'm going to play the Eldar supplement too.
-BRB, Tau Codex, Farsight Enclave, Eldar, Eldar supplement.
Now throw in some superfortifications and lord of war
-BRB, Tau Codex, Farsight Enclave, Eldar, Eldar supplement, Escalation, and Stronghold Assault.
This man has the way of it. I'm a casual gamer. Some people don't like that term, but they can go to hell. I want to play a buddy or maybe a new guy once in a while. I want to throw down 1500 points, chit chat about their week and life in general. Play about 2-3 hours. Relax and unwind from the work week.
I don't want to flip through 8 fething books to play a game. I don't want to watch you flip through 8 fething books to find some dumbass rule.
The ONLY time that 8 books should hit the table is 2-3 times a year Apocalypse game, when everyone has set asside a 12 hour playing block (or more).
I am not happy about how the 40K game is going. I think they are rushing to pump out books to satisfy the shareholders. I think that Stronghold Assault and Escalation should have been combined into one book, and was only made into 2 books for financial reasons. I have no interest in playing games of regular 40k against super heavy tanks. I have no interest in hauling 8 books across town to play a pick up game. I have enjoyed the game since 2008, and initially liked 6th edition better than 5th edition. The past month has really soured me about 40k and GW in general, to say the least.
This pretty much sums up my feelings as well. Every since Escalation and SA came out, I've been really irked about GWs policy. Accelerated release schedule which leads to sub standard products (which also get more expensive *cough nid warriors), shady, underhanded ploys to rape your wallet like splitting one book into two, or releasing a gakky book, with a far superior "supplement" or dataslate. Maybe it's always been this way, but at least its been partially out of sight, out of mind. These past few months GW basically quit the subtle tactics and is blatantly saying "we don't care, do whatever you want, just give us more money. To hell with quality. " . Feth that. Feth that till it bleeds. When I walk into my LGS and browse their products, I want to be thinking Gary Gygax, not Gordon Gecko.
Alpharius wrote: I think that's another way 6th is looking a lot like 2nd!
I may be wrong, but I actually think 2nd edition felt lighter on the rules than 6th. 6th I almost feel like they "tried" to consolidate some rules and just either failed or gave up, so in the end it's even worse. The game is just getting way too convoluted.
What surprises me is they've stuck with the god awful codex layout they've had since I started collecting in 2nd edition where they have a fluff section, a rules + fluff section, a picture section, then a rules+points/options section, then a summary. Realistically I think most codices COULD be consolidated in to a single section where they give the unit rules, points, options in the space of maybe 1/3 of a page per unit, then just having a summary of special rules and items instead of spreading the rules through 40 some pages in the codex. If a special rule takes more than 3 short sentences to explain, it's too frakking complicated and should be revised (unless it's some special character type, of which there shouldn't be more than 1 or 2 per army and you could relegate to "with opponents permission" like it was in the old days).
WarOne wrote: I think we've already seen that GW will not balance their game for the players sake.
Rather, it does have to be balanced by the community in order to address any issues we see.
GW makes the models and lays out the rules. It's us the players who have to find a way to make it fit into our wants and dreams for what we would like to do with the two things GW provides us.
This Exactly...
The problem is that I've never seen a fanbase so opposed to changing offical rules as the 40K community.
In other game systems, and not just tabletop wargaming, the players will take the rules and balance out the game or change it as they see fit to make the game more fun... D&D 3rd ed to 3.5/what Pathfinder is now for example.
40K players for some dumb reason just refuse to do anything like a community effort that would alter the rules even slightly.. say balancing D-weapons in non-apoc games /shrug.
So I guess the real question I have is "Why are 40K players so stubborn?"
WarOne wrote: I think we've already seen that GW will not balance their game for the players sake.
Rather, it does have to be balanced by the community in order to address any issues we see.
GW makes the models and lays out the rules. It's us the players who have to find a way to make it fit into our wants and dreams for what we would like to do with the two things GW provides us.
This Exactly...
The problem is that I've never seen a fanbase so opposed to changing offical rules as the 40K community.
In other game systems, and not just tabletop wargaming, the players will take the rules and balance out the game or change it as they see fit to make the game more fun... D&D 3rd ed to 3.5/what Pathfinder is now for example.
40K players for some dumb reason just refuse to do anything like a community effort that would alter the rules even slightly.. say balancing D-weapons in non-apoc games /shrug.
So I guess the real question I have is "Why are 40K players so stubborn?"
Because if you go around asking every opponent in every pick-up game you play to house rule things, you won't have anyone to play with? If the game is intended to be played against random people, the rules MUST be balanced, and it's bollocks to put the onus on the players for deciding what is/isn't legal when chances are they'll basically be strangers playing an impromptu game at their FLGS on "miniatures night" at the shop.
Changing rules works fine if you're part of an established gaming club and play the same people every week, not so much if you try and tell Bob before your impromptu game at the shop that his Tau can't ally with Eldar because the Allies rules are garbage, when by the rules of the game Bob is allowed to do so.
The onus is on GW to make balanced rules, not to throw out garbage and expect the players to fix their mistakes. House rules IMO have zero place in pick-up games because of the nature of a pick-up game. For a tournament/campaign/league/club then sure, add your own modifications, but when most of your games occur due to being at the store on minis night and seeing who else shows up, you're going to end up being the jerk if you try to dictate house-rules before every game. People aren't going to take lightly to some random stranger telling them they can't take/use something that the book lets them use.
WarOne wrote: I think we've already seen that GW will not balance their game for the players sake.
Rather, it does have to be balanced by the community in order to address any issues we see.
GW makes the models and lays out the rules. It's us the players who have to find a way to make it fit into our wants and dreams for what we would like to do with the two things GW provides us.
This Exactly...
The problem is that I've never seen a fanbase so opposed to changing offical rules as the 40K community.
In other game systems, and not just tabletop wargaming, the players will take the rules and balance out the game or change it as they see fit to make the game more fun... D&D 3rd ed to 3.5/what Pathfinder is now for example.
40K players for some dumb reason just refuse to do anything like a community effort that would alter the rules even slightly.. say balancing D-weapons in non-apoc games /shrug.
So I guess the real question I have is "Why are 40K players so stubborn?"
The answer is pretty simple:
1) The 40k community, for its part, is pretty diverse. People have highly divided opinions on how certain units should work, and will vehemently disagree with any change not in line with their own ideas. Compounding matters, many people on both sides of every argument cannot seem to carry on a mature discussion about the rules, which inevitably leads everyone to simply screaming that the other side "just wants to create an unfair advantage for *insert gamer subgroup* because they suck/are lazy/whatever". Just look at YMDC. The amount of arguing that happens even after official FAQs are released is quite staggering.
2) We shouldn't have to. Why should we be required to completely alter the game, very likely splintering the community in the process, just because GW can't put together a cohesive ruleset for an incredibly popular franchise with enormous gaming potential? As a company, it is their responsibility to provide a product to their customers, not the other way around. No one is beholden to GW to ensure they stay in business... if they can't make rules good enough to draw in new customers, that's their problem.
To your other point: D&D, as I understand it, is something of a unique case. What you had there was a massive change in the core ruleset that was so universally disliked (for very specific reasons) that the community simply reverted to the previous edition, but brought in some of the new edition's mechanics to patch up a few areas that were generally agreed upon. This is a process that is seen today in the 40k community, but as I said before, everyone has a different opinion here. So you'll have people still playing 4th edition with 5th/6th edition goodies, or some other combination therein. So my point is that it's not that the 40k community doesn't do this, we just do it so differently across subcommunities that there is no general consensus on how the game should be played. (Also a lot of cross-edition mechanics don't work well together)
If things continue in the direction they're going though, I wouldn't be surprised if things went the D&D 3.0 vs. 3.5/Pathfinder direction as more and more players are put off by the difficulty of play.
EDIT: Ninja'd.
WayneTheGame hit the nail on the head about changing rules for clubs vs. pickup games. D&D can endure having buckets of house-rules, because you typically play with a set group of people. (At least, I don't hear about people going into the store and playing D&D all day with random strangers). With 40k, the culture of the "pick-up" game is quite prolific - people want the "random" challenge that it brings. If you don't have a consistent set of rules that everyone agrees on, this system doesn't work. And that's what makes extensive house-ruling so difficult in a TT wargame (as opposed to an RPG).
Savageconvoy wrote: Allies is a good idea though. It allows the slow build up of a secondary army and adds a bit of flavor.
However the key thing lacking in the current allies set up is moderation. To me allies should have been limited to something like the Tau Firebase dataslate (though a lot less... everything wrong with that). Basically if they had a specific detachment available and a list of what armies could purchase it.
It's not perfect, but it's a big step away from being able to cherry pick the best units and avoiding any of the downfall.
No, that's not good, people should be able to use models they like, not just one specific combination on a dataslate.
This was already discussed in other thread, but most problems with allies would vanish, if allies of convenience would be the bets ally level available. Allies themselves is not the problem, it is the battle-brothers creating ungodly buff combinations that is the problem.
No. Allies ARE the problem.
They are fine in a special scenario or something of the like. But in general use they are silly beyond reason.
Armies should have strengths and weaknesses. Not strengths and strengths.
I disagree that people should be able to bring what they want. Unlimited choice is not a good thing. It is the limitations which force hard choices and hence, better gaming.
I think what you are overlooking is that the absolutly craptastic external balance between codexes is what necessitates allies, I'd say... about 80% of the time. The other 20% are WAAC type players wanting to double-down on strengths, and people like that will be around with or without allies.
I am not overlooking that. Nothing makes allies "necessary" except that GW wants more money. My point is that allies do nothing to alleviate the problem and in fact makes that 20%, as you say, even more douchey.
I couldn't disagree with you more. Allies can be used to have amazing characterful, fluffy battles. Allies can be used for other things besides creating OP lists.
Iron_Captain wrote: I couldn't disagree with you more. Allies can be used to have amazing characterful, fluffy battles. Allies can be used for other things besides creating OP lists.
And that's what allies should have been, versus how they are used.
Kilkrazy wrote: 40K is a game. Everything should be looked at first from the angle of whether it works well to make a good game.
Space Marines and IG fighting side by side isn't stupid in terms of fluff but if it is stupid in terms of game balance it should not be allowed.
Fluff appropriateness is part of a good game.
Tau + Eldar isn't stupid in terms of fluff, but from what I have read it wrecks game balance.
Only because they're battle brothers. Making them allies of convenience would solve most of the WAAC problems, but would still allow people who like to ally for the sake of the fluff to do so.
Well the point is that when playing a game, game balance is important. It isn't history.
WarOne wrote: I think we've already seen that GW will not balance their game for the players sake.
Rather, it does have to be balanced by the community in order to address any issues we see.
GW makes the models and lays out the rules. It's us the players who have to find a way to make it fit into our wants and dreams for what we would like to do with the two things GW provides us.
This Exactly...
The problem is that I've never seen a fanbase so opposed to changing offical rules as the 40K community.
In other game systems, and not just tabletop wargaming, the players will take the rules and balance out the game or change it as they see fit to make the game more fun... D&D 3rd ed to 3.5/what Pathfinder is now for example.
40K players for some dumb reason just refuse to do anything like a community effort that would alter the rules even slightly.. say balancing D-weapons in non-apoc games /shrug.
So I guess the real question I have is "Why are 40K players so stubborn?"
I don't think it's so much that 40k players are so stubborn as 40k players are more likely to be playing random opponents and also 40k rules are so convoluted that it's hard to actually decide on what rules need changing to what. I had a couple of regular opponents (who have oddly enough all now quit 40k) and we used to try and streamline rules and balance things ourselves. Often we'd ignore points values completely and just try and play with what we felt would make a balanced game. We'd often play a game, swap armies and play again to see who could do better with a force, etc etc etc.
But for the most part, I'm playing against people I don't know that well. So in addition to bringing the stack of official GW rules, I have to write a document of "My Personal House Rules" that would take an hour to go through with each opponent as well? Frak that GW should make rules that work to begin with, it's not a game that's well suited to the players changing the rules on the fly anyway as small changes often result in large implications.
Iron_Captain wrote:I couldn't disagree with you more. Allies can be used to have amazing characterful, fluffy battles. Allies can be used for other things besides creating OP lists.
This is the one time where I think house rules should come in to play. Allies should be a house rule, they should be a "with opponent's consent" thing. If you're after fluffy battles, THAT'S when you should be creating house rules because no one (including the game designers) know what YOU want in your fluffy game.
Because if you go around asking every opponent in every pick-up game you play to house rule things, you won't have anyone to play with? If the game is intended to be played against random people, the rules MUST be balanced, and it's bollocks to put the onus on the players for deciding what is/isn't legal when chances are they'll basically be strangers playing an impromptu game at their FLGS on "miniatures night" at the shop.
Changing rules works fine if you're part of an established gaming club and play the same people every week, not so much if you try and tell Bob before your impromptu game at the shop that his Tau can't ally with Eldar because the Allies rules are garbage, when by the rules of the game Bob is allowed to do so.
The onus is on GW to make balanced rules, not to throw out garbage and expect the players to fix their mistakes. House rules IMO have zero place in pick-up games because of the nature of a pick-up game. For a tournament/campaign/league/club then sure, add your own modifications, but when most of your games occur due to being at the store on minis night and seeing who else shows up, you're going to end up being the jerk if you try to dictate house-rules before every game. People aren't going to take lightly to some random stranger telling them they can't take/use something that the book lets them use.
Hit a nerve didn't I? Can almost tell it in your tone, and this is exactly what I am talking about.
A way of fixing this without even thinking really hard about it is: formats.
Say a bit like M:tG.
Open/Limited/then house ruled. Different standardized formats would make it easy to understand the ruleset you wish to use and communicate with the other player as to what type of game you want, WITHOUT having to house rule every single thing before a game at your LGS.
Easily done with "hey man I have a titan this week, would you like an open game?" "Nah, only brought out my standard list, and I think they are playing limited over there.."
Simple sentances that easily communicate a lot, IF 40k players could bother to put aside GWs wishes and move on.
Putting rules back on GW is futility. They obviously don't care/want the game to do that. If I like the fluff and game setting but the rules have turned to complete crap... to the point that the game cannot even be played at the LGS, WHY SHOULD I CONTINUE TO CARE WHAT GW THINKS?.
IMO a lot of problems in 40k (certainly not all) could be fixed with the reintroduction of "requires opponents consent". Then we could have a nice simple ruleset and simple well defined armies, and if people want to have their fluffy games with a hero who wipes out entire armies with fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse, they can do that too... with their opponent's consent
Savageconvoy wrote: 8 rule books does not make for a very casual game. There shouldn't be any game like that. Especially from a company that claims it's a model company first. When looking into the actual power imbalances in the game it's disgusting. To write it off as just rules for "casual" games is just saying you have no idea on how to make rules but still willing to charge a premium price for it.
DnD gets like that sometimes with the number of different books needed in order to play a game and have options available, but that is roleplaying which is a savage beast all unto itself.
At Least DnD actually works and doesnt hva ean all powerful unbeatable strategy to rule all others. If 40K actually worked 8 rulebooks wouldnt be so bad. But as it stands the only reason one buys all those rulebooks is to play broken armies that can't be beat by anyone who plays models they like to play rather than the "Flavor of the month".
Because if you go around asking every opponent in every pick-up game you play to house rule things, you won't have anyone to play with? If the game is intended to be played against random people, the rules MUST be balanced, and it's bollocks to put the onus on the players for deciding what is/isn't legal when chances are they'll basically be strangers playing an impromptu game at their FLGS on "miniatures night" at the shop.
Changing rules works fine if you're part of an established gaming club and play the same people every week, not so much if you try and tell Bob before your impromptu game at the shop that his Tau can't ally with Eldar because the Allies rules are garbage, when by the rules of the game Bob is allowed to do so.
The onus is on GW to make balanced rules, not to throw out garbage and expect the players to fix their mistakes. House rules IMO have zero place in pick-up games because of the nature of a pick-up game. For a tournament/campaign/league/club then sure, add your own modifications, but when most of your games occur due to being at the store on minis night and seeing who else shows up, you're going to end up being the jerk if you try to dictate house-rules before every game. People aren't going to take lightly to some random stranger telling them they can't take/use something that the book lets them use.
Hit a nerve didn't I? Can almost tell it in your tone, and this is exactly what I am talking about.
A way of fixing this without even thinking really hard about it is: formats.
Say a bit like M:tG.
Open/Limited/then house ruled. Different standardized formats would make it easy to understand the ruleset you wish to use and communicate with the other player as to what type of game you want, WITHOUT having to house rule every single thing before a game at your LGS.
Easily done with "hey man I have a titan this week, would you like an open game?" "Nah, only brought out my standard list, and I think they are playing limited over there.."
Simple sentances that easily communicate a lot, IF 40k players could bother to put aside GWs wishes and move on.
Putting rules back on GW is futility. They obviously don't care/want the game to do that. If I like the fluff and game setting but the rules have turned to complete crap... to the point that the game cannot even be played at the LGS, WHY SHOULD I CONTINUE TO CARE WHAT GW THINKS?.
And then you have to describe and establish the various formats you arbitrarily created with every new random pickup game adversary.
Formats work in Magic, because they are established as part of the rules by WotC. The various community formats (such as Pauper Magic), all require explaining to your opponents if they are unfamiliar with them, in which case, they are likely unprepared anyways.
Hit a nerve didn't I? Can almost tell it in your tone, and this is exactly what I am talking about.
A way of fixing this without even thinking really hard about it is: formats.
Say a bit like M:tG.
Open/Limited/then house ruled. Different standardized formats would make it easy to understand the ruleset you wish to use and communicate with the other player as to what type of game you want, WITHOUT having to house rule every single thing before a game at your LGS.
Easily done with "hey man I have a titan this week, would you like an open game?" "Nah, only brought out my standard list, and I think they are playing limited over there.."
Simple sentances that easily communicate a lot, IF 40k players could bother to put aside GWs wishes and move on.
Putting rules back on GW is futility. They obviously don't care/want the game to do that. If I like the fluff and game setting but the rules have turned to complete crap... to the point that the game cannot even be played at the LGS, WHY SHOULD I CONTINUE TO CARE WHAT GW THINKS?.
While this is a good idea in theory, consider that the MtG crowd is many times larger than the 40k community, and that their most popular formats are wholly endorsed by the company producing the game. Since we can assume that GW would never do such a thing, what I suspect would end up happening in practice is that every store would end up with it's own "format" and you'd be right back where we are now. It would be really difficult to get pickup games at stores outside your "regular" location, and the community would become even more fractured as people began to entrench themselves in their own way of playing - but the kicker is that then nobody would accept house-rules except as part of a "format". I think it's really going to take some critical mass and customer support to really bring out the full potential of formats for 40k games, and that's something that the community just doesn't seem to have.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: IMO a lot of problems in 40k (certainly not all) could be fixed with the reintroduction of "requires opponents consent". Then we could have a nice simple ruleset and simple well defined armies, and if people want to have their fluffy games with a hero who wipes out entire armies with fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse, they can do that too... with their opponent's consent
Yeah it does require opponents consent(outside of tourneys)already.I don't recall HAVING to play against tripdrake,If I want I can go play someone else.
Formats work in Magic, because they are established as part of the rules by WotC. The various community formats (such as Pauper Magic), all require explaining to your opponents if they are unfamiliar with them, in which case, they are likely unprepared anyways.
Partially agree. And I'm not saying that this is even something that would begin at the local level.
Since we can assume that GW would never do such a thing, what I suspect would end up happening in practice is that every store would end up with it's own "format" and you'd be right back where we are now. It would be really difficult to get pickup games at stores outside your "regular" location, and the community would become even more fractured as people began to entrench themselves in their own way of playing - but the kicker is that then nobody would accept house-rules except as part of a "format". I think it's really going to take some critical mass and customer support to really bring out the full potential of formats for 40k games, and that's something that the community just doesn't seem to have.
I think that we are already actually going forward into formats. The major tournies throwing out escalation and stronghold, and even some limiting 2++ rerolls.
And I think this is where this particular aspect is going to start changing. Going to a Con where the big stuff like that is thrown out, already has the start of creating a standard 40K format.
I'd also like to mention its becoming hard to get pickup games at times. LGS and choices are Eldar titan or 5 Riptides, nah I'll take the fluffy list guy with my taudar... really does not make for a good gaming atmosphere does it? Random games with bad rules is not an arguement against formats that I will take. As then most poeple just won't play, or do play get frustrated and stop showing up.
Bigger point: Waiting on 40K to change from GW does nothing.
All of your problems stem from the bad rules to begin with. Who is in the wrong here, the guy saying "No you can't play with the models you bought, because I don't like them" or the guy who brought Taudar to a gunfight?
Simply put, we have to wait for change from GW, because that is the only universal constant we have. It's what makes MtG a great game. You can go to anywhere in the world with any legal deck, not even speak the same language as the other player, and still play a game. 40k requires 2 hours of pre-game negotiation before hopefully a game can be agreed upon, because the rules are so badly written. Never mind balance.
People will stop playing when you tell them they can't play with what they have as well. Games should not be exclusionary.
JPong wrote: Simply put, we have to wait for change from GW, because that is the only universal constant we have. It's what makes MtG a great game. You can go to anywhere in the world with any legal deck, not even speak the same language as the other player, and still play a game. 40k requires 2 hours of pre-game negotiation before hopefully a game can be agreed upon, because the rules are so badly written. Never mind balance.
In theory 40k is supposed to allow this as well, but it doesn't. And that's the issue. The game claims in the same breath to be something you can feel free to change any and all rules to "forge the narrative" and something you can go anywhere in the world with a legal army and play a game. Those things are basically mutually exclusive because while there's nothing wrong with limiting things in a campaign battle (or even playing with unequal points values e.g. a "Last Stand" type mission with 1k points of the defender and 2k points of the attacker), that's not going to fly if you start adding/removing base rules before you play against a random stranger, and that's not even talking about things like Escalation but basic units allowed by the rules such as taking 3x Riptides and Eldar allies.
JPong wrote: People will stop playing when you tell them they can't play with what they have as well. Games should not be exclusionary.
The idea with "requires opponents consent" for things like allies is that if you happen to be a beer and pretzels player playing against other beer and pretzels players, you can use things like allies and balance-breaking stuff. But if you just want to go play a pick-up game with a TAC army against someone else with a TAC army, it works too. Back when special characters were "requires consent" in Fantasy, it didn't stop me from buying them if the models were good, it just stopped me from using them as special characters when writing my TAC lists, and I'd only use them as special characters when playing against mates in casual beer and pretzels games.
The alternative is to just impose enough negatives on using allies that they become unappealing if you're a WAC player.
We can't wait for GW to change the rules, they won't.
Over and over again GW has stated this is not a rule set for competitive play. They don't want competitive play and they actively work to oppose competitive play.
Here we have a community who wants to turn this game into a competitive event when the game designers are vehemently opposed to competitive play.
Now we can change the core rules to make it more balanced and allow for more competitive play, but the community says 'no you can't'. We have to wait for GW to change the rules to make it more competitive. Why won't GW listen to me and make it more competitive?
Because they said they don't want a competitive game.
The community is trying to push a round peg into a square hole. Instead of changing the hole, they want the company who sold them the round peg to instead start selling square pegs. The company has said over and over again they will only sell round pegs.
Over and over again GW has stated this is not a rule set for competitive play. They don't want competitive play and they actively work to oppose competitive play.
Here we have a community who wants to turn this game into a competitive event when the game designers are vehemently opposed to competitive play.
Now we can change the core rules to make it more balanced and allow for more competitive play, but the community says 'no you can't'. We have to wait for GW to change the rules to make it more competitive. Why won't GW listen to me and make it more competitive?
Because they said they don't want a competitive game.
The community is trying to push a round peg into a square hole. Instead of changing the hole, they want the company who sold them the round peg to instead start selling square pegs. The company has said over and over again they will only sell round pegs.
I had a huge response o this typed up before hitting some fething button on my tablet that erased it.
Needless to say, its because people who spent tons of time and money on this want more from it. Its because a tight and balanced ruleset has no negative effect on this"round peg". In fact, it has the opposite. A beer and pretzels game is a game that is quick and easy to play, 40k is not.
GW hasn't been performing well lately either. So any BS excuses they give for not holding up to consumer standards doesn't really hold water.
Note: I am not asking for perfect balance, just some semblance of it.
Over and over again GW has stated this is not a rule set for competitive play. They don't want competitive play and they actively work to oppose competitive play.
Here we have a community who wants to turn this game into a competitive event when the game designers are vehemently opposed to competitive play.
Now we can change the core rules to make it more balanced and allow for more competitive play, but the community says 'no you can't'. We have to wait for GW to change the rules to make it more competitive. Why won't GW listen to me and make it more competitive?
Because they said they don't want a competitive game.
The community is trying to push a round peg into a square hole. Instead of changing the hole, they want the company who sold them the round peg to instead start selling square pegs. The company has said over and over again they will only sell round pegs.
Except that is just an empty excuse. What GW produces is not "casual vs. competitive", it's "unclear vs. clear". They produce sloppily written rules and then get people to justify it by arguing "well they're supposed to be casual!!1!!"
It's like someone claiming to have made the best movie ever, then when it's terrible they say "Well it's supposed to be terrible - I meant to make it that way as a commentary on... blah blah blah"
Clear rules that don't require 2 hours of negotiations when strangers first meet to play benefits everyone, because then even casual players can go into a game store and play with confidence that they won't get their ass handed to them because someone thought Rule A worked like X instead of Y. This makes the game more accessible to casual players, not less.
The entire concept of "casual rules" vs. "competitive rules" is made up. The difference is between clear and unclear rules. Just because rules are clear, concise, and not open to seven interpretations, does NOT mean that casual players who want house rules cannot go ahead and make them. I don't understand this aggressive push to keep the rules unclear - it's like a group of people were forced to make house rules a long time ago and then got it in their heads that the best type of rules were ones that made them play that way. It's strange.
It's not that GW doesn't want competitive play. That's just a cover. It's that they don't care about the quality of their rules. As far as they're concerned, they are being forced to produce them because we ungrateful sheep aren't just lining up to buy their product to wave in the air yelling "PEW PEW" like children. They see 40k as a game of 10-year-olds playing pretend with their action figures, when it has the potential to be so much more than that. The original design team (and some of the current ones, to be fair) seem to understand this potential, but GW upper management definitely does not.
EDIT: Ninja'd. Again again.
EDIT EDIT: Not that I haven't waved my models around yelling PEW PEW , but for an expensive hobby I would also like to enjoy a slightly more engaging experience, game-wise.
Over and over again GW has stated this is not a rule set for competitive play. They don't want competitive play and they actively work to oppose competitive play.
Here we have a community who wants to turn this game into a competitive event when the game designers are vehemently opposed to competitive play.
Now we can change the core rules to make it more balanced and allow for more competitive play, but the community says 'no you can't'. We have to wait for GW to change the rules to make it more competitive. Why won't GW listen to me and make it more competitive?
Because they said they don't want a competitive game.
The community is trying to push a round peg into a square hole. Instead of changing the hole, they want the company who sold them the round peg to instead start selling square pegs. The company has said over and over again they will only sell round pegs.
This is precisely how I see the situation. To put a finer point on what I said earlier about the player base, I see most people are aware of this hypocrisy yet are unwilling to adopt a single house rule or make a concession of any kind, while simultaneously embracing everything official regardless of the damage it does. This tells me most 40k gamers are far more likely to move on when it finaly becomes unplayable for them than lift a finger on behalf of this game. Of course this doesn't apply to any of the fine folks here at Dakka. =)
How did Gee Dubs convince a whole swath of gamers that loose rules are better? Like seriously, if I am playing a game over beer and pretzels (mmmmm, homemade pretzels) the rules should come naturally. I shouldn't need to analyze the grammar on 5 different pages in three different books to come to a conclusion.Nor should my buddy and I come to a disagreement where the only conclusion is to dice off. That's just asking to leave a sour taste in someone's mouth.
JPong wrote: How did Gee Dubs convince a whole swath of gamers that loose rules are better? Like seriously, if I am playing a game over beer and pretzels (mmmmm, homemade pretzels) the rules should come naturally. I shouldn't need to analyze the grammar on 5 different pages in three different books to come to a conclusion.Nor should my buddy and I come to a disagreement where the only conclusion is to dice off. That's just asking to leave a sour taste in someone's mouth.
Speaking for myself (and only for myself) it was always obvious that 40k at least was a very casual game. When I was playing around with my older brother and his friend with their 2nd edition 40k starter set, we used to change and adapt the rules as we saw fit just to have a laugh. While part of that was age, the fact is the rules *allowed* us to do that, in a way that they didn't with snakes and ladders.
Getting back into 40k as an adult it was obvious from the inset that the rules were meant as a background for having a laugh, getting two armies on the table and bashing at each other until one of you wins (or gives up and gets bored). I think a balanced ruleset would have been layed out differently and used different language to the 40k codexes/rulebooks.
How anyone could get into 40k knowing it's a casual ruleset, and then turn around and act surprised or angry when they find that 40k is a casual ruleset, is beyond me. And it has *always* been this way. I may as well complain about Apple making increasingly over-priced and pretentious crap...they always have done, they always will. Nothing fundamental has or will change in 40k, imo anyway.
Over and over again GW has stated this is not a rule set for competitive play. They don't want competitive play and they actively work to oppose competitive play.
Here we have a community who wants to turn this game into a competitive event when the game designers are vehemently opposed to competitive play.
Now we can change the core rules to make it more balanced and allow for more competitive play, but the community says 'no you can't'. We have to wait for GW to change the rules to make it more competitive. Why won't GW listen to me and make it more competitive?
Because they said they don't want a competitive game.
The community is trying to push a round peg into a square hole. Instead of changing the hole, they want the company who sold them the round peg to instead start selling square pegs. The company has said over and over again they will only sell round pegs.
Except that is just an empty excuse. What GW produces is not "casual vs. competitive", it's "unclear vs. clear". They produce sloppily written rules and then get people to justify it by arguing "well they're supposed to be casual!!1!!"
It's like someone claiming to have made the best movie ever, then when it's terrible they say "Well it's supposed to be terrible - I meant to make it that way as a commentary on... blah blah blah"
Clear rules that don't require 2 hours of negotiations when strangers first meet to play benefits everyone, because then even casual players can go into a game store and play with confidence that they won't get their ass handed to them because someone thought Rule A worked like X instead of Y. This makes the game more accessible to casual players, not less.
The entire concept of "casual rules" vs. "competitive rules" is made up. The difference is between clear and unclear rules. Just because rules are clear, concise, and not open to seven interpretations, does NOT mean that casual players who want house rules cannot go ahead and make them. I don't understand this aggressive push to keep the rules unclear - it's like a group of people were forced to make house rules a long time ago and then got it in their heads that the best type of rules were ones that made them play that way. It's strange.
It's not that GW doesn't want competitive play. That's just a cover. It's that they don't care about the quality of their rules. As far as they're concerned, they are being forced to produce them because we ungrateful sheep aren't just lining up to buy their product to wave in the air yelling "PEW PEW" like children. They see 40k as a game of 10-year-olds playing pretend with their action figures, when it has the potential to be so much more than that. The original design team (and some of the current ones, to be fair) seem to understand this potential, but GW upper management definitely does not.
EDIT: Ninja'd. Again again.
EDIT EDIT: Not that I haven't waved my models around yelling PEW PEW , but for an expensive hobby I would also like to enjoy a slightly more engaging experience, game-wise.
They are not interested in the rules. They don't care what the rules say. all they are interested in is making money and if writing some rules gets them money so be it. They will write rules for chaos and you buy it. They write rules for black legion and you buy it. Notice they didn't put both sets of rules in one book. That wouldn't make them enough money.
GW has said over and over again. They are a model company. Rules are secondary. Your enjoyment of the rules is secondary. Tight rules are not something they care about. Internal balance is not something they care about. External balance is not something they care about.
Clear rules would require extensive playtesting and editing. These things cost money and they do not make GW any more money.
We can cry about what we want out of this game, but you are not going to get it from this company. You are going to have to go out and make the changes yourself.
GW is retreating into an ever tightening niche market. They are retreating from trying to be a game for the masses back into a niche hobby for a certain segment of hobbiest. I didn't say gamers, I said hobbiest. The game doesn't matter to them. The hobby of collecting models does.
Over and over again GW has stated this is not a rule set for competitive play. They don't want competitive play and they actively work to oppose competitive play.
Here we have a community who wants to turn this game into a competitive event when the game designers are vehemently opposed to competitive play.
Now we can change the core rules to make it more balanced and allow for more competitive play, but the community says 'no you can't'. We have to wait for GW to change the rules to make it more competitive. Why won't GW listen to me and make it more competitive?
Because they said they don't want a competitive game.
The community is trying to push a round peg into a square hole. Instead of changing the hole, they want the company who sold them the round peg to instead start selling square pegs. The company has said over and over again they will only sell round pegs.
Except that is just an empty excuse. What GW produces is not "casual vs. competitive", it's "unclear vs. clear". They produce sloppily written rules and then get people to justify it by arguing "well they're supposed to be casual!!1!!"
It's like someone claiming to have made the best movie ever, then when it's terrible they say "Well it's supposed to be terrible - I meant to make it that way as a commentary on... blah blah blah"
Clear rules that don't require 2 hours of negotiations when strangers first meet to play benefits everyone, because then even casual players can go into a game store and play with confidence that they won't get their ass handed to them because someone thought Rule A worked like X instead of Y. This makes the game more accessible to casual players, not less.
The entire concept of "casual rules" vs. "competitive rules" is made up. The difference is between clear and unclear rules. Just because rules are clear, concise, and not open to seven interpretations, does NOT mean that casual players who want house rules cannot go ahead and make them. I don't understand this aggressive push to keep the rules unclear - it's like a group of people were forced to make house rules a long time ago and then got it in their heads that the best type of rules were ones that made them play that way. It's strange.
It's not that GW doesn't want competitive play. That's just a cover. It's that they don't care about the quality of their rules. As far as they're concerned, they are being forced to produce them because we ungrateful sheep aren't just lining up to buy their product to wave in the air yelling "PEW PEW" like children. They see 40k as a game of 10-year-olds playing pretend with their action figures, when it has the potential to be so much more than that. The original design team (and some of the current ones, to be fair) seem to understand this potential, but GW upper management definitely does not.
EDIT: Ninja'd. Again again.
EDIT EDIT: Not that I haven't waved my models around yelling PEW PEW , but for an expensive hobby I would also like to enjoy a slightly more engaging experience, game-wise.
They are not interested in the rules. They don't care what the rules say. all they are interested in is making money and if writing some rules gets them money so be it. They will write rules for chaos and you buy it. They write rules for black legion and you buy it. Notice they didn't put both sets of rules in one book. That wouldn't make them enough money.
GW has said over and over again. They are a model company. Rules are secondary. Your enjoyment of the rules is secondary. Tight rules are not something they care about. Internal balance is not something they care about. External balance is not something they care about.
Clear rules would require extensive playtesting and editing. These things cost money and they do not make GW any more money.
We can cry about what we want out of this game, but you are not going to get it from this company. You are going to have to go out and make the changes yourself.
GW is retreating into an ever tightening niche market. They are retreating from trying to be a game for the masses back into a niche hobby for a certain segment of hobbiest. I didn't say gamers, I said hobbiest. The game doesn't matter to them. The hobby of collecting models does.
Pretty much this. GW has always marketed itself as a model company. 40k is always referred to as 'the hobby', not as 'the game'. The game is less important to GW than the models. The game is just something to give people something to do with their models beyond collecting them.
We can cry about what we want out of this game, but you are not going to get it from this company. You are going to have to go out and make the changes yourself.
GW is retreating into an ever tightening niche market. They are retreating from trying to be a game for the masses back into a niche hobby for a certain segment of hobbiest. I didn't say gamers, I said hobbiest. The game doesn't matter to them. The hobby of collecting models does.
I wasn't actually disagreeing with this point. On the contrary, I think you're spot on. My point was that the bolded part of your statement is not a sustainable business model. At least, not the way they're running it anyway. If that's what they really want, they should go into producing extremely high-quality sculpts at perhaps a slightly larger scale and sell them purely as art pieces.
GW needs to figure out what they want to be, and do so in relatively short order, otherwise they're gonna continue to take hits to their profits and stock value. As a fan of the franchise, I would like to see them succeed and rake in the big bucks, but they openly refuse to pursue any alternative strategies of growing and developing their IP (hence why they are in their current predicament). So no, I don't expect them to ever change anything, but I do expect that they will find their market slowly getting drier year after year until they die or find a better way to improve business.
Over and over again GW has stated this is not a rule set for competitive play. They don't want competitive play and they actively work to oppose competitive play.
Here we have a community who wants to turn this game into a competitive event when the game designers are vehemently opposed to competitive play.
Now we can change the core rules to make it more balanced and allow for more competitive play, but the community says 'no you can't'. We have to wait for GW to change the rules to make it more competitive. Why won't GW listen to me and make it more competitive?
Because they said they don't want a competitive game.
The community is trying to push a round peg into a square hole. Instead of changing the hole, they want the company who sold them the round peg to instead start selling square pegs. The company has said over and over again they will only sell round pegs.
Except that is just an empty excuse. What GW produces is not "casual vs. competitive", it's "unclear vs. clear". They produce sloppily written rules and then get people to justify it by arguing "well they're supposed to be casual!!1!!"
It's like someone claiming to have made the best movie ever, then when it's terrible they say "Well it's supposed to be terrible - I meant to make it that way as a commentary on... blah blah blah"
Clear rules that don't require 2 hours of negotiations when strangers first meet to play benefits everyone, because then even casual players can go into a game store and play with confidence that they won't get their ass handed to them because someone thought Rule A worked like X instead of Y. This makes the game more accessible to casual players, not less.
The entire concept of "casual rules" vs. "competitive rules" is made up. The difference is between clear and unclear rules. Just because rules are clear, concise, and not open to seven interpretations, does NOT mean that casual players who want house rules cannot go ahead and make them. I don't understand this aggressive push to keep the rules unclear - it's like a group of people were forced to make house rules a long time ago and then got it in their heads that the best type of rules were ones that made them play that way. It's strange.
It's not that GW doesn't want competitive play. That's just a cover. It's that they don't care about the quality of their rules. As far as they're concerned, they are being forced to produce them because we ungrateful sheep aren't just lining up to buy their product to wave in the air yelling "PEW PEW" like children. They see 40k as a game of 10-year-olds playing pretend with their action figures, when it has the potential to be so much more than that. The original design team (and some of the current ones, to be fair) seem to understand this potential, but GW upper management definitely does not.
EDIT: Ninja'd. Again again.
EDIT EDIT: Not that I haven't waved my models around yelling PEW PEW , but for an expensive hobby I would also like to enjoy a slightly more engaging experience, game-wise.
They are not interested in the rules. They don't care what the rules say. all they are interested in is making money and if writing some rules gets them money so be it. They will write rules for chaos and you buy it. They write rules for black legion and you buy it. Notice they didn't put both sets of rules in one book. That wouldn't make them enough money.
GW has said over and over again. They are a model company. Rules are secondary. Your enjoyment of the rules is secondary. Tight rules are not something they care about. Internal balance is not something they care about. External balance is not something they care about.
Clear rules would require extensive playtesting and editing. These things cost money and they do not make GW any more money.
We can cry about what we want out of this game, but you are not going to get it from this company. You are going to have to go out and make the changes yourself.
GW is retreating into an ever tightening niche market. They are retreating from trying to be a game for the masses back into a niche hobby for a certain segment of hobbiest. I didn't say gamers, I said hobbiest. The game doesn't matter to them. The hobby of collecting models does.
Pretty much this. GW has always marketed itself as a model company. 40k is always referred to as 'the hobby', not as 'the game'. The game is less important to GW than the models. The game is just something to give people something to do with their models beyond collecting them.
Then the need to not produce rules and just produce models. No matter what they say, there's a game built around the models.
@ xruslanx.
'Casual' is a play style.
'Competitive' is a play style.
I can play chess casually with my kids, or competitively in a county event.
The rules are clearly defined and concise.And suitable for both styles of play.And can be house ruled ...(See what Allessio has done with chess at Mantic Games !)
Classic Battle-tech has been played casually , and competitively .(And we made up a load of house rules for our home brew pilots , and customized Mechs.)
Again clearly defined rules , written in an intuitive and concise way.
I can play 40k casually, we all can IF we agree on how to interprit /fix the rules in the same way.And agree to add our own house rules.
However, you can not just pick an army using the current FoC to an agreed PV , and walk into a LFGS, or GW store and play a pick up game.
The game rules are too poorly defined , and the game balance is all over the place.
Because GW put PV and FoC in the codex books , this level of competitive play is inferred, but NOT delivered.
40k is not a 'casual game', just a game with poorly defined rules , and limited unbalanced game play.That FORCES players to agree on how to fix the game the same way, if they want to have any enjoyment playing it.
This is not a good thing.
Please do not confuse over complicated, diffuse and counter intuitive rules with 'casual' .
Because clearly defined , concise intuitive rules allow 'casual' play too!
Honestly I never understood their position as a "model company" and explicitly not a "gaming company". It just doesn't make sense. The vast majority of people buy the models because of the game.. Yes, there are *some* people that simply buy models and don't play but those are the exception, not the rule.
Also, I never understood why they would ever claim that "it's a beer and pretzels game". It's not. Poker is a beer and pretzel game; so is anything on the XBox. I'm pretty sure most people take longer to get a new beer from the fridge than they spend setting up for a card or video game. 40k, at an absolute minimum, takes 15 minutes to get going and that's assuming the army lists for both players are ready to go and table is setup. Otherwise count on 45 minutes before you roll a single die. And you certainly aren't going to be drinking the entire time while playing an apoc game, 8 hours of drinking is rarely a good thing due to liver failure and all.
And ALL of that is before you layer on the rules you need to "discuss" before hand to make sure both players understood it the same way. Interestingly, when you look at an actual "beer and pretzels" game like Poker, you don't have those issues: 4 Aces beat 2 Jacks every day of the week... unless you've specifically house ruled it differently. 40k: you need to house rule even basic stuff so that people can just play the game.
GW needs to decide what 40k is going to be.
We have models, story and rules. Models, for the most part, are pretty good. The story is generally good - as long as you know what's actually considered "current". Rule quality varies radically from really bad to really good. With one major bad point being layout. It's just not very approachable, which leads to a lot of rule confusion. Well, the loose language certainly doesn't help either.
The choices then, as I see it, are that GW becomes just a model company or it becomes a gaming company. If it's a model company, then drop the rule books; just be aware that they would be out of business within a year. If it's a game company then they need to focus on tightening up their core product.
By tightening up I mean that they need to hire people to rip apart their books (rules and BL) and restructure everything to make it more approachable. I say "hire" because I'm not confident that anyone who is currently part of the process at GW can make it happen. A few things I'd like to see: a BRB which doesn't feel like someone whose scatter brained put it together. It should be polished, clear and concise. Right now it feels like someone bolted on whole sections with complete disregard for how those sections actually fit within everything else. Which, incidentally, is why they had to do things like Stronghold Assault (to fix buildings) and the FAQ rewrite of challenges. After 6 editions you'd think they'd have a pretty good system down.
Next, I'd like BL to stop selling books whose stories conflict with the current state of the fluff. Then I'd like them to actually put a roadmap of the universe together so that writers have something to build on. HH started off great. It was obvious the first 4 books had a very clear timeline and the authors knew enough about what was going to appear in each others books that they were able to successfully build upon it. Equally obvious is that strategy didn't hold beyond those 4 books. Later authors have ignored what's happened previously or twisted things in such a way that it just doesn't make sense anymore.
GW claims that their IP is super important - as evidenced by all of the lawsuits "defending" it. However, they don't seem interested in maintaining that IP in a meaningful manner. Instead, they act like a really large company whose employees have no respect or care for what's gone on before and think that copy/paste jobs with a new cover (Escalation, Death from the Skies) is the way to go. hint: it's not.
Rules take care and feeding. To make changes, it takes a group of people who are actually passionate about their work and willing to dive into the intricacies to pull it off. Being ambivalent about how the rules work isn't a good thing. Statements by Jervis, Warhammer world and others to the effect of not getting caught up in the rules is patently not good. Rolling off for it does not lead to a good experience as one person will inevitably feel as though they've been cheated. That entire situation can be avoided by being clear. In those cases where you aren't clear, release FAQs in a timely manner. The first part of last year was great as FAQs were quickly coming out; but that ended and there are a LOT of questions which need resolved.
I've tried to get into 40k several times now, and I finally just bought the rulebook, some models I thought looked cool and did it.
What has always put me off is how the rules are laid out in the book and how vague or contradictory they can be. I sat down at a demo table of Warmachine a few years ago and learned the basic game in ten minutes. The same for Malifaux and Infinity. Yet every single time I sat down with people to learn 40k or fantasy it was a sloppy and confusing endeavor.
Reading through [my first legitimately owned copy of] the rules, I kept noticing all the stuff about "forging a narrative" and enjoying all aspects of the hobby with friends, and not being a whiny jerkoff powergaming sore loser/winner. After I realized that I don't have to "be competitive", at least to start, I started having a lot more fun with the game, and now I love it.
I have to say that the ruleset is a mess and requires frantic page flipping and bookmarks on my part to figure out what I'm doing. I'm not saying it doesn't need a massive overhaul, but I've come to love that experience for the same reason I've always played D&D. I don't need to be godlike. I just need to have an immersive and fun experience.
JPong wrote: How did Gee Dubs convince a whole swath of gamers that loose rules are better? Like seriously, if I am playing a game over beer and pretzels (mmmmm, homemade pretzels) the rules should come naturally. I shouldn't need to analyze the grammar on 5 different pages in three different books to come to a conclusion.Nor should my buddy and I come to a disagreement where the only conclusion is to dice off. That's just asking to leave a sour taste in someone's mouth.
Speaking for myself (and only for myself) it was always obvious that 40k at least was a very casual game. When I was playing around with my older brother and his friend with their 2nd edition 40k starter set, we used to change and adapt the rules as we saw fit just to have a laugh. While part of that was age, the fact is the rules *allowed* us to do that, in a way that they didn't with snakes and ladders.
Getting back into 40k as an adult it was obvious from the inset that the rules were meant as a background for having a laugh, getting two armies on the table and bashing at each other until one of you wins (or gives up and gets bored). I think a balanced ruleset would have been layed out differently and used different language to the 40k codexes/rulebooks.
How anyone could get into 40k knowing it's a casual ruleset, and then turn around and act surprised or angry when they find that 40k is a casual ruleset, is beyond me. And it has *always* been this way. I may as well complain about Apple making increasingly over-priced and pretentious crap...they always have done, they always will. Nothing fundamental has or will change in 40k, imo anyway.
There's a difference between "casual" and "poorly written". 40k is the latter.
I've never been remotely interested in competitive play, strictly a "casual" gamer. I still think 40k is a mess though.
A game can be clearly written and balanced and still be a good casual game. One does not preclude the other. In fact, GW and FW HAVE written games that are much less convoluted and still make for good casual games.... of course they axed them all.
The OP assumes GW cares. Allies was put in there to try and force people to buy more than 1 army. The implications on the game were never considered, because GW does not care.
As those ridiculous "editorials" plainly stated in the first "new" White Dwarf issue: this hobby is about collecting first before anything else: painting, gaming, etc.. Just buy buy buy.
Spartan Games wrote:Armoured Clash is a standalone, comprehensive game,
introducing an entirely new set of Wargames Rules,
including the Spartan GamesColoured Exploding Dice
System. The game is ideal for playing out the greatest land
battles depicted in the Dystopian Wars history, from the
entirety of the Second Battle of Waterloo as described in
Storm of Steel to Operation Bear Trap featured in this book.
The rules system is suited to any style of play, from highly
competitive tournament games to campaigns of linked
scenarios between friends.
I noticed this earlier and thought it would be worth posting here. Look at that second paragraph there, "suited to any style of play". There is no distinction between 'competitive' and 'casual' outside of how players act. THAT IS HOW IT SHOULD BE.
If players want to bring the hardest things they can then it's on them.
If players want to play a narrative battle then that is their choice too.
And the rules, as provided by Spartan Games with no house ruling or any of that, support both comfortably.
The entire 'competitive' vs 'casual' ruleset arguments are, in my opinion, utterly (and appears to be an issue unique to GW).
It comes down to how the players want to act, not how the rules are written. As has been said, chess can be played casually, why couldn't 40k if it had a better ruleset attached?
(And don't answer that it's because a better ruleset for competitive play would remove options from the game, there are plenty of games out there like warmachine, infinity and dystopian wars with just as many, or more, options and they all achieve much better balance in a much clearer ruleset.)
I'd also like to point out that the Armoured Clash core rules I took the quote from I downloaded for free from Spartan Games' website. The whole 'we are a model company, not a rules company' holds little weight when no one else on the market is trying to force anyone to buy anything other than their core rulebook, if that. GW on the other hand want's you to buy at the bare minimum a core book and a codex, but are pushing a supplement, an allied codex, potentially a second supplement for them, escalation and or the fortifications one, and dataslates on top of that.
As well the use of bolding and italics on keywords, as well as different coloured fonts, makes things look a lot more professional and leads to a lot less confusion.
"we don't want a competitive game" is an excuse for crappy rules and bad balance. In today's internet rich times where games go through breakdown quicker, it's made 40k straight awful.
You see, 40k has always been that game about special weapons and special units. Special weapons that ignore armor, and special units that ignore basic guns. The problem with that is that basic units are terrible in 40k as a result.
This problem was magnified in 6th edition with the inclusion of allies and flyers. So now, if you don't have the broken stuff, you can't even hang. You lose at the army list creation screen. You don't need to move models, you just pick your broken unit of brokenness, pick up a bunch of dice, and spray crap all over the table.
So 40k winds up being up about $$ expensive units, easily escalates, and because it isn't written cohesively, there are arguments every 5 minutes.
We joke that when we play 40k, there is the movement phase, then the argument phase. Then the shooting phase, followed by another argument phase. Games take hours, and the vast majority of games are decided when the player takes his models out. You aren't rewarded for good gameplay decisions or playing a themed list or even for using basic infantry. You are Rewarded for breaking the force org and spamming broken unit that basic guns can't hurt though. If a riptide has feel no pain, it would take something like 360 bolter shots (that's a lot of shots!) to kill a riptide. Hope you brought your special weapons!
How is this cesspool of crap fun?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
They are not interested in the rules. They don't care what the rules say. all they are interested in is making money and if writing some rules gets them money so be it. They will write rules for chaos and you buy it. They write rules for black legion and you buy it. Notice they didn't put both sets of rules in one book. That wouldn't make them enough money.
GW has said over and over again. They are a model company. Rules are secondary. Your enjoyment of the rules is secondary. Tight rules are not something they care about. Internal balance is not something they care about. External balance is not something they care about.
Clear rules would require extensive playtesting and editing. These things cost money and they do not make GW any more money.
We can cry about what we want out of this game, but you are not going to get it from this company. You are going to have to go out and make the changes yourself.
GW is retreating into an ever tightening niche market. They are retreating from trying to be a game for the masses back into a niche hobby for a certain segment of hobbiest. I didn't say gamers, I said hobbiest. The game doesn't matter to them. The hobby of collecting models does.
Well, since they feel that way, they can take their 38% operating margin decrease and hold that. Tight rules don't make money, but bad rules will cost you money. Just like customer service. Or PR. Hard to measure...until you mess up.
scuddman wrote: "we don't want a competitive game" is an excuse for crappy rules and bad balance. In today's internet rich times where games go through breakdown quicker, it's made 40k straight awful.
You see, 40k has always been that game about special weapons and special units. Special weapons that ignore armor, and special units that ignore basic guns. The problem with that is that basic units are terrible in 40k as a result.
Yeah, if they simplified the basic rules and made it so 95% of special things simply buff or nerf core rules, it would be a hell of a lot simpler and still allow for special items. It seems like they were trying to go for that in recent editions, but failed quite dismally. Maybe just because they are trying to keep the rules backward compatible with old codices, so they have to carry a lot of crappy convoluted rules from previous editions.
I think it's clear they don't care about a game and just about selling figures when there are codexes that don't have an update or figures for some things yet GW puts out multiple Space Marine codexes when their first priority should be making sure every army has an update to the latest edition first but of course it's about selling and Marines sell the most so...
Third edition had its flaws but when there were no codexes and just the army lists in the BRB it wasn't that bad and things were at least somewhat balanced for that brief time.
Their messed up priorities and shoddy rules are most of the reason I am slowly realizing the game is not something I want to play and the company is not something I want to support now that I'm older and realize how they operate.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Yeah, if they simplified the basic rules and made it so 95% of special things simply buff or nerf core rules, it would be a hell of a lot simpler and still allow for special items. It seems like they were trying to go for that in recent editions, but failed quite dismally. Maybe just because they are trying to keep the rules backward compatible with old codices, so they have to carry a lot of crappy convoluted rules from previous editions.
That looks to be the problem, backwards compatibility.
If they merged a lot of the special rules, that'd help a lot. Make armourbane the same as Melta, or fleshbane the same as poison.
The big problem we get is when a lot of rules come up at once.
Tried using a Krak grenade when in cc against a Dreadnought? What do you roll to hit, how many attacks do you get, what I is it at, what facing do you hit, etc?
And, using the same names for new rules.....
Skilled rider used to apply to all ICs. Not any more.
Run into assault? Once upon a time.
The rules are a mess, and cross-referencing is standard.
There needs to be more use of tables in the rules. What kind of unit can shoot and assault? The tables would be massive, but you just ignore the sections that don't apply.
One of the worst examples of poorly written and cross-referencing rules came up on another site I read recently.
Generating psykic powers. It's not mentioned at all where the psyker rules are. It's mentioned where the psykic powers in the BRB are. Which is like 300 pages away from the psyker rules. Why? Who in their right mind decided those rules should be 300 pages apart. Even the powers should be right beside the rules for psykers, because guess what? They only make sense in context with the rules for psykers. If you aren't going to put them together because you want the powers at the back for easier referencing, at least mention where they are.
Iron_Captain wrote: Pretty much this. GW has always marketed itself as a model company. 40k is always referred to as 'the hobby', not as 'the game'. The game is less important to GW than the models. The game is just something to give people something to do with their models beyond collecting them.
I don't think that's true.
It wasn't GW that originally produced miniatures at all. It was Citadel. Nowadays they are interchangeable but there was a time when GW didn't just churn out any old rules, seemingly without quality control, just so they could sell miniatures. This is the company that published WFRP (and the Enemy Within!), Blood Royale, Block Mania.. great games.
If 40k isn't a great game then what is the point in using the 40k rules? Because a space marine is only what you call it. You could just as well play Infinity, use the 40k figures and call them space marines. It's all happening in your mind anyway, right?
I can very well understand why GW, confronted with their own product quality (rules), might well want to encourage people that the game balance doesn't matter. It's about the hobby. Just collect the figures! Convenient, non?
With a cutting edge video game I can understand bugs and patches. The technology is really complicated. With a tabletop game or board game, where you are using tape measures and dice, it is unforgivable. If GW can't design good games, well, that is unfortunate.
I am not telling anybody how to use their recreational time, though mine is limited and I therefore resent wasting it on shoddy games. But surely it would be better if the rules were good and were competitive and you felt as if you had won a game because of your superior skills, not because you researched the game to death and found out all the quirks and chain linked abilities. Or because the army list you are using is totally unbalanced.
GW has created an issue where the product is currently seen as sub-par of the amount of time and money invested. A typical 40K army is going to cost $1000 and take 75+ hours to assemble and paint. We'll say the army has $2000 worth of "investment" by the player (hobbyist).
For that much money, players expect a certain level of entertainment to be returned. Using the movies as a benchmark, every hour of entertainment is worth $5. This means that a 40K army should give the player 400 hours of entertainment beyond assembling and painting the army. That equates to 200 games, with at 1 game a week is roughly 4 years of play out of one army. 4 years of continual play is a lot to expect from a game and as such, means the rules need to be solid and the game play fun to keep people interested.
On the other hand, someone can go to a MtG draft, spend $15, get smoked and is only out $15 for 2-3 hours of play. They made a relatively small investment, got the same $5 a hour entertainment, but if they don't like it, they don't necessarily feel like they got screwed by WotC, where I think a lot of players may feel GW has screwed them in some cases. because of the high investment cost. I have a game of Munchkin on my shelf that has only been played 3 times, it cost $20. I don't feel like I got screwed because I got my money back in entertainment, even though it was a 100x lower number of hours than my 40K army.
Things should happen which are memorable, epic and have no annoyance factors. I still remember my Worldeater Aspiring Champ punching a SM Captain in the face with a powerfst after the Captain failed to kill him with twin-lightning claws. I also remember my Chaos Lord rolling a 1 for his attacks and dying to his demon weapon; some would think this was funny, I find it not fun and one of the reasons I quit. GW needs to create tight rules and build a community, as that is what it takes to keep the entertainment value up on the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
clively wrote: Honestly I never understood their position as a "model company" and explicitly not a "gaming company". It just doesn't make sense. The vast majority of people buy the models because of the game.. Yes, there are *some* people that simply buy models and don't play but those are the exception, not the rule.
Also, I never understood why they would ever claim that "it's a beer and pretzels game".
Many good points in your post.
I think GW knows while models make the money, the game sells the models. Otherwise, why would the keep changing the rules to basically force the player base to buy new models? Helldrakes and Riptides are prime examples of expensive models being created and pushed by rules. I think GW fails to realize that poor rules will result in players dropping the game, rather than buying the new models (which seems to be happening more and more).
The 40k 'problem' as i see is not that they've buggered it up wholesale, its that some of the things they have come up with are a few points off being rather 'interesting' if it wasn't for the fact that the GW team has no clue how the 'community' thinks and plays.
Add them all up and its got a little "that's bent" way too often and the competition offering runs rings around 40k in rules terms.
Lets face it the two recent additions, escalation and stronghold assault. Are interesting concepts, both screwed over by sheer stupidity in two units aka revenant titan & that D-weapon fortress. Now D-weapons are 'acceptable' when you can only fire one shot a turn, the shadowsword is 'balanced' in that respect and that fortress should have only been able to fire one shot as well (and be av14 as well just because D-weapons are allowed does not mean that it should not be vulnerable to 'standard' weapons'). Then there would not be a problem as one 5" template of doom isn't going to ruin games too much as it might get 1 or 2 off before it gets blown up. The Reveant ideally should only fire 2 D shots, as a rough balance and it would still be worth it but not as stupid. But what do I know...
The rules could be trimmed yes, but that isn't the problem, its each codex that is the problem. Allies makes the issue at the tournament side of things worse, especially with "Tau'dar", if it had been made much tighter it would not be as bad.
But in saying that we then bump into another problem what TOs want their tournament to be, and they can do whatever they please as its their house their rules So if they wanted to ban certain ally combinations they can do so and players will adapt.
And i suppose tha'ts the main gripe as well as the messy rules- some are stuck way back when the game started and haven't quite accepted that others like all the tanks etc in the game now. There is nowt wrong with that view, but i do 'agree to disagree' when they try to justify their dislike by saying 'it shouldn't be like that'. Its opinion and subjective and the players i know like that kind of stuff.
We are in transition it seems, and who knows where they will go with it. But i'm resigned to the fact i'm stuck with 40k as regardless of what happens its still the most popular game out there and I am not going to get rid of the stuff i currently have.
Barfolomew wrote: On the other hand, someone can go to a MtG draft, spend $15, get smoked and is only out $15 for 2-3 hours of play. They made a relatively small investment, got the same $5 a hour entertainment, but if they don't like it, they don't necessarily feel like they got screwed by WotC, where I think a lot of players may feel GW has screwed them in some cases. because of the high investment cost. I have a game of Munchkin on my shelf that has only been played 3 times, it cost $20. I don't feel like I got screwed because I got my money back in entertainment, even though it was a 100x lower number of hours than my 40K army.
Not only this but if you go to an MtG draft/FNM, you meet more people (therefore making friends!) and can learn tips and tricks, while most 40k players seem to be anti-social and don't like to just socialize about things, and if you turn up at the FLGS there's no guarantee you'll even get a game, or it will be a game within the points that you have (worse for a newbie) or that the person you're playing won't be a WAAC basement dweller using the latest net list designed to table any and all opponents. So even beyond cost/investment, a MtG player KNOWS they can show up for Friday Night Magic and get in a couple of games, learn a couple of things and have a good time (and the community seems to be more friendly and accepting, especially towards new players - when I played 40k last and now granted this was a decade ago, there were unfriendly cliques of players that didn't take well to a newbie), while a 40k player spends $600+ on figures, paints them up and has to wonder if they'll get a game, and if they do if it will be fun or a waste of 4-5 hours.
Could you imagine if GW, beyond lowering the startup cost, had weekly mini-tournaments and the like that helped promote the game like WotC does with MtG?
I never played high end MtG , but I played tons of drafts and ton of starter on starter games and they are super fun . WotC managed to creat a game that is both complex for high end gamers and is fun to play for total casuals like me .
Am biased but to me it looks like there are people in GW that make good armies like Ward , there are those who do random stuff like Crud and there is Kelly who does random stuff , unless it is his eldar , then he goes on a power trip and makes them special .
Over and over again GW has stated this is not a rule set for competitive play. They don't want competitive play and they actively work to oppose competitive play.
Here we have a community who wants to turn this game into a competitive event when the game designers are vehemently opposed to competitive play.
Now we can change the core rules to make it more balanced and allow for more competitive play, but the community says 'no you can't'. We have to wait for GW to change the rules to make it more competitive. Why won't GW listen to me and make it more competitive?
Because they said they don't want a competitive game.
The community is trying to push a round peg into a square hole. Instead of changing the hole, they want the company who sold them the round peg to instead start selling square pegs. The company has said over and over again they will only sell round pegs.
This is precisely how I see the situation. To put a finer point on what I said earlier about the player base, I see most people are aware of this hypocrisy yet are unwilling to adopt a single house rule or make a concession of any kind, while simultaneously embracing everything official regardless of the damage it does. This tells me most 40k gamers are far more likely to move on when it finaly becomes unplayable for them than lift a finger on behalf of this game. Of course this doesn't apply to any of the fine folks here at Dakka. =)
This why I've played 200+ games of Starcraft versus 3 games of 40K in recent history.
I have no problem with anyone who wants a 10,000 point army with tanks, planes, etc.
My only issue is that the rules are not up to scratch. Okay so we could house rule but there is a reason why you buy rules instead of making them up. And adding house rules to a broken game is like adding sugar to sour milk.
When multiple people get together to play a game they want a disinterested party to establish a fair set of rules. That way everybody knows what the rules are and everybody accepts them as fair. 40k, WFB, Chess, Risk, Football or Rugby - it's all the same. If each group had to make the rules up themselves, well, the quickest football player wouldn't like the offside rule, the most impatient player would want a smaller chessboard and the weakest rugby player would object to scrums.
On the one hand I am tempted to suggest that a profit making corporation with a stock market listing should be able to produce a better product. But really, they can't. Because they aren't just making up the rules. They're selling everything else too. It is *because* they are a profit making corporation with a stock market listing that 40k is not really a game any more at all.
If FIFA was a profit-making corporation which had copyright on practically all the things you need to play football, including footballs, what would football be like? What would it's shareholders want it to be like? Well, they wouldn't care. Because they just want to get paid.
FIFA would release new balls all the time. It would frequently change the rules of the game so people had a strong incentive to buy the new footballs. Maybe you can use a smaller, lighter ball for throw-ins? Let's say a green ball might weigh more but goals scored with a green ball count as two goals. A green ball can of course be yours for a mere £1000. Of course if you have blue goalposts, green balls don't count. You don't want your opponent using your green ball against you! Blue goalposts then. Only £2000. Teams would have to wear the new strip in order to compete and this would be changed a lot. All the time, really. You want terrain on your football pitch? No problem! FIFA authorised dirt to make an ultra-hill is only £5000 a ton. Shovels are extra.
Is the 17th edition of FIFA multicolour ball unfair? Well, it's not a competitive game you see. More about collecting the expensive components. Which are, all admit, beautifully made.
A good amateur wiki describing an alternate 40k universe might help. Get the basics down, playtested and balanced and when GW release a new model simply post an alternative interpretation of its abilities, points, etc. But who has the time for that?
GW did not break 40K, to say otherwise is like blaming Blizzard for the kids who broke Starcraft with memorized build orders and keystroke sequencing. The players broke 40K, plain and simple. And in a game this expansive, there is always going to be a level of imbalance...some people will take advantage of that. Games Workshop does have sloppy rules, but ultimately it comes down to someone finding the best possible combo (like a re-rollable 2++) and exploiting it.
DavidJonas wrote: If FIFA was a profit-making corporation which had copyright on practically all the things you need to play football, including footballs, what would football be like? What would it's shareholders want it to be like? Well, they wouldn't care. Because they just want to get paid.../snip
Your analogy is bad. I will us American Football as an example, as I am not as familiar with FIFA to use them as an example.
American Football is for profit with 32 teams. The rules are set by the NFL and fairly consistent from pee-wee all the way up to profession NFL football. There are slight differences between the tiers, but the overall concept is the same. The rules are different to encourage the game to be slanted in such a manner that it sells tickets. The game does not make the profit, but the teams make the profit being selling tickets and merchandise. Tickets are typically linked to how entertaining the game is to watch and merchandise has to do with how good the team is. The NFL looks at the rules every year and changes them in order to make the game safer and more entertaining. Safety has been the primary focus recently, and rules around not hitting above the head have been implemented. The NFL will tell you that player safety is the primary issue, but based on past rules changes, it's about keep the star players on the field. When a star player is out for the season, the fans don't show up and ticket sales go down.
FIFA does the same thing, changing rules to make the game more "fair" or incorporating new technology to keep the fans from having a bad taste in their mouth. FIFA doesn't benefit, but the people who "pay the bills" benefit because rule changes will keep the public involved and thus sell more tickets and merchandise.
It just so happens that GW is both the rules writer and the company who makes the profit. The two universal complaints about GW is that their prices are too high and their rules suck. The rules can be changed without drastically affecting profits, and that point of contention goes away. The issue with GW is that they change the rules to sell new models, while not keeping the game fair or interesting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
greyknight12 wrote: GW did not break 40K, to say otherwise is like blaming Blizzard for the kids who broke Starcraft with memorized build orders and keystroke sequencing. The players broke 40K, plain and simple. And in a game this expansive, there is always going to be a level of imbalance...some people will take advantage of that. Games Workshop does have sloppy rules, but ultimately it comes down to someone finding the best possible combo (like a re-rollable 2++) and exploiting it.
If GW allows it within the rules, then GW allowed it to be broken. The primary issue with GW is that don't fix stuff when it is broken until maybe years down the road. WotC, Blizzard, etc. fix their games near immediately if something is shown to be game breaking. WotC bans cards when they are too strong, Blizzard patches the game when the game is broken. Starcraft is also a bad comparison because people don't have to drop a grand in order to play a different army.
greyknight12 wrote: GW did not break 40K, to say otherwise is like blaming Blizzard for the kids who broke Starcraft with memorized build orders and keystroke sequencing. The players broke 40K, plain and simple. And in a game this expansive, there is always going to be a level of imbalance...some people will take advantage of that. Games Workshop does have sloppy rules, but ultimately it comes down to someone finding the best possible combo (like a re-rollable 2++) and exploiting it.
If by "players broke 40k" you mean "spend a few minutes looking over the rules to realise what's good and what's not", then sure, I agree... which is to say I don't agree
GW are both sloppy and unbalanced. You can just read a single codex and usually see it's unbalanced even within a given book, let alone across different books. Then it's sloppy because the rules are just a mess. Even if somehow they managed to be balanced, they are still a mess.
greyknight12 wrote: GW did not break 40K, to say otherwise is like blaming Blizzard for the kids who broke Starcraft with memorized build orders and keystroke sequencing. The players broke 40K, plain and simple. And in a game this expansive, there is always going to be a level of imbalance...some people will take advantage of that. Games Workshop does have sloppy rules, but ultimately it comes down to someone finding the best possible combo (like a re-rollable 2++) and exploiting it.
Maybe, just maybe, some of us actually think its the company's responsibility to fix any broken aspect of the game when its been raised. Maybe take part in the community and listen to feedback. Maybe play test thoroughly before releasing a half finished product. Maybe even consider balance internally and externally.
But you're right, we should just be happy eating beer and drinking pretzels and close our eyes to all the problems and continue to shell out money for an inferior product.
The ability of some to blidnly adhere to GW's byline baffles me. I get that sometimes the hate is too strong and maybe people wish for the end of GW too much but really? beer and pretzels game? Beer and preztle games can be played with some cups and a quarter. Beer and preztle games don't cost hundreds of dollars per person. The very statement is worthy of meme for its sheer idiocy, not even touching how detached from reality someone must be to think 40k is a beer and pretzle game.
LordofHats wrote: The ability of some to blidnly adhere to GW's byline baffles me. I get that sometimes the hate is too strong and maybe people wish for the end of GW too much but really? beer and pretzels game? Beer and preztle games can be played with some cups and a quarter. Beer and preztle games don't cost hundreds of dollars per person.
You can play 40K with cups and coins, too. You don't *have* to buy the models. Download the BRB. Go to town.
Barfolomew wrote: Your analogy is bad. I will us American Football as an example, as I am not as familiar with FIFA to use them as an example.
FIFA does the same thing, changing rules to make the game more "fair" or incorporating new technology to keep the fans from having a bad taste in their mouth. FIFA doesn't benefit, but the people who "pay the bills" benefit because rule changes will keep the public involved and thus sell more tickets and merchandise.
It just so happens that GW is both the rules writer and the company who makes the profit. The two universal complaints about GW is that their prices are too high and their rules suck. The rules can be changed without drastically affecting profits, and that point of contention goes away. The issue with GW is that they change the rules to sell new models, while not keeping the game fair or interesting
Yes, I do understand American Football. Giants fan. This year, not such a good thing : ). Though disputing my analogy by making up your own different one and shooting that down is a bit odd : ). Though I think you go on to say the same thing.
The people responsible for devising and updating the rules of the game have a monopoly on the sale of the items associated with the game. And the majority of their income comes not from the game being played or watched or the rulebooks being bought but from the sale of those items. So their shareholders want them to sell more items. They don't care whether this makes the game better or worse. They want to sell more items. Or the same items at a higher price. Or, ideally, more items at a higher price. How to get each customer to buy more items and to buy more big ticket items? Why, the rules of course ! Into which I include army lists etc. Will people buy new units if they are weaker and worse than the existing ones? No! So they have to be better, more powerful, etc.
That this eventually makes the game bad is not a problem for the shareholders because they probably don't intend to still be shareholders in 5 or even 2 years time.
Whenever money and umpiring come too closely together, it is bad news for the game in question. In that respect at least I don't think FIFA is a bad analogy.
LordofHats wrote: The ability of some to blidnly adhere to GW's byline baffles me. I get that sometimes the hate is too strong and maybe people wish for the end of GW too much but really? beer and pretzels game? Beer and preztle games can be played with some cups and a quarter. Beer and preztle games don't cost hundreds of dollars per person.
You can play 40K with cups and coins, too. You don't *have* to buy the models. Download the BRB. Go to town.
Beer and pretzels is a stretch for a game with a 440 page rulebook.
greyknight12 wrote: GW did not break 40K, to say otherwise is like blaming Blizzard for the kids who broke Starcraft with memorized build orders and keystroke sequencing. The players broke 40K, plain and simple. And in a game this expansive, there is always going to be a level of imbalance...some people will take advantage of that. Games Workshop does have sloppy rules, but ultimately it comes down to someone finding the best possible combo (like a re-rollable 2++) and exploiting it.
There is nothing remotely as broken in Starcraft as there is in 40K. That's a horrible analogy. It is not the players' fault for using LEGAL NON-AMBIGUOUS options for their lists. Quit enabling GW; GW is like a crack addict profiting off people willing to give them as pass for any garbage they write.
greyknight12 wrote: GW did not break 40K, to say otherwise is like blaming Blizzard for the kids who broke Starcraft with memorized build orders and keystroke sequencing. The players broke 40K, plain and simple. And in a game this expansive, there is always going to be a level of imbalance...some people will take advantage of that. Games Workshop does have sloppy rules, but ultimately it comes down to someone finding the best possible combo (like a re-rollable 2++) and exploiting it.
There is nothing remotely as broken in Starcraft as there is in 40K. That's a horrible analogy. It is not the players' fault for using LEGAL NON-AMBIGUOUS options for their lists. Quit enabling GW; GW is like a crack addict profiting off people willing to give them as pass for any garbage they write.
Not since Blizzard patched out the worst of the exploits, true.
Is it not the player's "fault"? They built the list, knowing what it could do. If that makes their opponents at the FLGS butthurt, then either than can continue to play other people who are taking the 2++ rerollables (or whatever other cheese people come up with in the current edition), or they can say "you know what? This is fethin' broken! Let's not play with this" and decide not to do that.
This is like looking at all the various books in D&D 3.5 and building a character that could kill any living opponent on an attack roll of 15+... rolling that attack 6 times in a round. Only needed 1 15 or better, which will happen more often than not, really, in a given session of D&D. Yes, you can do this, and yes, it's kind of awesome to take the worst class in the game and min-max it into an utterly-lethal melee combatant... but it's very, very damaging to cohesive group play, or story cohesion. It forces the DM to completely rewrite his game to provide a challenge to the entire party when your one death-dealer super-built is slaughtering its way through (literally) hundreds of foes in a round.
Part of that is, too, WotC (or GW's) fault for not playtesting their rules sufficiently... but the onus is also on the player to recognize something that is broken as hell and just not use it.
No, it's not the player's fault in an adversarial game like 40K. My objective is to build a superior force and command it to victory.
Self-nerfing is not something you can expect from wargamers as a general rule.
I don't want to have to do GW's editing job for them. I want the best from my codex to be able to hang with the best from my buddy's codex. Is that too much to ask? That way, no one has to self-nerf. Again, how do the broken combos make it to print? That is NOT the players' fault!
greyknight12 wrote: GW did not break 40K, to say otherwise is like blaming Blizzard for the kids who broke Starcraft with memorized build orders and keystroke sequencing. The players broke 40K, plain and simple. And in a game this expansive, there is always going to be a level of imbalance...some people will take advantage of that. Games Workshop does have sloppy rules, but ultimately it comes down to someone finding the best possible combo (like a re-rollable 2++) and exploiting it.
Maybe, just maybe, some of us actually think its the company's responsibility to fix any broken aspect of the game when its been raised. Maybe take part in the community and listen to feedback. Maybe play test thoroughly before releasing a half finished product. Maybe even consider balance internally and externally.
But you're right, we should just be happy eating beer and drinking pretzels and close our eyes to all the problems and continue to shell out money for an inferior product.
Never the company's fault, always the players.
If your eating beer and drinking pretzels, The game is least of your problems.
LordofHats wrote: The ability of some to blidnly adhere to GW's byline baffles me.
Why is that more baffling than those who blindly adhere to the GW-hatedom?
Because you are finally at the point where it has been proven that people are quitting the game in greater droves than the people joining the game.
Because GW as a company is getting smaller. It's losing share. It's losing in the market with an old model that the new generation of smaller games with tighter rules that don't require a 4x8 table or initial $750 outlay is eating it alive in.
Because GW has A Big Problem.
The last 5 years has basically been the GW white knight fanboy "winning" the argument; GW continues to churn out shoddy rules to create cartoonish cinematic 'battles' that allow grown men to buy toys and throw dice at each other. The result is that is now the only playerbase left, as the "non-casuals" have simply gone on to something else. Result: Death spiral.
So that's why it's a problem. The fanboys can crow superiority over the haters and give GW a pass while they end up with fewer and fewer people to play games with.
LordofHats wrote: The ability of some to blidnly adhere to GW's byline baffles me.
Why is that more baffling than those who blindly adhere to the GW-hatedom?
Because you are finally at the point where it has been proven that people are quitting the game in greater droves than the people joining the game.
Because GW as a company is getting smaller. It's losing share. It's losing in the market with an old model that the new generation of smaller games with tighter rules that don't require a 4x8 table or initial $750 outlay is eating it alive in.
Because GW has A Big Problem.
The last 5 years has basically been the GW white knight fanboy "winning" the argument; GW continues to churn out shoddy rules to create cartoonish cinematic 'battles' that allow grown men to buy toys and throw dice at each other. The result is that is now the only playerbase left, as the "non-casuals" have simply gone on to something else. Result: Death spiral.
So that's why it's a problem. The fanboys can crow superiority over the haters and give GW a pass while they end up with fewer and fewer people to play games with.
So, according to you, anybody who simply doesn't hate GW and enjoys their products is an intellectually inferior "white knight" and somehow makes the wargaming community a worse place to be?
I enjoy 40K because I prefer the bigger battles, with the 4x8 table and the massive armies. I enjoy collecting, painting and modelling a huge force of warriors, ranging from simple troops to colossal monsters. I enjoy the vast background and epic storyline of a space opera plunged into the depths of madness. I don't play 40K for the rules. I play the rules for 40K. My liking GW's creation doesn't make me some kind of drooling, plebian idiot, nor a crowing, smug, deluded fanboy. I can see the appeal of smaller games like Warmahordes and Infinity. I actually quite like some of the Warmahordes models (particularly the Cryx) and I certainly don't believe I need to insult people who like Warmahordes. I just prefer 40K.
Judging by this post and your highly inflammatory signature, however, you feel the need to assert that your choice of toy soldier game is "better" than everybody elses, and that the opposing product, and people who like that product, are detestable peasants who need to be educated. Your argument is highly patronizing and reeks of snobbery.
The quality of a game is a highly subjective thing, and declaring that your choice of game is "simply a better game" than mine is both fallacious and insulting. Preferring a particular games system to another is acceptable. Outright hating the other game system, its creator and its fanbase, and feeling the need to assert your own game's superiority is actually quite laughable.
Please come down off your high horse (or should that be jack?) and learn to be a little more tolerant.
I find this discussion fascinating,
I play because I like seeing what crazy, heroic, frustrating and funny things will happen when my friends roll well or role terrible and we drink a few beers and smoke a few smokes. i enjoy when they reveal the new miniatures they have been working on and then see what it does on the table.
We enjoy the universe that GW has so lovingly made. We also play 4th edition and see no reason to move forward to new rules, we simply integrate current flyers, squads,
weapons, into the game if we decide use them.
For example, we just got the rules for the Thunderfire cannon online and integrated into play.
The rules can be as complicated as you want them to be.
Now a small Tangent,
GW is making bad business decisions in my opinion, but its like when you see your brother doing stupid things in his life, you wish he would stop, but also wish him the best.
I believe the game is meant to be played with your friends, indeed, if I played my Army in a tournament, I would be thrown out of the building because I use Old Crow, Hasslefree, Kabuki, Copplestone and RAFM miniatures with GW ones.
GW should embrace the Miniature Wargame community and seems to be alienating more and more of us.
My local Harley Davidson dealership has outdoor events all the time, they dont throw people off the lot because they ride a Triumph or Victory or Honda, why? Because these are possible future customers. Part of a COMMUNITY.
Do I think the rules are broken? No. Do I think GW is? Yes.
Squigsquasher wrote: So, according to you, anybody who simply doesn't hate GW and enjoys their products is an intellectually inferior "white knight" and somehow makes the wargaming community a worse place to be?
Nope. It's because GW is collapsing under its own business model, which is basically built to abuse people just like you, and if it doesn't turn it around (probably by doing the opposite of what it's currently doing) then it will go from being the only name in tabletop wargaming to 'owned by someone else' in a span of roughly 10 years.
Judging by this post and your highly inflammatory signature, however, you feel the need to assert that your choice of toy soldier game is "better" than everybody elses, and that the opposing product, and people who like that product, are detestable peasants who need to be educated. Your argument is highly patronizing and reeks of snobbery.
Do you know what really makes my argument patronizing? That it is actually correct, that GW is beginning to enter that death spiral, and that the company as it stands today will either look materially different, and more like its competitors, or it will be owned by someone else who does largely the same, or it will not exist.
This isn't really "my opinion" at this stage, either. It's my opinion that they're going to continue this slide and ultimately get bought out by someone else, but the issue at stake is the collective "failure" of game players to bother buying GW models in spite of a frenetic release cycle, edition change, and a pandering to the 'cinematic, pewpew' crowd by hurling Forgeworld and Superheavies into the standard game format.
It's my opinion that X-wing, Warmachine, and Malifaux are better game systems that have evolved tabletop gaming in new and interesting ways. It's objective fact that GW is losing customers and sales. Do I want GW to fail? For so long as they persist in doing the wrong things, by their customer base and by failing to adapt their model, I absolutely expect them to fail. You can't do the wrong things, serially, and not fail, it's just not how markets work.
Squigsquasher wrote:So, according to you, anybody who simply doesn't hate GW and enjoys their products is an intellectually inferior "white knight" and somehow makes the wargaming community a worse place to be?
Nope. It's because GW is collapsing under its own business model, which is basically built to abuse people just like you, and if it doesn't turn it around (probably by doing the opposite of what it's currently doing) then it will go from being the only name in tabletop wargaming to 'owned by someone else' in a span of roughly 10 years.
10 years is a long time businesswise. GW changed a lot in 10myears and I wouldn't be surprised if they changed a lot more in the next 10 years, for better or for worse.
sourclams wrote:
Squigsquasher wrote:Judging by this post and your highly inflammatory signature, however, you feel the need to assert that your choice of toy soldier game is "better" than everybody elses, and that the opposing product, and people who like that product, are detestable peasants who need to be educated. Your argument is highly patronizing and reeks of snobbery.
Do you know what really makes my argument patronizing? That it is actually correct, that GW is beginning to enter that death spiral, and that the company as it stands today will either look materially different, and more like its competitors, or it will be owned by someone else who does largely the same, or it will not exist.
This is the same logic people use whenever Nintendo reports a decrease in revenue. As much as a cough and everybody is bandwagoning that Nintendo is dying and that it's time to support a different company and WAKE UP SHEEPLE etc. And yet Nintendo remains a hugely strong and successful business as it has for over a hundred years. A bad profit turnout =/= "death spiral".
Also, claiming outright that the reason I find your argument patronizing is because you're "actually correct" proves my point. That's on a par with "You're just angry because you know I'm better than you!".
sourclams wrote:This isn't really "my opinion" at this stage, either. It's my opinion that they're going to continue this slide and ultimately get bought out by someone else, but the issue at stake is the collective "failure" of game players to bother buying GW models in spite of a frenetic release cycle, edition change, and a pandering to the 'cinematic, pewpew' crowd by hurling Forgeworld and Superheavies into the standard game format.
Soooo, people who enjoy games with big, impressive looking models are somehow contributing to the game's downfall, and should not be "pandered to"? These models wouldn't exist if there wasn't a market for them. I for one much prefer painting big monsters like the Tyrannofex than little scuttly things like Termagaunts.
The sad thing is that, to an extent, I agree with you. GW does need to change its business model and pricing structure. However, you are putting your argument across so poorly that quite frankly I find it impossible to side with you.
A bad profit turnout DOES equal a death spiral if for the past few years the only thing giving you a good profit turnout was cutting costs and increasing prices. Now it looks like we have hit the point where there is nothing left to cut and people aren't paying the higher prices, this leaves GW hemorrhaging sales and nothing to plug the hole.
A good amateur wiki describing an alternate 40k universe might help. Get the basics down, playtested and balanced and when GW release a new model simply post an alternative interpretation of its abilities, points, etc. But who has the time for that?
My beer and pretzels game has been Magic: The Gathering for exactly eighteen years now (I did buy my first booster of Ice Age on January 22, 1996).
I'm playing it again tonight at a friend's kitchen table, everybody is bringing cards that cost no more than two or three Euros (barring one or two lucky draws from boosters), we're playing competitive decks, decks which follow very uncompetitive themes, and decks which are designed to completely alter the game for everyone. We play duels, multi player, alternate play modes and expansions like Planeshift and Archenemy.
Do you know what's best about it? In all of 2013 we had two rules disputes. Both could be resolved within seconds by looking at the FAQs WotC provides in their searchable rules database called Oracle. We can actually spend the rest of the evening playing games, having fun and reducing the amount of beer and prezels available.
People who think that good rule don't make your beer and prezels experience better are fools. GW is indoctrinating their customers for decades now with this nonsense for decades, and it's now rooted pretty deeply now, as seen among some of the posters in this thread.
Honestly, I think the fact that they are splitting up the "mini codices" are good.
Heres why.
I mainly play BA, but these days they are 25% more costly then DA or SM, so I bought DA and SM and played a bit.
The SM codex offers a great number of chapters with different stuff to use, nice good.
The DA is well Da, and while a fine codex offers little in the way of diversity.
If I want to ally with elders I can buy the elder but if thats not enough! -I can further specialize the eldar with a minidex.
I´d much prefere to be able to Choose NOT to buy the minidex- rather then having a more expensive Main Codex.
That said I like SM and thing all codices in the future should offer at least a few specialists on their own (then weather you want to expand is up to you)
I take the new multiple releases and merger with FW as a good sign, and only wish I had more $ to spend on my hobby lol
seaplace wrote: I´d much prefere to be able to Choose NOT to buy the minidex- rather then having a more expensive Main Codex.
But that isn't an option. You still need to buy the "parent" codex because the "mini" codex doesn't have all of the necessary rules. So you're just paying a lot more money than if everything was in one codex.
seaplace wrote: I´d much prefere to be able to Choose NOT to buy the minidex- rather then having a more expensive Main Codex.
But that isn't an option. You still need to buy the "parent" codex because the "mini" codex doesn't have all of the necessary rules. So you're just paying a lot more money than if everything was in one codex.
You're right, all the SM codices should be in one book! That'll reduce the number of codices by almost half, thus speeding up production!
In an ideal world All the Codexs would receive a general update at each new release with the Codex release bringing new stuff / ideas/ etc.
Alternatively the community would (somehow) agree on fixes to all the problem areas and publish it as a dcoument - but thats likely even more impossible than the former.
seaplace wrote: I´d much prefere to be able to Choose NOT to buy the minidex- rather then having a more expensive Main Codex.
But that isn't an option. You still need to buy the "parent" codex because the "mini" codex doesn't have all of the necessary rules. So you're just paying a lot more money than if everything was in one codex.
You're right, all the SM codices should be in one book! That'll reduce the number of codices by almost half, thus speeding up production!
Not sure if you said that seriously or not, but yes that's what it should be. It's garbage that some armies have to wait basically until the end of the edition's life to even see a codex while there are 4 or more Marine codexes put out.
I say just go back to the Black Codex style. After all they aren't a game company, so they should focus on miniatures and not rules. At least with a "black Codex" style everyone was on the same page for a while.
I think all righthtinking people in this forum are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people are fed up in this forum with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not! And I'm sick and tired of being told that I am.
My god, what a collection of bitter veterans! The game is fun, I am having alot of fun playing it. What I see here is people hyperfocusing on the metagame.
Warhammer has been unbalanced left and right since the day it has been conceived, the good thing was thing was that we didn't have the internet to complain, whine and bitch about it.
I remember playing in 1998 with my chaos army getting completely wtf bbq-ed against eldar starcannons.
Its an endless cycle of new codex vs old codex.
The state of the current game is that WE HAVE NEVER been so spoiled with new products, books, models and information.
The prices are ridiculous and they could be lower, but on the other hand, other hobbies cost as much or more than warhammer. Go to the pub every weekend and see how much money you spend there.
Psienesis wrote: I think all righthtinking people in this forum are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people are fed up in this forum with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not! And I'm sick and tired of being told that I am.
aliusexalio wrote: The state of the current game is that WE HAVE NEVER been so spoiled with new products, books, models and information.
We have never been so spoiled in our choices of alternatives to GW games and models too
Well I am not stopping the people that wish to do so, but please let them do it quietly and without all the whinging.
Ps. haven't found much else to my liking, maybe flames of war, but that simply isn't in the same ballpark + I think people are forgetting about the fact that alot of us simply like the 40k universe. We liked the video games, we liked the novels and we like the overall setting. Something other games DO NOT have.
I've been playing since the RT days and I love the game even with its imperfections. Its fun and I have a blast.
I do believe that there are plenty of legitimate criticisms of the rules but it's reached the point where many people's negativity has become toxic for the community and its to the point where it doesn't matter what GW does, people will see it as nothing more than something horrible.
I think we need to focus more on how to have fun with the game. Some have fun by competitiveness and some like fluffy games. There should be room for everyone. Let's find out how to make it work.
GW needs to stop treating their ruleset like a Saturday Morning Cartoon. It is not just a way to advertise your models. It is the beating heart of your product.
Who knows, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the guys who buy a box, throw it in the closet and never look at it again provide more business than the people who actually play the game and buy 3 riptides because its super good.
aliusexalio wrote: The state of the current game is that WE HAVE NEVER been so spoiled with new products, books, models and information.
We have never been so spoiled in our choices of alternatives to GW games and models too
Well I am not stopping the people that wish to do so, but please let them do it quietly and without all the whinging.
Ps. haven't found much else to my liking, maybe flames of war, but that simply isn't in the same ballpark + I think people are forgetting about the fact that alot of us simply like the 40k universe. We liked the video games, we liked the novels and we like the overall setting. Something other games DO NOT have.
That's the thing though, if other games had as interesting fluff there would be no whining, people would just drop GW and move on.
I love the fluff still, I love the universe, hell I still love (most) of the models. I still want to love 40k, but I can't. Mostly because of reasons stated throughout this thread.
Us 'whiners' want the game to improve, we want it to be better so we can enjoy it again. That's why we comment*, if we didn't care we simply wouldn't.
*I don't want to make a thing out of this but the term 'whining' annoys me. Most of the time, at least here on Dakka, people put forth well reasoned arguments and do not carry on in the way the term 'whining' implies.
LiveForTheSwarm wrote: Then don't play? I love the game. If it really bugs you THAT much... Don't play! Or do you really enjoy crying over a public forum to total strangers?
Its almost like this is a thread about discussing the problems with 40k...
Strange, people might post reasoned opinions about the state of the game.
MWHistorian wrote: I've been playing since the RT days and I love the game even with its imperfections. Its fun and I have a blast.
I do believe that there are plenty of legitimate criticisms of the rules but it's reached the point where many people's negativity has become toxic for the community and its to the point where it doesn't matter what GW does, people will see it as nothing more than something horrible.
I think we need to focus more on how to have fun with the game. Some have fun by competitiveness and some like fluffy games. There should be room for everyone. Let's find out how to make it work.
Well said. I haven't been playing quite as long but I definitely feel the same way about the negativity.
LiveForTheSwarm wrote: Then don't play? I love the game. If it really bugs you THAT much... Don't play! Or do you really enjoy crying over a public forum to total strangers?
Its almost like this is a thread about discussing the problems with 40k...
Strange, people might post reasoned opinions about the state of the game.
I don't see a discussion, I see a lot of whining? This "discussion" has seriously run its course and you guys are just going in circles. There is probably 3-4 threads like this per 2 weeks and just named differently. After that it's not a discussion, it's more collective bitching.
I don't see a discussion, I see a lot of whining? This "discussion" has seriously run its course and you guys are just going in circles. There is probably 3-4 threads like this per 2 weeks and just named differently. After that it's not a discussion, it's more collective bitching.
No, I've seen plenty of good discussion and points. Your interpretation of the discussion does not ring true for others.
Besides, if there are 3-4 threads every two weeks, wouldn't that say something about the gamers and this game? Many of us want to enjoy 40k more, but GW keeps making it harder and harder. Its frustrating to see and many of us are heavily invested in the game.
Maybe for a change, you stop accusing every one with a slightly negative opinion as being a whiner or bitching. Maybe you could contribute in a sensible manner, or not post at all.
I don't see a discussion, I see a lot of whining? This "discussion" has seriously run its course and you guys are just going in circles. There is probably 3-4 threads like this per 2 weeks and just named differently. After that it's not a discussion, it's more collective bitching.
No, I've seen plenty of good discussion and points. Your interpretation of the discussion does not ring true for others.
Besides, if there are 3-4 threads every two weeks, wouldn't that say something about the gamers and this game? Many of us want to enjoy 40k more, but GW keeps making it harder and harder. Its frustrating to see and many of us are heavily invested in the game.
Maybe for a change, you stop accusing every one with a slightly negative opinion as being a whiner or bitching. Maybe you could contribute in a sensible manner, or not post at all.
Why? I have nothing to bitch about. The fact there is 3-4 threads every 2 weeks does say something about some of the gamers yes, that their is a lot of entitled brat's playing 40k. Our FLGS is FULL of people with the totally opposite mind set of this forum and it blows me away. Nobody sits there and complains about Tau, or Eldar, or whatever rule that comes up that is "broken" and "doesn't allow them to win" and forces them to think.
And maybe for a change I stop accusing everyone? LOL I have less then 10 posts. So what's contributing in a sensible manner? Not enjoying my favorite hobby and come online to participate in the tearful circle jerk of bashing GW? Or just enjoy the game, have some beers and some laughs? And accept the fact that the game isn't balanced, won't ever be balanced, and suck it up and have fun. But it seems you're incapable of that.
Well you're certainly off to a good start on this forum then.
Funny, everyone I've met in stores thinks 40k is a pretty poor game and agree with much of the mindset of this forum. Most people I've met in person also think that there are broken armies and silly combinations that make them game less enjoyable.
Here's the difference between what I'm doing and what you're doing; I'm discussing the problems of 40k in a thread about the problems with 40k. You, on the other hand, came into this thread and referred to everyone who doesn't agree with you as entitled brats and whiny bitches. Contributing in a sensible manner would be to stop with the personal attacks and either post a reasonable argument about why 40k doesn't have problems, or leave the thread.
Many of us can still enjoy the game, have a few laughs and a pint, but it doesn't change the way some of us feel about the shoddy releases, day one FAQs, pseudo day one DLC, and ever increasing prices. And that's without touching on the issues with the rules and balance.
"Suck it up" is not an argument. Its a cop out. This thread is for discussing the problems of 40k. If you don't like it, don't post.
Blacksails wrote: Well you're certainly off to a good start on this forum then.
Funny, everyone I've met in stores thinks 40k is a pretty poor game and agree with much of the mindset of this forum. Most people I've met in person also think that there are broken armies and silly combinations that make them game less enjoyable.
Here's the difference between what I'm doing and what you're doing; I'm discussing the problems of 40k in a thread about the problems with 40k. You, on the other hand, came into this thread and referred to everyone who doesn't agree with you as entitled brats and whiny bitches. Contributing in a sensible manner would be to stop with the personal attacks and either post a reasonable argument about why 40k doesn't have problems, or leave the thread.
Many of us can still enjoy the game, have a few laughs and a pint, but it doesn't change the way some of us feel about the shoddy releases, day one FAQs, pseudo day one DLC, and ever increasing prices. And that's without touching on the issues with the rules and balance.
"Suck it up" is not an argument. Its a cop out. This thread is for discussing the problems of 40k. If you don't like it, don't post.
I referred to everyone who doesn't agree with me as whiny brats... Well, I never really presented anything for people to agree or disagree on based on my opinions but ok kid. Personal attacks? Again, I didn't single anyone out and make it personal. So again, not sure where you're going with this.. It feels like you're the one making it personal and just grasping for straws at this point.
Well that's the difference between your FLGS and mine I guess, we see the cup half full, you see the cup half empty. We have more fun and get more enjoyment, you the latter. Good for you! Also, I posted my opinion on the general constant complaining, and I can post in any public forum stating what I believe as I see fit. So who are you? The forum administrator? No? Then stop. You sound like an donkey-cave. Don't like broken armies or silly combinations? Don't play against them. Simple. Or do you not have any friends to play games with and just rely on the randoms at your FLGS?
I don't see a discussion, I see a lot of whining? This "discussion" has seriously run its course and you guys are just going in circles. There is probably 3-4 threads like this per 2 weeks and just named differently. After that it's not a discussion, it's more collective bitching.
No, I've seen plenty of good discussion and points. Your interpretation of the discussion does not ring true for others.
Besides, if there are 3-4 threads every two weeks, wouldn't that say something about the gamers and this game? Many of us want to enjoy 40k more, but GW keeps making it harder and harder. Its frustrating to see and many of us are heavily invested in the game.
Maybe for a change, you stop accusing every one with a slightly negative opinion as being a whiner or bitching. Maybe you could contribute in a sensible manner, or not post at all.
Why? I have nothing to bitch about. The fact there is 3-4 threads every 2 weeks does say something about some of the gamers yes, that their is a lot of entitled brat's playing 40k. Our FLGS is FULL of people with the totally opposite mind set of this forum and it blows me away. Nobody sits there and complains about Tau, or Eldar, or whatever rule that comes up that is "broken" and "doesn't allow them to win" and forces them to think.
And maybe for a change I stop accusing everyone? LOL I have less then 10 posts. So what's contributing in a sensible manner? Not enjoying my favorite hobby and come online to participate in the tearful circle jerk of bashing GW? Or just enjoy the game, have some beers and some laughs? And accept the fact that the game isn't balanced, won't ever be balanced, and suck it up and have fun. But it seems you're incapable of that.
We've been "sucking it up" for years. That's why GW sales have dropped, why their stock dropped 24%, and why companies like Mantic Games, Privateer Press, and games like Infinity and Malifaux are doing so well.
I do enjoy the game. But when two codices are so much better than the others, it really ceases to be fun.
It circles around to the "why CAN'T the rules be balanced?" argument. Balanced rules are good for everybody, because then we don't have questions and entire sub-forums dedicated to finding the right answer to Games-Workshop's stupid rules. However, since GW doesn't give a rats ass about balance, that won't happen until someone else takes over the company.
No, but your opinion is quite clear, and according to your posts you think that people who 'whine' in threads like these represent a lot of entitled brats. You can have a proper discussion without petty name calling of groups of people you disagree with.
I have plenty of fun whenever I play. I also play other games, which helps.
You came into a thread and told people that if they didn't like it to leave. Which seems silly in a thread designed for the purpose of discussing the problems with the game. Its an opinion, sure, but its not relevant to the discussion, nor is it constructive. Also, back to the insulting again.
Remember that your experience at stores/groups is not the same as everyone else. I don't have a FLGS within a sensible drive, and most of my gaming friends are 5 hours away. But understand that this game makes it hard for people to find games with random people where army power levels match up. Turning down games is one solution, but its far from ideal, and that's the point. The game is in such a state that if the solution to poorly balanced armies is to not play them, what does that say to you? Its fine that you have a group to play with that think all alike, but that's not representative of everyone.
I find that expectation to be way too high... How can you expect a game with so many different factions/styles/profiles to reach a point of total balance?
StarCraft has 3 factions, and has never been completely balanced...ever. The way players made up for the slight match up problems was outplaying their opponents in other aspects of the game, through better engagements/tactics/micro.
That's not to say there isn't room for improvement on WH40K obviously, but really now... This game will not ever be totally balanced.
Perhaps the stock also dropped due to a current recession and their prices being so high to begin with? I don't know.
LiveForTheSwarm wrote: I find that expectation to be way too high... How can you expect a game with so many different factions/styles/profiles to reach a point of total balance?
StarCraft has 3 factions, and has never been completely balanced...ever. The way players made up for the slight match up problems was outplaying their opponents in other aspects of the game, through better engagements/tactics/micro.
That's not to say there isn't room for improvement on WH40K obviously, but really now... This game will not ever be totally balanced.
Perhaps the stock also dropped due to a current recession and their prices being so high to begin with? I don't know.
Total balance won't ever be achieved, but a reasonable level of balance could very well be. The gap between C:CSM and Tau, or Eldar and Orks is not healthy. But if the gap was no worse than the difference between say Eldar and Tau (with tweaks) for all armies, everyone would be happier. Not to mention the internal balance, which is also a big problem.
A recession wouldn't bring on a stock drop like that overnight, and other miniature companies are growing significantly, making it clear that its solely GW suffering from their own actions.
No i'm sure a recession isn't the entire reason, but it certainly would've helped the stock on its way down.
I could agree with wanting a reasonable level yes... I guess I find a challenge fun though so never really paid attention. I've stomped Tau with C:CSM my fair share of times, I haven't played against a lot of Eldar and Ork is still on a old Dex so their future is TBD.
I've played Eldar a few times... and they aren't so so bad, but when you combine them with Tau then yes I see your point. Our FLGS hates allies and just refuses to even acknowledge that rule exists, so again, a difference of FLGS. Maybe you all should just move here? lol A lot of your problems will disappear
" The way players made up for the slight match up problems was outplaying their opponents in other aspects of the game, through better engagements/tactics/micro."
I can also scout my opponent and build counter units. No such luck in this game!
Martel732 wrote: " The way players made up for the slight match up problems was outplaying their opponents in other aspects of the game, through better engagements/tactics/micro."
I can also scout my opponent and build counter units. No such luck in this game!
Lol Yeah, it's a little different but you get my point. Myself and people I've watched have won many games they shouldn't have by just outplaying the opponent and not necessarily the army. Play your army, don't expect it to play itself.
LiveForTheSwarm wrote: No i'm sure a recession isn't the entire reason, but it certainly would've helped the stock on its way down.
I could agree with wanting a reasonable level yes... I guess I find a challenge fun though so never really paid attention. I've stomped Tau with C:CSM my fair share of times, I haven't played against a lot of Eldar and Ork is still on a old Dex so their future is TBD.
I've played Eldar a few times... and they aren't so so bad, but when you combine them with Tau then yes I see your point. Our FLGS hates allies and just refuses to even acknowledge that rule exists, so again, a difference of FLGS. Maybe you all should just move here? lol A lot of your problems will disappear
I find a challenge fun too, but the internal balance combined with external balance issues means that my ideal Guard army (my old power blob from 5th) is nowhere near the power level of even a properly built 6th ed Guard force, let alone a remotely tooled Tau or Eldar. I want to be able to use any model I want and be on mostly equal footing against whatever my opponent wants to bring. Spartan Games is a good example of this with Firestorm Armada and their internal and external balance. Its not perfect, but its constantly being tweaked with new data.
Ah, so you don't play with Allies, that would help some of the issues with this edition. I agree the execution was poorly done and would likely ignore much of them or tweak them myself. I don't know where 'here' is unfortunately, though I've probably either lived near it and will in the future. I'd love to live near civilization...closest I've got is Winterpeg, but nearly an hour each way for a game is not appealing.
LiveForTheSwarm wrote: No i'm sure a recession isn't the entire reason, but it certainly would've helped the stock on its way down.
I could agree with wanting a reasonable level yes... I guess I find a challenge fun though so never really paid attention. I've stomped Tau with C:CSM my fair share of times, I haven't played against a lot of Eldar and Ork is still on a old Dex so their future is TBD.
I've played Eldar a few times... and they aren't so so bad, but when you combine them with Tau then yes I see your point. Our FLGS hates allies and just refuses to even acknowledge that rule exists, so again, a difference of FLGS. Maybe you all should just move here? lol A lot of your problems will disappear
I find a challenge fun too, but the internal balance combined with external balance issues means that my ideal Guard army (my old power blob from 5th) is nowhere near the power level of even a properly built 6th ed Guard force, let alone a remotely tooled Tau or Eldar. I want to be able to use any model I want and be on mostly equal footing against whatever my opponent wants to bring. Spartan Games is a good example of this with Firestorm Armada and their internal and external balance. Its not perfect, but its constantly being tweaked with new data.
Ah, so you don't play with Allies, that would help some of the issues with this edition. I agree the execution was poorly done and would likely ignore much of them or tweak them myself. I don't know where 'here' is unfortunately, though I've probably either lived near it and will in the future. I'd love to live near civilization...closest I've got is Winterpeg, but nearly an hour each way for a game is not appealing.
Well I understand your point... and agree. Believe me i'd like to use something rather than Muta/Ling/Bling for ZvT in StarCraft but it's just not viable... but in SC2 you just build them, in 40k you shell out more than reasonable amounts of money for them and build/paint them I know. It sucks. You live near Winnipeg? Where bouts? Cause i'm from Winterminusfrickenfortyorfiftypeg lol.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nevermind, just seen your profile. Portage La Prairie? That's not a terrible drive come on now... Just make a day of it to make it worth it, i'd agree that driving for an hour for a single game wouldn't be worth it but you could make it worth your while!
LiveForTheSwarm wrote: I find that expectation to be way too high... How can you expect a game with so many different factions/styles/profiles to reach a point of total balance?
For one, the amount of randomness in the game removes player control from aspects of the game which creates uphill or downhill battles based on single dice rolls. Randomness also makes balance extremely hard because if one side rolls really well and the other rolls poorly, the otherwise balanced game can become one sided quickly, turning the game into setup, roll a couple dice for important stuff, loose/win the rolls, pack up and go home.
Secondly, the game has been more balanced in the past, which sets precedent. If the game as always a giant mess with loads of imbalance where the game was decided prior to setup, then people may not have the expectation of balanced fights. It also doesn't help that others have done it better, balancing not only factions, but diverse game mechanics between armies. WarmaHordes has 10 factions with two different game mechanics and from what I can tell is pretty balanced.
Lastly, instead of trying to make balance better, they introduced both Allies and Forgeworld, jumping the number of armies to balance from 15 (11 really, maybe 9) to like 105+ combinations to balance. GW can't throw their hands up in the air about how hard it is to balance 15 armies and then add in Allies increasing the "armies" substantially.
LiveForTheSwarm wrote: I find that expectation to be way too high... How can you expect a game with so many different factions/styles/profiles to reach a point of total balance?
For one, the amount of randomness in the game removes player control from aspects of the game which creates uphill or downhill battles based on single dice rolls. Randomness also makes balance extremely hard because if one side rolls really well and the other rolls poorly, the otherwise balanced game can become one sided quickly, turning the game into setup, roll a couple dice for important stuff, loose/win the rolls, pack up and go home.
Secondly, the game has been more balanced in the past, which sets precedent. If the game as always a giant mess with loads of imbalance where the game was decided prior to setup, then people may not have the expectation of balanced fights. It also doesn't help that others have done it better, balancing not only factions, but diverse game mechanics between armies. WarmaHordes has 10 factions with two different game mechanics and from what I can tell is pretty balanced.
Lastly, instead of trying to make balance better, they introduced both Allies and Forgeworld, jumping the number of armies to balance from 15 (11 really, maybe 9) to like 105+ combinations to balance. GW can't throw their hands up in the air about how hard it is to balance 15 armies and then add in Allies increasing the "armies" substantially.
I agree completely. Allies to me is the dumbest thing they've done and was a step back rather than a step forward... I refuse to use them (Well I can't anyways I main Tyranids) and refuse to play against them...
Nevermind, just seen your profile. Portage La Prairie? That's not a terrible drive come on now... Just make a day of it to make it worth it, i'd agree that driving for an hour for a single game wouldn't be worth it but you could make it worth your while!
Its only a terrible drive after a snowfall. I don't know of any good stores though, I'm making a trip into a few I saw on google this weekend to buy some stuff and check them out.
LiveForTheSwarm wrote: Our FLGS hates allies and just refuses to even acknowledge that rule exists, so again, a difference of FLGS. Maybe you all should just move here? lol A lot of your problems will disappear
so you are not actually playing 6th edition but some arbitrary sub set of your own rules.
so you took the product and changed it, bravo. I basicly pushed for something like this earlier in the thread.
Only, do you not see the hypocracy in what you just said?
"THE GAME IS FINE IF YOU CHANGE THE RULES"
so us whiny brats just need to change the rules, but GW is fine... I just don't follow this logic.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: IMO a lot of problems in 40k (certainly not all) could be fixed with the reintroduction of "requires opponents consent". Then we could have a nice simple ruleset and simple well defined armies, and if people want to have their fluffy games with a hero who wipes out entire armies with fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse, they can do that too... with their opponent's consent
You can't play any kind of game without your opponent's consent.
Reasonable people understand that and make compromises to achieve a fun result for everyone involved.
Explicitly requiring consent would lead to donkey caves insisting I can't use my Tyranid Prime, or you your Tactical Marines, then there would have to be an official list of what is or isn't acceptable, which already exists in the form of codexes that are actually part of the problem. Thus the argument becomes circular.
LiveForTheSwarm wrote: I find that expectation to be way too high... How can you expect a game with so many different factions/styles/profiles to reach a point of total balance?
For one, the amount of randomness in the game removes player control from aspects of the game which creates uphill or downhill battles based on single dice rolls. Randomness also makes balance extremely hard because if one side rolls really well and the other rolls poorly, the otherwise balanced game can become one sided quickly, turning the game into setup, roll a couple dice for important stuff, loose/win the rolls, pack up and go home.
Secondly, the game has been more balanced in the past, which sets precedent. If the game as always a giant mess with loads of imbalance where the game was decided prior to setup, then people may not have the expectation of balanced fights. It also doesn't help that others have done it better, balancing not only factions, but diverse game mechanics between armies. WarmaHordes has 10 factions with two different game mechanics and from what I can tell is pretty balanced.
Lastly, instead of trying to make balance better, they introduced both Allies and Forgeworld, jumping the number of armies to balance from 15 (11 really, maybe 9) to like 105+ combinations to balance. GW can't throw their hands up in the air about how hard it is to balance 15 armies and then add in Allies increasing the "armies" substantially.
Dude, you're forgetting the biggest point here, other companies seem to have no problem whatsoever achieving a reasonable level of balance with just as many options as 40k.
I should not be at fault for expecting the industry leader, who is charging a ton for their rules where most others are cheap or free, to be able to do at least as well as the little guys forcing their way into the market.
I think a big problem is that they have upped the number of models you need to field for a "reasonable" force, changing the concept of 40k from a larger skirmish to something more like an actual war.
I have acquired a few old issues of White Dwarf, both for nostalgia and because the issues have what is IMO two of the best articles ever to grace the pages of that magazine: the original Tale of Four Gamers, and Stillmania: Questing for the Grail. In issue 219, which was April 1998, there is a battle report for 2nd edition 40K with Blood Angels vs. Eldar, to feature the then-new Fire Prism grav-tank. This battle was 2,000 points. Roughly translating the Blood Angel army to 6th edition rules (accounting for some things that no longer are allowed, such as mixing and matching weapons in an Assault Squad), that 2,000 point army came to approximately 1,270 points in the current edition. The Eldar army came to approximately 1,207 points in 6th edition. Keep that in mind - these forces were 2,000 points in 2nd edition and were typical of the higher-end of battles (when I played at least most 40K games were around 1,500 points, which was also the size for the Grand Tournaments at the time). The army compositions were:
Blood Angels (2E) Captain
Librarian
Techmarine
5 Terminators (mixed assault weapons per 2E)
2x 5-man Assault Squads (mixed weapons per 2E)
10-man Tactical Squad with Meltagun + Heavy Bolter (fielded as Combat Squads)
5-man Scout Squad w/Heavy Bolter
Dreadnought w/Multi-melta and Powerfist (per 2E)
Predator w/Autocannon and 2x Heavy Bolters
Land Speeder w/Multi-Melta
Eldar Farseer
Warlock (per 2E)
22 Guardians (fielded as three squads of 5 and one squad of 7 per 2E)
6 Scouts (Rangers in 6E)
5 Wraithguard
6 Jetbikes
Fire Prism
2x Falcons
2x Vypers (one with Lascannon/Bright Lance)
Therein lies the issue. you need more figures now, which also equates to spending more cash on a battle-ready force, as well as shifting the focus of the game to be larger battles instead of smaller skirmishes.
I think they need to go back to the style of 2nd edition, without the rules clutter. Make the forces smaller so a battle represents a skirmish in the context of a larger engagement versus the large engagement itself.
I have only been in the model side of 40k for 6 years or so. I have been witness to some serious price hikes and borderline ignant codex changes. I absolutely love to play the game and I have not won a serious game of 40k in some time simply because the BA codex is so messed up right now. I understand that I am not going to get a take all comers list and mop the floor with my enemy but I would really like to atleast be able to make them feel some pain once in a while without having to field my Thunder Guppies.
I will say this much though, when they redo the BA codex, if it is not equal to or better than the current SM codex, I will be done. I have many other hobbies that I can do and I am the last of my close friends to give up on 40k ... but the time draws nigh I sense.
Personally, I love allies [now have the chance to play my Slaanesh Daemons alongside my Emperors Chidlren, and the new Inquisition codex inspired me to take them as allies alongside my SoB - all very fluffy!]
I also think Escalation is great - now I don't have to play a 3 day long apocalypse game just to use my warhound titan, or beg people to let me use the Horus Heresy rules.
I think flyers are great fun and add a whole new level of gameplay.
I don't find balance an issue - last time I was tabled was with my Dark Eldar in 5th.
So personally I feel that 6th gave me the ability to make much fluffier armies, and meant that I can use lots more of my models that would otherwise be sitting around collecting dust.
Not a GW apologist, just giving my opinion based upon my experience.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: IMO a lot of problems in 40k (certainly not all) could be fixed with the reintroduction of "requires opponents consent". Then we could have a nice simple ruleset and simple well defined armies, and if people want to have their fluffy games with a hero who wipes out entire armies with fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse, they can do that too... with their opponent's consent
You can't play any kind of game without your opponent's consent.
Reasonable people understand that and make compromises to achieve a fun result for everyone involved.
Explicitly requiring consent would lead to donkey caves insisting I can't use my Tyranid Prime, or you your Tactical Marines, then there would have to be an official list of what is or isn't acceptable, which already exists in the form of codexes that are actually part of the problem. Thus the argument becomes circular.
I don't think you quite understand what I meant by "requires opponents consent".
Obviously all games are with opponent's consent, but some things like special characters, Forge World or allies IMO should specifically say "requires opponents consent" so that they can be held separate from the core rules. Things like Tyranid Primes and Tac Marines are core troops, they would have no such marking on them.
What this means is that people will make lists without those things in them for pick up games and tournament organisers can just have an outright ban on all such things... but if you still want to take your allies and you FW and your special characters, buy them, paint them, and when you go to have your friendly game, just ask your opponent if he/she minds you using it.
The same could be done with extraneous rules. Certain rules could be marked as "extra", so that a typical game would NOT contain those rules, but before a game you could ask your opponent if they're happy playing by the extra rules.
Obviously all games require opponents consent, but people assume they are going to be playing by the rules as given by GW, if there are certain things set aside that specifically say "ask you opponent first", then it prompts people to actually ASK "is it ok if I use blah blah" and gives opponents recourse to say "umm, I'd prefer not" without sounding like dicks.
I find 6th edition refreshing, and I have just chosen to not get wound up in needing to have "everything".
So if they wanted to ban certain ally combinations they can do so and players will adapt.
