GW states that 40k is meant to be a "beer and pretzels" game. I believe they are off their rocker.

So, what does "beer and pretzels" mean to you? Is there an amount of time such a game should take? Is there a community aspect, meaning something played by more than two people at a time? Should it be something you could teach in 2 minutes or less and for that player to have a reasonable chance of success?

To me games like poker or even Yahtzee qualify. But what is a good definition we could use? And, does 40k qualify?

To me the term means casual/fun type of game. I don't think that's too bad of a thing really, although, with GW themselves stating this, it seems kind of odd. Even though I personally don't play the games (yet), it seems that theres a lot of concentrating on moves, tactics and rules etc, which is fun in itself, so perhaps not that much time to be having beer and pretzels?

To me it only means that I'm drinking beer and eating pretzels.

Yeah, a 'beer and pretzels' game is one that isn't meant to be too serious. It's a game you play while chatting about the latest shiny thing, preferably having a drink or two, and not gettng too worked up about the whole thing.

It doesn't mean that you should have to fill in all of the gaps in the rules to make the game playable, which seems to be the interpretation applied by some of those who try to excuse shoddy rules writing. A game can be light and fun while still have coherent and comprehensive rules. Moreso than one that leaves you with a while bunch of situations where you have to figure it out for yourself...

Beer means 1 victory point.

(Anyone else played a game like this?)

I also take it to mean a casual gaming experience. More specifically it is a game that you don't necessarily need a lot of preparation or extensive background knowledge of the game, to play.

Currently my "beer and pretzels" game of choice is Zombicide. Its fast to set up, easy to teach, but provides a lot of fun for gamers and non-gamers alike. You can definitely drink and still play the game (relatively) well.

In my stinky opinion 40k isn't a beer and pretzels game unless you use the very broad definition of "casual gaming experience" or you are referring to the intended play style. I very much believe GW intends for 40k to be a casual gaming experience, but the game fails to achieve that goal based on the amount of material that you need to consume as a player (rules, models ect.) making it anything but a casual experience.

Battletech is still labeled by some as a beer and pretzels game, and I think in 1984 when it first started it was. But in the last 30 years rules and unit expansions have made it a convoluted mess that is rather daunting to start up. Still, you can recreate that basic, fun play style of the original game but you just have to work at it a bit. I think 40k is in the same boat. Years of expansion have bloated it to the point where you need a virtual library of rule books and appendices in order to play.

Just getting together for the purposes of blowing the out of each other. If somone wins, someone wins, if somone looses, someone looses.
What is important is having a good time.

 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, a 'beer and pretzels' game is one that isn't meant to be too serious. It's a game you play while chatting about the latest shiny thing, preferably having a drink or two, and not gettng too worked up about the whole thing.

It doesn't mean that you should have to fill in all of the gaps in the rules to make the game playable, which seems to be the interpretation applied by some of those who try to excuse shoddy rules writing. A game can be light and fun while still have coherent and comprehensive rules. Moreso than one that leaves you with a while bunch of situations where you have to figure it out for yourself...

You don't have to. It's completely optional.

However, if you find the rules to be inexcusable, inferior, or unplayable in order to enjoy the game in your way- nobody is forcing you to play the game. If you are unwilling or don't have any desire to find ways to improve your enjoyment in the game, complaining about the state of the game on forums won't increase your enjoyment.

What I tire of in every thread that appears with this topic are the poisonous people that show up and bombast the ruleset, yet continue to support the very thing they belittle.

And if they don't support it? Evidently they must enjoy complaining to other hobbyists who often want nothing more than to find the positives/make the experience positive. I really don't know anymore.

It means enjoying the game and having a laugh. We rarely actually drink, since that makes it hard to concentrate on the game, but we do snack. Never on pretzels though, we're English for goodness' sake.

What do you snack on then? ...crisps?

We did a "Take a drink for every VP you gave up" game in 5th.
We all felt bad for the multi Platoon Guard Player.

 Gunzhard wrote:
What do you snack on then? ...crisps?

Usually crisps. Sometimes a sandwich. When I get my own place I might start doing paninis.

It means that you have fun while playing, talking about whatever floats your goat with the opponent while playing, having some brews and some snacks (pretzels optional, you can as easily have buffalo wings or peanuts or chips or nachos or whatever-the-feth) and if a dispute comes up, roll off on it. Don't spend 90 minutes pulling out 9 books and arguing over it because it doesn't mean that much. Roll a dice and play on.

XenosTerminus wrote:
You don't have to. It's completely optional.

However, if you find the rules to be inexcusable, inferior, or unplayable in order to enjoy the game in your way- nobody is forcing you to play the game. If you are unwilling or don't have any desire to find ways to improve your enjoyment in the game, complaining about the state of the game on forums won't increase your enjoyment.

What I tire of in every thread that appears with this topic are the poisonous people that show up and bombast the ruleset, yet continue to support the very thing they belittle.

And if they don't support it? Evidently they must enjoy complaining to other hobbyists who often want nothing more than to find the positives/make the experience positive. I really don't know anymore.

Ah yes, the ever-popular 'if you don't like it, get out' response.

You know what else gets tiresome? People insisting that if you don't agree that the game is perfect, that you should just walk away from it.

Here's the thing: I don't have to think that the ruleset is perfect in order to enjoy playing the game. I like 40K. I have 20 years worth of time, effort and money invested in it. I (generally) enjoy playing it. That doesn't mean I can't see the holes in it, just that I don't consider them to be bad enough (yet) to warrant not playing it, particularly after spending $85 on the current rulebook for it (and that only because some nice soul on eBay was selling one considerably cheaper than GW Oz expect us to pay for it...).

I would rather acknowledge the flaws, and figure out how to deal with them, than just bury my head in the sand and pretend they don't exist, and then have to figure out what to do about them on the fly when they actually come up in a game.

YMMV, obviously.

You know that those of us who are calling it a beer-and-pretzels game are much the same, right?

We know the game is a gak-pile of broken rules, unclear writing, imbalanced codices and harebrained decisions. We just don't get our panties in a twist and act like it's the worst thing to happen in the history of mankind. Or that it's an unusual situation for 40K in general.

 Psienesis wrote:
You know that those of us who are calling it a beer-and-pretzels game are much the same, right?

We know the game is a gak-pile of broken rules, unclear writing, imbalanced codices and harebrained decisions. We just don't get our panties in a twist and act like it's the worst thing to happen in the history of mankind. Or that it's an unusual situation for 40K in general.

And that is when I love it!

To me it means a game that takes no more than 10 minutes to wrap your head around and no more investment than a pack of cards or a single boxed board game kinda thing.

I don't know what term would be used to describe the polar opposite of a beer and pretzels game but any game that requires at least 1 more rulebook on top of a 450 page hardcover (per player) can never be a beer and pretzels game. A bear and Pretzels game's rules should fit on a 4 page leaflet.

 Psienesis wrote:
You know that those of us who are calling it a beer-and-pretzels game are much the same, right?

We know the game is a gak-pile of broken rules, unclear writing, imbalanced codices and harebrained decisions. We just don't get our panties in a twist and act like it's the worst thing to happen in the history of mankind. Or that it's an unusual situation for 40K in general.

Why does everyone who feels the need to defend 40k/GW feel the need to characterise anyone who is demanding more from a product hat commands one of the biggest financial commitments in the market as some sort of unreasonable fanatic?

Beer and pretzels to me is a paper thin excuse to justify a sub standard product and try and brain wash the consumer into a specific mindset that allows GW to get away with it.

It should mean a game that is easy to get into, set up and play, in both a physical and financial sense, that doesn't require any more commitment than a purchase and a few minutes learning the rules, and straightforward enough to play while pissed.

Oh, fun fact, there is an actual description on Wikipedia.

wikipedia wrote:A beer and pretzels game is a game which is humorous and light on rules and strategy, usually containing many random elements. This is in direct contrast to German-style board games, which are generally heavy on strategy and light on randomness. They are so called because of the tradition of drinking beer and eating pretzels while playing these kinds of games; this is not to be confused with drinking games, which actually include alcohol as a game component. Wizwar is a beer and pretzels game, as are many games produced by Steve Jackson Games.

Playing it the way GW tells you to play it it meats the humorous and light on strategy aspects but, again, a beer and pretzels game (by definition) needs to be light on rules. 40k is about 500 pages past that just between a codex and BRB.

Not "serious business" or something where you pull out all the stops to win (e.g. take 3x Hellturkeys/Riptides/cheese du jour) but something where you can have a good time without pressure.

It was a cheep and eazy to get into when I started back in 89. I still play it that way.

 Psienesis wrote:
You know that those of us who are calling it a beer-and-pretzels game are much the same, right?

What are you on about? I call 40K a beer and pretzels game. Once you get past the sheer number of books that you need to wade through, it's ultimately a fairly basic 'throw dice at the table and hope for the best' sort of game compared to some other, more tactically-oriented games.

My point was simply that being a beer and pretzels game doesn't excuse badly written rules. A shoddy product is a shoddy product, regardless of its intended function.

We know the game is a gak-pile of broken rules, unclear writing, imbalanced codices and harebrained decisions. We just don't get our panties in a twist and act like it's the worst thing to happen in the history of mankind. Or that it's an unusual situation for 40K in general.

Hyperbole is fun, but rarely adds anything constructive to a discussion.

Beer and Pretzels means to me: Easy to learn, easy to play, and easy to set up time and time again.


Miniatures games CAN be beer-and-pretzels. Tannhauser is definitely Beer and Pretzels. The ultimate Beer and Pretzels games though IMO are the non-collectible card games like Resident Evil. They're the epitome of casual - easy to learn, easy to set up, zero pay-to-win, etc.


40k is pretty much as far from Beer and Pretzels as you can get, while still retaining the facade of a "game."

clively wrote:
What does beer and pretzels mean to you?

A catch-all cop-out for not even trying to make a decent set of rules.

beer and pretzels to me means that the average joe, new or not can open the box, throw some minis out and roll some dice.
games like super dungeon explore and axis and allies are beer and pretzel.
40k is not, theres way too much involved.

King of Tokyo = Beer and Pretzels
Smallworld = Beer and Pretzels
40k =/= Beer and Pretzels


Heck even Mantic's Deadzone is more beer and pretzels than 40k.

To me it is a completely false and flimsy excuse for having very quality rules and refusing to do anything about it.

Laid back games, not playing to win, but to socialise.
That's beer and pretzels to me.

Beer and Pretzels implied to me that the game:

1 - Does not require ones full attention
2 - Rules are crisp and clear as to prevent confusion
3 - Has the ability to last over 1 hour via 1 long game or repeated short games with lots of variance
4 - Can support 2 to 6 players
5 - Easy, defentative way to determine a winner
6 - Easy to setup for repeated games

Let's compare 40K to Poker, THE beer and pretzel game.

Poker
1 - Person only needs to be engaged on their turn where they must know the bet and what wins.
2 - What cards beat what cards are known, don't change and are the same around the world.
3 - Hand randomness and player interaction makes repeated games interesting.
4 - I think poker can easily go up to 6 players.
5 - See item 2
6 - Shuffle the cards and redeal, takes 5 minutes.

40K
1 - Person needs to be continually engaged to prevent potential rules violations that may occur during the game because it's easy to unintentionally cheat. Players must roll dice on both turns.
2 - Any game that has a "roll a D6 if you don't agree" does not have clear and crisp rules.
3 - 40K can last over 1 hour
4 - 40K has issues supporting odd number players because it ends up being a team up vs a lower count of players.
5 - Can end in a tie.
6 - Takes at least 15 minutes to setup, with setup not being all that easy.

40K is not a Beer and Pretzel game.

 insaniak wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
You don't have to. It's completely optional.

However, if you find the rules to be inexcusable, inferior, or unplayable in order to enjoy the game in your way- nobody is forcing you to play the game. If you are unwilling or don't have any desire to find ways to improve your enjoyment in the game, complaining about the state of the game on forums won't increase your enjoyment.

What I tire of in every thread that appears with this topic are the poisonous people that show up and bombast the ruleset, yet continue to support the very thing they belittle.

And if they don't support it? Evidently they must enjoy complaining to other hobbyists who often want nothing more than to find the positives/make the experience positive. I really don't know anymore.

Ah yes, the ever-popular 'if you don't like it, get out' response.

You know what else gets tiresome? People insisting that if you don't agree that the game is perfect, that you should just walk away from it.

Here's the thing: I don't have to think that the ruleset is perfect in order to enjoy playing the game. I like 40K. I have 20 years worth of time, effort and money invested in it. I (generally) enjoy playing it. That doesn't mean I can't see the holes in it, just that I don't consider them to be bad enough (yet) to warrant not playing it, particularly after spending $85 on the current rulebook for it (and that only because some nice soul on eBay was selling one considerably cheaper than GW Oz expect us to pay for it...).

I would rather acknowledge the flaws, and figure out how to deal with them, than just bury my head in the sand and pretend they don't exist, and then have to figure out what to do about them on the fly when they actually come up in a game.

YMMV, obviously.

Yes. it's popular for a reason. It doesn't matter how long you have been involved in or how much you have invested in this hobby.

If you do not like the current state of the game, why do you play it? Why do you continue to buy the books, models, and support a company who evidently is doing nothing right in your eyes?

It's one thing to make a conscious decision when something is not to your liking and find a solution (I am not suggesting that quitting 40k is necessarily the only answer- there are countless ways you can increase your enjoyment in the hobby regardless of GW's shortcomings). It's another thing entirely to continuously complain about something you have 100% control over, expecting different results every time you are disappointed.

XenosTerminus wrote:
who evidently is doing nothing right in your eyes

He never actually said that. Quite the opposite, he said that the game is good but it has a lot of problems and he doesn't think highlighting them is a bad thing.

You see the world in black and white. "You're either with us or against us!" He doesn't.

It's like if you have this friend that's an awesome guy and you love being around him, but he keeps kicking dogs. You can choose to just run with your hands-off approach where if one thing doesn't please you about something, you simply leave that person never to talk to him again, or you can decide that you want to try and change him to stop kicking dogs. And if you can't manage that, maybe you could compromise and have him kick seagulls instead. No one likes seagulls anyway.

You don't actually seem to read what he says, based on your reply. Do you just make it up in your head what you think the opposition says?

XenosTerminus wrote:
Yes. it's popular for a reason.

Two reasons, actually. The awesome fluff/models (which don't depend on the rules, or even playing the game at all), and GW's past business successes that have given them a near-monopoly in the tabletop wargaming industry and ensured that one of their games is always the default choice, and preferably the only choice that has enough players in your area.

If you do not like the current state of the game, why do you play it? Why do you continue to buy the books, models, and support a company who evidently is doing nothing right in your eyes?

As said previously, people can hate the game but still buy and play because they love the fluff/models, because they've invested a lot of time and money and don't want to throw it all away, because it's the only game their friends play, etc.

It's another thing entirely to continuously complain about something you have 100% control over, expecting different results every time you are disappointed.

Except we don't have 100% control over the problem. None of us have the power to change the rules and make the game work the way we want it to. Which is unfortunate, because most of us could probably do a better job of running the game than the incompetents at GW.

 Purifier wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
who evidently is doing nothing right in your eyes

He never actually said that. Quite the opposite, he said that the game is good but it has a lot of problems and he doesn't think highlighting them is a bad thing.

You see the world in black and white. "You're either with us or against us!" He doesn't.

It's like if you have this friend that's an awesome guy and you love being around him, but he keeps kicking dogs. You can choose to just run with your hands-off approach where if one thing doesn't please you about something, you simply leave that person never to talk to him again, or you can decide that you want to try and change him to stop kicking dogs. And if you can't manage that, maybe you could compromise and have him kick seagulls instead. No one likes seagulls anyway.

You don't actually seem to read what he says, based on your reply. Do you just make it up in your head what you think the opposition says?

I am generalizing. I don't find it necessary to meticulously reply to each individual sentence like some people do- and yes, I did read his entire response.

It's a general attitude held by a lot of people around here, that's all.

Basically anyone who claims they still like the game and are looking for ways to find the 'good' seem very quick to jump into a thread and comment on how 'terrible' the rules are.

Here's an example: anyone who religiously watches/follows a particular football team in the NFL. It's a love-hate relationship. They may absolutely hate the team or what they are doing during a particular season, but they continue to watch them regardless because they have hope and still love the sport. That is fine, I have no issue with that.

What I do find an issue with is the people that have this dedication but complain ALL SEASON about how the team is terrible, the coach makes bad calls, player X is really not doing anything right, etc. It's tiresome to watch games around these people that are overly negative for something they appear to care a great deal about. While some would argue it's passion that drives this attitude, these people need to understand that overly negative people/complainers are not enjoyable to be around or converse with.

So you still like the game? Great. Then actually find something positive to say or do with it. Be constructive in forum posts instead of only pointing out what is bad about the game.

 Blacksails wrote:
To me it only means that I'm drinking beer and eating pretzels.

AMAZING!

Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
To me it only means that I'm drinking beer and eating pretzels.

AMAZING!

I should also add that I'm not overly fond of pretzels.

 Blacksails wrote:

Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
To me it only means that I'm drinking beer and eating pretzels.

AMAZING!

I should also add that I'm not overly fond of pretzels.

Pretzels just make you more thirsty and actually absorb a portion of the alcohol, therefore REDUCE the enjoyment of a game involving alcohol.

This is science.

XenosTerminus wrote:


Pretzels just make you more thirsty and actually absorb a portion of the alcohol, therefore REDUCE the enjoyment of a game involving alcohol.

This is science.

Yeah, but then I'd just want to drink more.

Beer and Pretzels has a few different connotations in my eyes.

First, it’s a state of mind. You go into the game relaxed, playing for fun. Winning is nice, but secondary to having a good time.

A good B&P game should also be simple, fast, and fun. Inexpensive is nice, but not required.

While you can play 40k casually for fun, it is not a simple game. Too much prep work getting a game going, too many rules to explain to a new player. Something like Space Hulk: better as a B&P game.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I also take it to mean a casual gaming experience. More specifically it is a game that you don't necessarily need a lot of preparation or extensive background knowledge of the game, to play.

Currently my "beer and pretzels" game of choice is Zombicide. Its fast to set up, easy to teach, but provides a lot of fun for gamers and non-gamers alike. You can definitely drink and still play the game (relatively) well.

In my stinky opinion 40k isn't a beer and pretzels game unless you use the very broad definition of "casual gaming experience" or you are referring to the intended play style. I very much believe GW intends for 40k to be a casual gaming experience, but the game fails to achieve that goal based on the amount of material that you need to consume as a player (rules, models ect.) making it anything but a casual experience.

Battletech is still labeled by some as a beer and pretzels game, and I think in 1984 when it first started it was. But in the last 30 years rules and unit expansions have made it a convoluted mess that is rather daunting to start up. Still, you can recreate that basic, fun play style of the original game but you just have to work at it a bit. I think 40k is in the same boat. Years of expansion have bloated it to the point where you need a virtual library of rule books and appendices in order to play.

Battletech's core rules are virtually identical to what they were when released. Battletech and 40k should never ever be mentioned in the same sentence when discussing rules

For me it means casual play for fun with your friends.
Playing a game and spending half the time cracking tasteless jokes and making phallic references

 Peregrine wrote:
As said previously, people can hate the game but still buy and play because they love the fluff/models, because they've invested a lot of time and money and don't want to throw it all away, because it's the only game their friends play, etc.

If you hate the game why do you play it then, just because you spent some money doesn't mean you have to ability to tell the company how it should run its business model. Remember just because you buy a product does not make that company your bitch. They do what they need to do to make money, and if you love this company so much wouldn't you want it to continue to make profits so it can continue to exist?

 Peregrine wrote:
Except we don't have 100% control over the problem. None of us have the power to change the rules and make the game work the way we want it to. Which is unfortunate, because most of us could probably do a better job of running the game than the incompetents at GW.

Here's an idea, instead of complaining that the company you claim to love it changing things in a way you don't like just agree to play by the previous rule set. Look at D&D, some people don't like 4th Edition so you know what they do... they play using a previous editions rules that they actually liked. When I see people like you complain that this company, which owes them nothing, changed things without asking for the permission of each and every person who spent any amount of money on the game, all I see is a 5 year old who is throwing a tantrum.

Wow, it's Black/White Thinking day here at the Dakka outpatient ward.

Things can be really bad in one way, and still be an overall pleasant experience. LIke every single romantic relationship in the history of mankind.

the 40k hobby can be awesome, while the rules are substandard.

40IsTerrible wrote:
Look at D&D, some people don't like 4th Edition so you know what they do... they play using a previous editions rules that they actually liked.

If D&D had the kind of pick-up games that 40k does, this might have been a relevant comparison. If D&D had you buying armies for a certain rulebook for hundreds if not thousands of dollars, this might have been a relevant comparison.
None of those are true though. In 40k, you build an army based on what codex you are playing, so if different people play different editions and have bought armies for different editions (what units you buy changes. Don't deny it.) it's gonna be even harder than normal to get a pick up game in this niche universe that playing 40k is. In 40k you're halfway forced to go with the latest edition because in order to get games we have to find a common edition, and "the latest" is the easiest and the one that makes most sense.

In D&D all you have to do is sit down and join the game. If the DM says it's edition 1, then that's that. It doesn't affect you to any large degree.

40IsTerrible wrote:
When I see people like you complain that this company, which owes them nothing, changed things without asking for the permission of each and every person who spent any amount of money on the game, all I see is a 5 year old who is throwing a tantrum.

I could say that about your complaining about people complaining. It's an incredibly low stance to take to simply say "everyone that doesn't agree with me are babies."

Also, D&D groups (and RPG groups in general) play the system the DM prefers. 40k requires finding an opponent, and using the standard, but lousy, rules is often easier then finding players willing to use other rules.

XenosTerminus wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
who evidently is doing nothing right in your eyes

He never actually said that. Quite the opposite, he said that the game is good but it has a lot of problems and he doesn't think highlighting them is a bad thing.

You see the world in black and white. "You're either with us or against us!" He doesn't.

It's like if you have this friend that's an awesome guy and you love being around him, but he keeps kicking dogs. You can choose to just run with your hands-off approach where if one thing doesn't please you about something, you simply leave that person never to talk to him again, or you can decide that you want to try and change him to stop kicking dogs. And if you can't manage that, maybe you could compromise and have him kick seagulls instead. No one likes seagulls anyway.

You don't actually seem to read what he says, based on your reply. Do you just make it up in your head what you think the opposition says?

I am generalizing. I don't find it necessary to meticulously reply to each individual sentence like some people do- and yes, I did read his entire response.

It's a general attitude held by a lot of people around here, that's all.

Basically anyone who claims they still like the game and are looking for ways to find the 'good' seem very quick to jump into a thread and comment on how 'terrible' the rules are.

Here's an example: anyone who religiously watches/follows a particular football team in the NFL. It's a love-hate relationship. They may absolutely hate the team or what they are doing during a particular season, but they continue to watch them regardless because they have hope and still love the sport. That is fine, I have no issue with that.

What I do find an issue with is the people that have this dedication but complain ALL SEASON about how the team is terrible, the coach makes bad calls, player X is really not doing anything right, etc. It's tiresome to watch games around these people that are overly negative for something they appear to care a great deal about. While some would argue it's passion that drives this attitude, these people need to understand that overly negative people/complainers are not enjoyable to be around or converse with.

So you still like the game? Great. Then actually find something positive to say or do with it. Be constructive in forum posts instead of only pointing out what is bad about the game.

Let's take your own approach here. If you don't like the content of the forums, DON'T VISIT THEM. Listening to you complain about people complaining about something doesn't add anything to the atmosphere. We don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We want GW to address problems with the rules. You are not enjoyable to be around or converse with.

JPong wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
who evidently is doing nothing right in your eyes

He never actually said that. Quite the opposite, he said that the game is good but it has a lot of problems and he doesn't think highlighting them is a bad thing.

You see the world in black and white. "You're either with us or against us!" He doesn't.

It's like if you have this friend that's an awesome guy and you love being around him, but he keeps kicking dogs. You can choose to just run with your hands-off approach where if one thing doesn't please you about something, you simply leave that person never to talk to him again, or you can decide that you want to try and change him to stop kicking dogs. And if you can't manage that, maybe you could compromise and have him kick seagulls instead. No one likes seagulls anyway.

You don't actually seem to read what he says, based on your reply. Do you just make it up in your head what you think the opposition says?

I am generalizing. I don't find it necessary to meticulously reply to each individual sentence like some people do- and yes, I did read his entire response.

It's a general attitude held by a lot of people around here, that's all.

Basically anyone who claims they still like the game and are looking for ways to find the 'good' seem very quick to jump into a thread and comment on how 'terrible' the rules are.

Here's an example: anyone who religiously watches/follows a particular football team in the NFL. It's a love-hate relationship. They may absolutely hate the team or what they are doing during a particular season, but they continue to watch them regardless because they have hope and still love the sport. That is fine, I have no issue with that.

What I do find an issue with is the people that have this dedication but complain ALL SEASON about how the team is terrible, the coach makes bad calls, player X is really not doing anything right, etc. It's tiresome to watch games around these people that are overly negative for something they appear to care a great deal about. While some would argue it's passion that drives this attitude, these people need to understand that overly negative people/complainers are not enjoyable to be around or converse with.

So you still like the game? Great. Then actually find something positive to say or do with it. Be constructive in forum posts instead of only pointing out what is bad about the game.

Let's take your own approach here. If you don't like the content of the forums, DON'T VISIT THEM. Listening to you complain about people complaining about something doesn't add anything to the atmosphere. We don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We want GW to address problems with the rules. You are not enjoyable to be around or converse with.

Oh but the forums do contain things I enjoy conversing about, and not everyone falls into the category I described. My point was there are too many overly negative people that sabotage perfectly reasonable discussions with their overly negative outlook on anything related to this hobby or the topic at hand.

Complaining about complainers =/= pointing out that people are overly negative about this hobby and need to reevaluate why they are in it in the first place.

GW will not address rules because of relentless moaning sessions about your distaste for their decisions in the far reaches of an internet forum. Nice try though.

 Purifier wrote:
If D&D had the kind of pick-up games that 40k does, this might have been a relevant comparison. If D&D had you buying armies for a certain rulebook for hundreds if not thousands of dollars, this might have been a relevant comparison. None of those are true though. In 40k, you build an army based on what codex you are playing, so if different people play different editions and have bought armies for different editions (what units you buy changes. Don't deny it.) it's gonna be even harder than normal to get a pick up game in this niche universe that playing 40k is. In 40k you're halfway forced to go with the latest edition because in order to get games we have to find a common edition, and "the latest" is the easiest and the one that makes most sense.

It is actually quote a spot on comparison in my opinion, if you've ever looked at the price of D&D books you would know that people spend large amounts of money on each edition to make sure they have everything they need to play. Also, there are plenty of one session adventures that are made to be "pick-up games." So maybe the "army" you are building is an army of books, if someone whom you want to play D&D with has an "army" of books from a different edition does that mean WoTC is ruining it's product because there two people have to act like actual adults and sit down and talk about how they want to proceed if they actually want to play a game together? How dare a company force people who spend money on their product actually have to come to some sort of agreement with another person before playing their game. Why would that do that to their customers, don't they know that they must continue to cater to each and every person who spent $5 on one of their products, instead of doing things that could make them the money they need to continue to function as a company?

 Purifier wrote:
In D&D all you have to do is sit down and join the game. If the DM says it's edition 1, then that's that. It doesn't affect you to any large degree.

In Warhammer all you have to do is sit down and decide which edition you want to play with. Seems exactly the same to me.

 Purifier wrote:
I could say that about your complaining about people complaining. It's an incredibly low stance to take to simply say "everyone that doesn't agree with me are babies."

So I'm not allowed to call someone out when they are acting like a child whose parents don't do exactly what they want? Besides didn't you just complain about me complaining? So doesn't that make you guilty of the same "low stance" you said I was taking? Also I didn't way "everyone that doesn't agree with me are babies" I said that complaining that the company isn't acting like your personal slave, reminds me of a 5 year old.

XenosTerminus wrote:
Complaining about complainers =/= pointing out that people are overly negative about this hobby and need to reevaluate why they are in it in the first place.

You're trying for some vague distinction between the two here. Let me tell you, you are complaining about complainers. Don't try to dress it up in a toga and call it Caesar.

 Purifier wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
Complaining about complainers =/= pointing out that people are overly negative about this hobby and need to reevaluate why they are in it in the first place.

You're trying for some vague distinction between the two here. Let me tell you, you are complaining about complainers. Don't try to dress it up in a toga and call it Caesar.

To me using the 'well you are just complaining that I am complaining' statement is just a scapegoat to ignore or excuse the fact you are being negative. Or, to put it another way, getting butt-hurt when someone calls you out.

Fine. I am complaining about complainers. At the very least I am not complaining about the game, just really negative people. I think that is justified.

 Polonius wrote:
Also, D&D groups (and RPG groups in general) play the system the DM prefers. 40k requires finding an opponent, and using the standard, but lousy, rules is often easier then finding players willing to use other rules.

You know what you do in D&D if you don't want to play by the edition that the DM chooses, you don't play with them. You tell them that if they want you to play the two of you are going to have to sit down and have an adult conversion and agree on an edition that you both can enjoy. I'm failing to understand why that is so much more difficult to do in 40k. If you don't like the rule edition that the other person wants to use, be an adult and talk to them.

40IsTerrible wrote:
If you hate the game why do you play it then, just because you spent some money doesn't mean you have to ability to tell the company how it should run its business model. Remember just because you buy a product does not make that company your bitch. They do what they need to do to make money, and if you love this company so much wouldn't you want it to continue to make profits so it can continue to exist?

The point you don't seem to understand is that many of our concerns are about GW's ability to continue making profits. GW is making bad business decisions and sacrificing long-term growth and stability in a desperate attempt to cover up their declining sales volume and make the next financial report look acceptable. And I'd say losing 25% of their value in one day is a pretty clear sign that the market is not impressed with their business model.

just agree to play by the previous rule set.

I don't think you understand how pickup games work. Interest in previous versions of 40k is pretty much nonexistent, and if you show up at your local store on 40k night and expect to play an older edition you're going to have a pretty lonely evening.

When I see people like you complain that this company, which owes them nothing, changed things without asking for the permission of each and every person who spent any amount of money on the game, all I see is a 5 year old who is throwing a tantrum.

The problem isn't that GW made changes that some people don't like, it's that GW continues to make incredibly stupid decisions that pretty much anyone who isn't a rabid GW fanboy disagrees with. You're doing the equivalent of white knighting for the restaurant that serves rotting food with shards of broken glass in it, and whining about how everyone is being so unfair and just "throwing a tantrum" because the chef didn't ask for their permission before putting shards of glass in the food.

40IsTerrible wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Also, D&D groups (and RPG groups in general) play the system the DM prefers. 40k requires finding an opponent, and using the standard, but lousy, rules is often easier then finding players willing to use other rules.

You know what you do in D&D if you don't want to play by the edition that the DM chooses, you don't play with them. You tell them that if they want you to play the two of you are going to have to sit down and have an adult conversion and agree on an edition that you both can enjoy. I'm failing to understand why that is so much more difficult to do in 40k. If you don't like the rule edition that the other person wants to use, be an adult and talk to them.

This is what broke up my group. We had most of us who wanted to pl;ay 4th and some who loathed it. I have not seen some of them in over a year.

The new group is a lot better though. We take two hours to start though, not form setting up, but sitting around and chatting and soscialising.
The 40k group is the same way, I have had to make our start time 12:00, just so we can start by 2:00 and it usaly takes us only 20min to set up.

40IsTerrible wrote:
It is actually quote a spot on comparison in my opinion, if you've ever looked at the price of D&D books you would know that people spend large amounts of money on each edition to make sure they have everything they need to play. Also, there are plenty of one session adventures that are made to be "pick-up games." So maybe the "army" you are building is an army of books, if someone whom you want to play D&D with has an "army" of books from a different edition does that mean WoTC is ruining it's product because there two people have to act like actual adults and sit down and talk about how they want to proceed if they actually want to play a game together? How dare a company force people who spend money on their product actually have to come to some sort of agreement with another person before playing their game. Why would that do that to their customers, don't they know that they must continue to cater to each and every person who spent $5 on one of their products, instead of doing things that could make them the money they need to continue to function as a company?

Except it's the DM that makes that investment and everyone else just plays the game he provides. It's not 5 people sat down with each his own 1000 dollars worth of equipment. Your point is baffling in its inaccuracy.

40IsTerrible wrote:

In Warhammer all you have to do is sit down and decide which edition you want to play with. Seems exactly the same to me.

Yeah, except of course for the DM having a judge's high seat to lay down the law, while in 40k it's 2-4 people that all have to agree on things while having the same "worth" if you will. So nothing at all alike, actually.

40IsTerrible wrote:

So I'm not allowed to call someone out when they are acting like a child whose parents don't do exactly what they want? Besides didn't you just complain about me complaining? So doesn't that make you guilty of the same "low stance" you said I was taking?

I did, and I did it hoping that you would remark on it, as that means you understood it and then realised what you were doing. Treating you like you are treating others, that's my device.

40IsTerrible wrote:
Also I didn't way "everyone that doesn't agree with me are babies" I said that complaining that the company isn't acting like your personal slave, reminds me of a 5 year old.

You implied it incredibly strongly. Don't start denying it, I'm not a blind idiot, so don't start treating me like one. And since you're nitpicking on what words were used to say it you didn't say what you claimed, you said:

When I see people like you complain that this company, which owes them nothing, changed things without asking for the permission of each and every person who spent any amount of money on the game, all I see is a 5 year old who is throwing a tantrum.

"When I see people like you ... I see a 5 year old throwing a tantrum"
Oh of course that's not implying that the people that think differently than you are babies. Sure. Ok.
People had a problem with a game that has nothing to do with you personally and you stood up and said when I see people like you people, I see babies throwing tantrums!
And you still seem to think that's a perfectly legitimate and not condescending way to talk to anyone.

I do want to congratulate those brave posters that heroically fight to oppose reckless bashing of GW's rules. So now, instead of discussing the ruleset, or god forbid the actual topic, we get to talk about why your complaining is good and other complaining is bad.

Kudos!

XenosTerminus wrote:
What I tire of in every thread that appears with this topic are the poisonous people that show up and bombast the ruleset, yet continue to support the very thing they belittle.

And if they don't support it? Evidently they must enjoy complaining to other hobbyists who often want nothing more than to find the positives/make the experience positive. I really don't know anymore.

I don't understand this mindset. At all.

What you're saying is that people cannot buy a product (repeatedly) and say things like "It's good, but...".
And if they don't buy the product because of the "but..." then they should have no voice either.

So you only want to be surrounded by people who laud something that's demonstrably flawed?

edit: If you bought it, don't complain. If you didn't buy it, why are you complaining.
That just doesn't make sense to me.

 Peregrine wrote:
The point you don't seem to understand is that many of our concerns are about GW's ability to continue making profits. GW is making bad business decisions and sacrificing long-term growth and stability in a desperate attempt to cover up their declining sales volume and make the next financial report look acceptable. And I'd say losing 25% of their value in one day is a pretty clear sign that the market is not impressed with their business model.

I actually understand that many of your concerns, while you claim to care about their long term stability, is simply your way of covering up the fact that you don;it like some rule changes. GW's stock in 2008 was at 123.00, even with their recent drop they are at 527.50. I would say that any company whose stock goes up over 400% in 5 years is doing a little something right in their business decisions. So that leads me to believe that you are using that as a cover so you can complain that they are changing rules in ways you don't like. Since they didn't design the game around your sole solitary expectations, there is a chance that you might not like their changes.

 Peregrine wrote:
I don't think you understand how pickup games work. Interest in previous versions of 40k is pretty much nonexistent, and if you show up at your local store on 40k night and expect to play an older edition you're going to have a pretty lonely evening.

Then maybe if you want to play 40k by the rules that you enjoy you should go a little bit out of your way to find someone who likes that rule set. When I want to play a version of D&D I actually go out and find people who will agree to play by those rules also.

 Peregrine wrote:
Since they didn't design the game around your sole solitary expectations, there is a chance that you might not like their changeSince they didn't design the game around your sole solitary expectations, there is a chance that you might not like their changes.]Since they didn't design the game around your sole solitary expectations, there is a chance that you might not like their changes.The problem isn't that GW made changes that some people don't like, it's that GW continues to make incredibly stupid decisions that pretty much anyone who isn't a rabid GW fanboy disagrees with. You're doing the equivalent of white knighting for the restaurant that serves rotting food with shards of broken glass in it, and whining about how everyone is being so unfair and just "throwing a tantrum" because the chef didn't ask for their permission before putting shards of glass in the food.

This is probably the thing about your reply that makes the least amount of sense. A better analogy would be that a thia restaurant you like slowly, but surely, makes changes to their menu and becoming a greek restaurant. You, however, don't like these changes so even though the restaurant is growing larger and making more money, so you go back to your place and complain that they aren't making the food you like anymore and how dare they not ask you exactly how you would like them to run their business.

rigeld2 wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
What I tire of in every thread that appears with this topic are the poisonous people that show up and bombast the ruleset, yet continue to support the very thing they belittle.

And if they don't support it? Evidently they must enjoy complaining to other hobbyists who often want nothing more than to find the positives/make the experience positive. I really don't know anymore.

I don't understand this mindset. At all.

What you're saying is that people cannot buy a product (repeatedly) and say things like "It's good, but...".
And if they don't buy the product because of the "but..." then they should have no voice either.

So you only want to be surrounded by people who laud something that's demonstrably flawed?

edit: If you bought it, don't complain. If you didn't buy it, why are you complaining.
That just doesn't make sense to me.

Let's take GW out of the equation here.

Would you continue to purchase products from a company if you:

A) Found their products to be flawed or inferior in any way, or they did not meet your standards

B) You disprove of the company and it's policies

C) There are alternatives available that do not have problems A and B?

Let's say you buy a car and it has issues/the company does not seem to care about it's customers. Would you buy a car from them the following year? The year after?

No, you wouldn't. Despite this, many of the naysayers continue to support the very thing they hate.

Many of you call people that try to stymie complaining 'GW apologists'. I am not excusing GW for anything. I personally don't find many of the complaints to be an issue FOR ME, but I don't find it necessary or productive to hop into discussions and needlessly complain about things.

 Purifier wrote:
Except it's the DM that makes that investment and everyone else just plays the game he provides. It's not 5 people sat down with each his own 1000 dollars worth of equipment. Your point is baffling in its inaccuracy.

This quote baffles me to the point of wondering if you've ever played D&D. If you had you would know that the vast majority of the time everyone that comes to the table has a pile of books. The DM has all of his DM Guides, plus all the monster manuals, plus any books relating to the setting he is playing. The players also come with a stack of books, all the players manuals, the player guides for the settings they are playing, and any extra books that they might feel would help them. So each player would be bringing a decent amount of money to the table, Your point is baffling in its complete ignorance.

 Purifier wrote:
Yeah, except of course for the DM having a judge's high seat to lay down the law, while in 40k it's 2-4 people that all have to agree on things while having the same "worth" if you will. So nothing at all alike, actually.

It is quite alike, actually, while the DM might have the judge's high seat to lay down the law on things that go on once the campaign is started he's just a member of the group prior to that. So you know what you do if you don't like the edition the DM wants to use, you put on your big boy pants and tell them that you do not want to play that edition. Sounds like something you could do with 40k also, just saying.

 Purifier wrote:
I did, and I did it hoping that you would remark on it, as that means you understood it and then realised what you were doing. Treating you like you are treating others, that's my device.

So your device, this thing you rely on, is to be a hypocrite and try to make it seem that it means you are taking the high road?

 Purifier wrote:
You implied it incredibly strongly. Don't start denying it, I'm not a blind idiot, so don't start treating me like one.
Oh of course that's not implying that the people that think differently than you are babies. Sure. Ok.
People had a problem with a game that has nothing to do with you personally and you stood up and said when I see people like you people, I see babies throwing tantrums!
And you still seem to think that's a perfectly legitimate and not condescending way to talk to anyone.

First, I never said I wasn't being condescending, if someone is acting like a spoiled child who didn't get their way I have no qualms about letting them know how they are acting. What I didn't do is say that anyone who disagrees with me is acting like a child, those were your words. It has nothing to do with either agreeing or disagreeing with me, if you are acting like a child you are acting like a child... simple as that.

XenosTerminus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
What I tire of in every thread that appears with this topic are the poisonous people that show up and bombast the ruleset, yet continue to support the very thing they belittle.

And if they don't support it? Evidently they must enjoy complaining to other hobbyists who often want nothing more than to find the positives/make the experience positive. I really don't know anymore.

I don't understand this mindset. At all.

What you're saying is that people cannot buy a product (repeatedly) and say things like "It's good, but...".
And if they don't buy the product because of the "but..." then they should have no voice either.

So you only want to be surrounded by people who laud something that's demonstrably flawed?

edit: If you bought it, don't complain. If you didn't buy it, why are you complaining.
That just doesn't make sense to me.

Let's take GW out of the equation here.

Would you continue to purchase products from a company if you:

A) Found their products to be flawed or inferior in any way, or they did not meet your standards

B) You disprove of the company and it's policies

C) There are alternatives available that do not have problems A and B?

Let's say you buy a car and it has issues/the company does not seem to care about it's customers. Would you buy a car from them the following year? The year after?

No, you wouldn't. Despite this, many of the naysayers continue to support the very thing they hate.

Many of you call people that try to stymie complaining 'GW apologists'. I am not excusing GW for anything. I personally don't find many of the complaints to be an issue FOR ME, but I don't find it necessary or productive to hop into discussions and needlessly complain about things.

A) Yes, if they were good products with some flaws.

B) Yes, I don't take much stock in company policies but rather judge them on their products.

C) Yeah, if the product is inferior or if my experience with the product is inferior. In this case, 40k is the only game I am gonna find anyone to play against me with, so any other product fails that test.

No, you wouldn't.

I just told you I would, don't put words in my mouth.

clively wrote:
GW states that 40k is meant to be a "beer and pretzels" game. I believe they are off their rocker.

So, what does "beer and pretzels" mean to you? Is there an amount of time such a game should take? Is there a community aspect, meaning something played by more than two people at a time? Should it be something you could teach in 2 minutes or less and for that player to have a reasonable chance of success?

To me games like poker or even Yahtzee qualify. But what is a good definition we could use? And, does 40k qualify?

It means something casual you can put together quick.. end quick and randomly use to show your buddies how much smarter/better you are than them in that 30 second window. ( IE winning a hand of poker and screaming I am the greatest player ever)

40k is not beer and pretzel by any means. I have two sets of friends, my gaming buddies and my beer and pretzel buddies. I have many times tried to bring the two together and the second you even hold up the BRB my beer buddies laugh and tell me to eff off and return to ping pong, or cards or rockband. Any game you that requires you to read multiple books and contains strategy, list building and playing, is far from being casual beer drinking level of games. To me anyway.

To me... "B&P" means a relaxing game with non-optomized armies or lists. The kinds of games we used to play in each other's basements or dining rooms. Playing an army because it's pretty, quirky or fluffy instead of good.

40IsTerrible wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
Except it's the DM that makes that investment and everyone else just plays the game he provides. It's not 5 people sat down with each his own 1000 dollars worth of equipment. Your point is baffling in its inaccuracy.

This quote baffles me to the point of wondering if you've ever played D&D. If you had you would know that the vast majority of the time everyone that comes to the table has a pile of books. The DM has all of his DM Guides, plus all the monster manuals, plus any books relating to the setting he is playing. The players also come with a stack of books, all the players manuals, the player guides for the settings they are playing, and any extra books that they might feel would help them. So each player would be bringing a decent amount of money to the table, Your point is baffling in its complete ignorance.

 Purifier wrote:
Yeah, except of course for the DM having a judge's high seat to lay down the law, while in 40k it's 2-4 people that all have to agree on things while having the same "worth" if you will. So nothing at all alike, actually.

It is quite alike, actually, while the DM might have the judge's high seat to lay down the law on things that go on once the campaign is started he's just a member of the group prior to that. So you know what you do if you don't like the edition the DM wants to use, you put on your big boy pants and tell them that you do not want to play that edition. Sounds like something you could do with 40k also, just saying.

 Purifier wrote:
I did, and I did it hoping that you would remark on it, as that means you understood it and then realised what you were doing. Treating you like you are treating others, that's my device.

So your device, this thing you rely on, is to be a hypocrite and try to make it seem that it means you are taking the high road?

 Purifier wrote:
You implied it incredibly strongly. Don't start denying it, I'm not a blind idiot, so don't start treating me like one.
Oh of course that's not implying that the people that think differently than you are babies. Sure. Ok.
People had a problem with a game that has nothing to do with you personally and you stood up and said when I see people like you people, I see babies throwing tantrums!
And you still seem to think that's a perfectly legitimate and not condescending way to talk to anyone.

First, I never said I wasn't being condescending, if someone is acting like a spoiled child who didn't get their way I have no qualms about letting them know how they are acting. What I didn't do is say that anyone who disagrees with me is acting like a child, those were your words. It has nothing to do with either agreeing or disagreeing with me, if you are acting like a child you are acting like a child... simple as that.

1) I've played D&D and never bought a single book. In fact, no one at the table but the DM had bought anything.
2) That's not true. The rulebook that the DM has bought will sway people. If you want to go with a different edition, you basically have to be the one to buy the new rulebook. In 40k there is a much more accepted standard of "well, we have to get the latest book, now that it's out."
3) I never try to take the high road. I get into the muck with you. You don't deserve someone that takes the high road to discuss things with you.
4) No one was acting like a child but you. Until I came along.

 Purifier wrote:

C) Yeah, if the product is inferior or if my experience with the product is inferior. In this case, 40k is the only game I am gonna find anyone to play against me with, so any other product fails that test.

Wow, so you don't know anyone who plays anything other than 40k? You don't anyone who plays card games of any kind, even something as simple as War? You don't have a computer or a gaming console? Not a single person? I'm sorry, hearing that makes me kinda sad for you. Do you need a hug?

40IsTerrible wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

C) Yeah, if the product is inferior or if my experience with the product is inferior. In this case, 40k is the only game I am gonna find anyone to play against me with, so any other product fails that test.

Wow, so you don't know anyone who plays anything other than 40k? You don't anyone who plays card games of any kind, even something as simple as War? You don't have a computer or a gaming console? Not a single person? I'm sorry, hearing that makes me kinda sad for you. Do you need a hug?

Clearly that's exactly what I meant. Atleast I have you playing the idiot, so I guess my statement wasn't entirely true.

Ultimately the definition of a 'Beer and Pretzels' game will differ for everyone individually.

While 40k may not meet many of the traditional or standard definitions, I don't think it can be argued that the game is a 'more involved game meant to be played for fun'.

 Purifier wrote:

Clearly that's exactly what I meant. Atleast I have you playing the idiot, so I guess my statement wasn't entirely true.

Well at least you made a friend now We can play war together so that way you can stop complaining about how hard it is to have adult conversations about which rule edition to use, and how the big bad company made lots of money but isn't listening to what you want and that makes you mad. Don't worry I'll listen to your childish rants while we play cards.

XenosTerminus wrote:
Would you continue to purchase products from a company if you:

A) Found their products to be flawed or inferior in any way, or they did not meet your standards

I already do. I pay for Xbox Live despite the fact that I abhor the idea of paying for a service like that.
I buy Modern Warfare games despite the fact that their netcode is horrible and I dislike how they do sniper rifles.

B) You disprove of the company and it's policies

It depends. I buy a lot of technology and disagree with many of the policies many tech companies have with respect to "offshoring".

C) There are alternatives available that do not have problems A and B?

Literally no such thing. At all.

Let's say you buy a car and it has issues/the company does not seem to care about it's customers. Would you buy a car from them the following year? The year after?

It depends. There's no yes or no answer here.

No, you wouldn't. Despite this, many of the naysayers continue to support the very thing they hate.

It's cute that you think you can read my mind, especially when you're wrong.

I played Everquest for a decade - as a monk - despite how marginalized non-rogue DPS was for a very long time.
I did so because - and here's what you've completely and utterly failed to understand - I still had fun playing with my friends and guildmates. The fact that I also complained and pushed for change using reasonable arguments on their official forums has nothing to do with my enjoyment of the game.
Just one example of my enjoying something I do while simultaneously wanting to do something to improve my enjoyment.

Many of you call people that try to stymie complaining 'GW apologists'. I am not excusing GW for anything. I personally don't find many of the complaints to be an issue FOR ME, but I don't find it necessary or productive to hop into discussions and needlessly complain about things.

It's needless? I'm surprised.
And, from what I could tell from the OP, this kind of feedback was literally exactly what he wanted.

Simmer down please, gentlemen.

And a beer and pretzel's game to a hard core historial simulator player is very different from somebody that finds 40k complicated.

30 years ago, a game like Axis and Allies was seen as B&P compared to Advanced Squad Leader. For a lot of people Axis and allies is too complex.

I haven't read the thread, but I suppose I owe my $0.02.

Beer and pretzels, to me, means that the game is intended to be played at the same time one would drink beer and eat snack foods. That is to say, at parties, at a buddy's house, even in an FLGS if it has a BYOB policy (or a beer license).

This tells me that the intent of the game is to be entertaining and fun, and is meant for young adults (who can drink) but not for children at all. Older adults are, of course, accepted, but I would not expect to see them at my buddy's house or at the type of parties I go to.

A&A trends out of the beer and pretzels category for me because of the time investment rather than the rules complexity (or lack thereof).

rigeld2 wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
Would you continue to purchase products from a company if you:

A) Found their products to be flawed or inferior in any way, or they did not meet your standards

I already do. I pay for Xbox Live despite the fact that I abhor the idea of paying for a service like that.
I buy Modern Warfare games despite the fact that their netcode is horrible and I dislike how they do sniper rifles.

B) You disprove of the company and it's policies

It depends. I buy a lot of technology and disagree with many of the policies many tech companies have with respect to "offshoring".

C) There are alternatives available that do not have problems A and B?

Literally no such thing. At all.

Let's say you buy a car and it has issues/the company does not seem to care about it's customers. Would you buy a car from them the following year? The year after?

It depends. There's no yes or no answer here.

No, you wouldn't. Despite this, many of the naysayers continue to support the very thing they hate.

It's cute that you think you can read my mind, especially when you're wrong.

I played Everquest for a decade - as a monk - despite how marginalized non-rogue DPS was for a very long time.
I did so because - and here's what you've completely and utterly failed to understand - I still had fun playing with my friends and guildmates. The fact that I also complained and pushed for change using reasonable arguments on their official forums has nothing to do with my enjoyment of the game.
Just one example of my enjoying something I do while simultaneously wanting to do something to improve my enjoyment.

Many of you call people that try to stymie complaining 'GW apologists'. I am not excusing GW for anything. I personally don't find many of the complaints to be an issue FOR ME, but I don't find it necessary or productive to hop into discussions and needlessly complain about things.

It's needless? I'm surprised.
And, from what I could tell from the OP, this kind of feedback was literally exactly what he wanted.

If you continue to support products/companies that you find to be lacking that is your decision. Just note that this is the reason many companies do not change policies despite what are perceived as common complaints/criticism. That's really the crux of the issue.

A lot of the people that have been playing this game for a long time, often as far back as Rogue Trader, are the most vocal about what they dislike about it, yet continue oil the cog.

You are literally fueling the fire and complaining while pouring on the gasoline.

XenosTerminus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
Would you continue to purchase products from a company if you:

A) Found their products to be flawed or inferior in any way, or they did not meet your standards

I already do. I pay for Xbox Live despite the fact that I abhor the idea of paying for a service like that.
I buy Modern Warfare games despite the fact that their netcode is horrible and I dislike how they do sniper rifles.

B) You disprove of the company and it's policies

It depends. I buy a lot of technology and disagree with many of the policies many tech companies have with respect to "offshoring".

C) There are alternatives available that do not have problems A and B?

Literally no such thing. At all.

Let's say you buy a car and it has issues/the company does not seem to care about it's customers. Would you buy a car from them the following year? The year after?

It depends. There's no yes or no answer here.

No, you wouldn't. Despite this, many of the naysayers continue to support the very thing they hate.

It's cute that you think you can read my mind, especially when you're wrong.

I played Everquest for a decade - as a monk - despite how marginalized non-rogue DPS was for a very long time.
I did so because - and here's what you've completely and utterly failed to understand - I still had fun playing with my friends and guildmates. The fact that I also complained and pushed for change using reasonable arguments on their official forums has nothing to do with my enjoyment of the game.
Just one example of my enjoying something I do while simultaneously wanting to do something to improve my enjoyment.

Many of you call people that try to stymie complaining 'GW apologists'. I am not excusing GW for anything. I personally don't find many of the complaints to be an issue FOR ME, but I don't find it necessary or productive to hop into discussions and needlessly complain about things.

It's needless? I'm surprised.
And, from what I could tell from the OP, this kind of feedback was literally exactly what he wanted.

If you continue to support products/companies that you find to be lacking that is your decision. Just note that this is the reason many companies do not change policies despite what are perceived as common complaints/criticism. That's really the crux of the issue.

A lot of the people that have been playing this game for a long time, often as far back as Rogue Trader, are the most vocal about what they dislike about it, yet continue oil the cog.

You are literally fueling the fire and complaining while pouring on the gasoline.

You just refuse to see the grey area, don't you? It's just all so black and white to you. Do or don't! No middle ground!

clively wrote:
GW states that 40k is meant to be a "beer and pretzels" game. I believe they are off their rocker.

So, what does "beer and pretzels" mean to you? Is there an amount of time such a game should take? Is there a community aspect, meaning something played by more than two people at a time? Should it be something you could teach in 2 minutes or less and for that player to have a reasonable chance of success?

To me games like poker or even Yahtzee qualify. But what is a good definition we could use? And, does 40k qualify?

It means to me a non serious game played for fun with other people.

I have been collecting 40K miniatures since Rogue Trader days but only started playing the game in the 6th edition. It does seem odd to me that GW made the bear and pretzel statement. They almost seem to me to be saying that they want the rules to be like D&D, where many DMs play their own version of the game. Every group I have played D&D used a customized version of the game. (which works due to the closed group) The huge problem with this for me is that the majority of my 40K games are pickup games and you really can't have different versions of 40k every time you want to play the game with someone. I don't think a game can be a beer and pretzels type of game and still enable strangers to have pickup games. Not unless the game has very precise rules with little need to house rule everything.

I don't have a problem with the current rules, but it does take a good amount of negotiations to get a game going that meets both players expectations.

In my opinion the beer and pretzels statement was made to just give GW an excuse so people could not blame them for problems in their game systems. You have a problem with balance? Sorry its just beer and pretzels, don't take it so serious! I think GW is forgetting that beer and pretzels is supposed to mean having fun with other people. To do that you do have to have good rules that provide at least some balance and clarity.

 Warboss Gobslag wrote:
In my opinion the beer and pretzels statement was made to just give GW an excuse so people could not blame them for problems in their game systems. You have a problem with balance? Sorry its just beer and pretzels, don't take it so serious! I think GW is forgetting that beer and pretzels is supposed to mean having fun with other people. To do that you do have to have good rules that provide at least some balance and clarity.

I agree

I've played MtG over beer and pretzels many times and find it a much better game because the rules are known and consistent. I don't have to play a card and then take a poll on if it is usable.

In my opinion there isn't much room for gray areas or neutrality when it comes to the expectations some people have for GW/40k in general.

The reason? The outspoken tend to be the most 'experienced' players, or those that have watched how GW has been designing this game for over a decade. The inability for some people to not see trends or realize what is manifesting itself in front of their own eyes.

To many, 40k really is Black/White. A codex is either good or bad. An edition is either good or bad. The rules are either good or bad.

The truth that circles back to the original topic? 40k is a game that has always been designed/intended to be played for fun, regardless if that fits the definition of 'beer and pretzels'.

It's hard to be objective when you have such a limited view on the game, but it is far easier to accept 40k for its flaws when you realize how the designers intend the game to be played/encourage you to play it.

Barfolomew wrote:

 Warboss Gobslag wrote:
In my opinion the beer and pretzels statement was made to just give GW an excuse so people could not blame them for problems in their game systems. You have a problem with balance? Sorry its just beer and pretzels, don't take it so serious! I think GW is forgetting that beer and pretzels is supposed to mean having fun with other people. To do that you do have to have good rules that provide at least some balance and clarity.

I agree

I've played MtG over beer and pretzels many times and find it a much better game because the rules are known and consistent. I don't have to play a card and then take a poll on if it is usable.

Obviously you didn't play the same MtG that I did. I got out of that game faster than water out of the Sun - hated getting my tribal Angel deck's face beaten in by players who had the money and time to build decks that basically were themeless but kicked ass.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Barfolomew wrote:

 Warboss Gobslag wrote:
In my opinion the beer and pretzels statement was made to just give GW an excuse so people could not blame them for problems in their game systems. You have a problem with balance? Sorry its just beer and pretzels, don't take it so serious! I think GW is forgetting that beer and pretzels is supposed to mean having fun with other people. To do that you do have to have good rules that provide at least some balance and clarity.

I agree

I've played MtG over beer and pretzels many times and find it a much better game because the rules are known and consistent. I don't have to play a card and then take a poll on if it is usable.

Obviously you didn't play the same MtG that I did. I got out of that game faster than water out of the Sun - hated getting my tribal Angel deck's face beaten in by players who had the money and time to build decks that basically were themeless but kicked ass.

So WH40k=MTG

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Barfolomew wrote:

 Warboss Gobslag wrote:
In my opinion the beer and pretzels statement was made to just give GW an excuse so people could not blame them for problems in their game systems. You have a problem with balance? Sorry its just beer and pretzels, don't take it so serious! I think GW is forgetting that beer and pretzels is supposed to mean having fun with other people. To do that you do have to have good rules that provide at least some balance and clarity.

I agree

I've played MtG over beer and pretzels many times and find it a much better game because the rules are known and consistent. I don't have to play a card and then take a poll on if it is usable.

Obviously you didn't play the same MtG that I did. I got out of that game faster than water out of the Sun - hated getting my tribal Angel deck's face beaten in by players who had the money and time to build decks that basically were themeless but kicked ass.

The nice thing about MTG though is WOTC has a strict tournament ruleset where things can be banned, answers can be printed, or entire strategies can be obsoleted simply with the introduction of new core mechanics.

40k doesn't have this luxury. Sometimes an answer to the current 'meta' appears with a new book, but it's far too inconsistent to expect any sort of reliable solution to what is unbalanced from a competitive perspective.

Anpu42 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Barfolomew wrote:

 Warboss Gobslag wrote:
In my opinion the beer and pretzels statement was made to just give GW an excuse so people could not blame them for problems in their game systems. You have a problem with balance? Sorry its just beer and pretzels, don't take it so serious! I think GW is forgetting that beer and pretzels is supposed to mean having fun with other people. To do that you do have to have good rules that provide at least some balance and clarity.

I agree

I've played MtG over beer and pretzels many times and find it a much better game because the rules are known and consistent. I don't have to play a card and then take a poll on if it is usable.

Obviously you didn't play the same MtG that I did. I got out of that game faster than water out of the Sun - hated getting my tribal Angel deck's face beaten in by players who had the money and time to build decks that basically were themeless but kicked ass.

So WH40k=MTG

Except I haven't experienced all of the dire problems that the internet says existed. My best friend plays Farsight Cadre with four Riptides, and the game's enjoyable. Another friend of mine plays Sisters and Orks. A third, Space Wolves and Eldar. A fourth, Black Templars and Imperial Fists. There's even more besides at the FLGS, but every game in 6th Edition has been fun. I really am not seeing what the Internet sees.

XenosTerminus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Barfolomew wrote:

 Warboss Gobslag wrote:
In my opinion the beer and pretzels statement was made to just give GW an excuse so people could not blame them for problems in their game systems. You have a problem with balance? Sorry its just beer and pretzels, don't take it so serious! I think GW is forgetting that beer and pretzels is supposed to mean having fun with other people. To do that you do have to have good rules that provide at least some balance and clarity.

I agree

I've played MtG over beer and pretzels many times and find it a much better game because the rules are known and consistent. I don't have to play a card and then take a poll on if it is usable.

Obviously you didn't play the same MtG that I did. I got out of that game faster than water out of the Sun - hated getting my tribal Angel deck's face beaten in by players who had the money and time to build decks that basically were themeless but kicked ass.

The nice thing about MTG though is WOTC has a strict tournament ruleset where things can be banned, answers can be printed, or entire strategies can be obsoleted simply with the introduction of new core mechanics.

40k doesn't have this luxury. Sometimes an answer to the current 'meta' appears with a new book, but it's far too inconsistent to expect any sort of reliable solution to what is unbalanced from a competitive perspective.

I didn't play in MTG tournaments and I don't play in 40k tournaments, so I fail to see how having a tournament ruleset would have helped me enjoy MTG more.

XenosTerminus wrote:
If you continue to support products/companies that you find to be lacking that is your decision. Just note that this is the reason many companies do not change policies despite what are perceived as common complaints/criticism. That's really the crux of the issue.

Good companies address the complaints/criticism.
And you're still ignoring the fact that your stance requires there to be zero criticism, ever. Because either I bought it and I shouldn't be criticizing something I bought, or I didn't buy it and why do I care if I didn't buy it.

In other words, your stance is pointless.

A lot of the people that have been playing this game for a long time, often as far back as Rogue Trader, are the most vocal about what they dislike about it, yet continue oil the cog.

Yup. And there's no problem with that at all.

You are literally fueling the fire and complaining while pouring on the gasoline.

Not really. You act like it angers me or that I expect change. I don't really. I just wish it would because it would make literally everything better.

To me "beer and pretzels" means a well balanced and simple game.

I am a competitive person. I've never played wargames competitively, but even in a casual game it is totally against my nature to do anything other than look to win. I can't NOT look at an army list and do the calculations, I can't NOT think about what will best see me win.

As such, 40k is a horrible beer and pretzels game IMO. It's far too unbalanced, both internally within armies, internally within it's core rules, and also unbalanced across armies.

I always found Fantasy a much better beer and pretzels game, but I mostly lost interest in that with 8th edition.

I still like the 40k universe, which is why for some strange reason I persist with it.

To me a 'Beer and Pretzel' game , means a game that is fast to learn and play .
Straight forward rules that deliver good game play with the minimum of fuss.
Because if you are drinking alcohol, you need well defined concise rules to prevent drink related 'incidents'.

And the games are generally fun focused for casual play.EG Pass The Pigs, Snakes and Ladders, etc.

XenosTerminus wrote:
In my opinion there isn't much room for gray areas or neutrality when it comes to the expectations some people have for GW/40k in general.

The reason? The outspoken tend to be the most 'experienced' players, or those that have watched how GW has been designing this game for over a decade. The inability for some people to not see trends or realize what is manifesting itself in front of their own eyes.

To many, 40k really is Black/White. A codex is either good or bad. An edition is either good or bad. The rules are either good or bad.

The truth that circles back to the original topic? 40k is a game that has always been designed/intended to be played for fun, regardless if that fits the definition of 'beer and pretzels'.

It's hard to be objective when you have such a limited view on the game, but it is far easier to accept 40k for its flaws when you realize how the designers intend the game to be played/encourage you to play it.

Tosh.

The "let's all hug and have a good time" philosophy is a flawed concept that has been used to excuse a poor quality product, and people like yourself perpetrate that philosophy as if it's some sort of ideal.

While it would be lovely if everyone was willing to 'play nice' and not go balls out to win, that the ruleset allows for someone to turn up to a game with a "fun" list and their opponent to turn up to play the same game with a "rofl stomp, all your kitties belong to me" list how is that fun?

Wouldn't it be better, assuming a pretty standard idea of 'fun' if two players could turn up for a game, having never met before, having brought the models they like, in fairly certain knowledge that any rules conflicts that arise can probably be resolved by a quick examination of the rules in question, can then engage in a game where their decisions and luck (to a lesser extent) determine the outcome?

Wouldn't it be better if anybody could design a list, that may be slightly above or below the power curve, but will always have at least a fighting chance of making a decent account of itself? Rather than having a game where the power imbalance is such that barring a massive statistical improbability, the outcome is essentially pre-determined?

I'm not even talking tourney games or against WAAC players, I've played friendly games with my BA against Tau and Eldar lists which in no way could be accused of spamming or cheese, and simply had no answer for the vast difference in quality of the two books. I'm not claiming to be some uber player, quite the opposite, but surely if two armies with a mix of units that aren't going out of their way to be spammy or abusive should, at the very least, be roughly approximate in power? How fun do you think those games were for me? I'll give you a clue, I have stuck with my daemons since, and haven't lost. Again, not running cheese or spam, but how fun do you think the game I played against a Necron player using a mono-Khorne list (hardly the strongest choice in the book) where I'd pretty much engaged his whole force in assault by turn 2 and simply had to roll dice until he went away, was for him?

The facts are simple- if the rules are tight, the attitude of the player is irrelevant, there is no need for a gentleman's agreement, there is no need to "accept the flaws" or play the game as "the designers intended" as the rules prevent any sort of abuse of loopholes, and by making units as balanced as possible, spam disappears, because there are no longer units that are demonstrably more efficient in a given FOC slot (or if there are, points costs naturally limit how many can be chosen)

You simply have no argument, if the rules were better, there would be no downside. Excusing a poor product means you are complicit in allowing the sort of poor behaviour from GW that they've demonstrated for so long. In fact, rather than those who you criticise for continuing to play while expressing negative opinions walking away, perhaps you wouldn't mind? Because your attitude is probably more hazardous to the long term health of 40K than anyone who criticises it.

I have never stated I am excusing GW for it's ruleset or that every camp wouldn't mutually benefit if it were of a higher standard.

The difference between the two mindsets is that I have accepted I cannot rely on GW to provide what you describe. I am not so blind or ignorant to even for a moment assume GW will remedy this problem for myself, or anyone.

If you cannot accept 40k for what it is, and always has been, you will never be happy, and will likely never stop complaining about it. No quantity of lengthy internet diatribe will change this.

Clearly there are problems. Nobody is denying that. The fallacy is assuming that the problem will go away on its own, or that GW will take care of it for us. This is not going to happen.

Just as in reality, a problem is only a problem until you find a solution to it.

If you cannot personally find a solution this problem, it's best to get rid of it entirely.I don't care how harsh this sounds, or if this offends anyone that has devoted a lot of time and money to this hobby.

It's just that- a hobby. This isn't life. It's ultimately irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Shockingly enough, the game is functional. It is still fun to play when you take a step back and just let go. Make it fun for you or cut it off. Nonstop negativity literally kills you.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Obviously you didn't play the same MtG that I did. I got out of that game faster than water out of the Sun - hated getting my tribal Angel deck's face beaten in by players who had the money and time to build decks that basically were themeless but kicked ass.

Here is the big difference. Using the same cards, WotC has about 8 different official formats one can choose to play. 4 are constructed, 3 are not pre-constructed decks. You have:

With official tournaments
1) Standard Constructed - Runs about $350 uses the 2 most recent blocks
2) Modern Constructed - Runs about $1000 uses the 9 (I think?) most recent blocks, has some banned cards.
3) Legacy Constructed - Runs about $2500 uses everything except for a limited number of banned cards.
4) Vintage Constructed - Runs about $3000 uses everything, though some cards are 1 of.
5) Draft - Runs about $15, open 3 boosters, each player picks a card and passes to their left or right, build your 40 card deck and play
6) Sealed - Runs about $25, open 6 boosters and build a deck

Intended for casual only
7) Commander Constructed - Runs up to $2000(?) uses everything except for a limited number of banned cards.
8) Cube - Runs up to $4000(?) for whomever builds the cube and power level. Everyone drafts, builds decks and plays.

I can also add layers on top of this by playing one of these officially supported formats.
- Two-headed giant
- Planechase
- Archenemy

A lot of people I know attend limited drafts and sealed events, use those cards in Standard Constructed decks (filling out the rest with single card trades or purchases), then move them to a Commander or casual constructed deck once they rotate out of Standard. The card gets multiple uses in multiple formats, even if it under performs at one of them.

If I buy a Space Marine, I can only play 40K and then, I can only play it in a Space Marine army. If my Space Marine army sucks, I'm screwed until they feel like updating it.

XenosTerminus wrote:
The difference between the two mindsets is that I have accepted I cannot rely on GW to provide what you describe. I am not so blind or ignorant to even for a moment assume GW will remedy this problem for myself, or anyone.

And you're assuming I do assume that. I don't.

If you cannot accept 40k for what it is, and always has been, you will never be happy, and will likely never stop complaining about it. No quantity of lengthy internet diatribe will change this.

Where have I said I'm not happy? That I don't enjoy playing?

If you cannot personally find a solution this problem, it's best to get rid of it entirely.I don't care how harsh this sounds, or if this offends anyone that has devoted a lot of time and money to this hobby.

It's just that- a hobby. This isn't life. It's ultimately irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Shockingly enough, the game is functional. It is still fun to play when you take a step back and just let go. Make it fun for you or cut it off. Nonstop negativity literally kills you.

... I've said it is fun to play. Are you telling me I'm not having fun simply because I'm complaining?

Care to actually respond, or do you just want to throw out strawman arguments like they're relevant to the discussion?

rigeld2 wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
The difference between the two mindsets is that I have accepted I cannot rely on GW to provide what you describe. I am not so blind or ignorant to even for a moment assume GW will remedy this problem for myself, or anyone.

And you're assuming I do assume that. I don't.

If you cannot accept 40k for what it is, and always has been, you will never be happy, and will likely never stop complaining about it. No quantity of lengthy internet diatribe will change this.

Where have I said I'm not happy? That I don't enjoy playing?

If you cannot personally find a solution this problem, it's best to get rid of it entirely.I don't care how harsh this sounds, or if this offends anyone that has devoted a lot of time and money to this hobby.

It's just that- a hobby. This isn't life. It's ultimately irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Shockingly enough, the game is functional. It is still fun to play when you take a step back and just let go. Make it fun for you or cut it off. Nonstop negativity literally kills you.

... I've said it is fun to play. Are you telling me I'm not having fun simply because I'm complaining?

Care to actually respond, or do you just want to throw out strawman arguments like they're relevant to the discussion?

Notice how I didn't directly reply to your comments.

My contribution was an overall comment to Dakka and the general Internet 40k community in general.

You are getting awfully defensive for something that was clearly not directed at you personally. If you don't care about any of this, why are you replying like you do?

Beer and Pretzels: The Total Opposite than what is going on here right now.

 Anpu42 wrote:
Beer and Pretzels: The Total Opposite than what is going on here right now.

Agreed, this is more like 'liquor and a regretful evening'

XenosTerminus wrote:
Notice how I didn't directly reply to your comments.

Yes, I've noticed how you carefully ignore anything that makes your stance look silly and instead just restate the same generic crap that has no basis in reality.

My contribution was an overall comment to Dakka and the general Internet 40k community in general.

No, it's not. It's directed at the people reading this thread (because no one else would read it) and, based on the fact that people have posted to disagree with you, while not addressed to specific people it's safe to assume it's directed at them.

You are getting awfully defensive for something that was clearly not directed at you personally. If you don't care about any of this, why are you replying like you do?

I'm not getting defensive. You're making comments without actually backing them up with reality about people who choose to complain about something. Since I choose to complain about something your comments are directed at me.

I asked you why you think your stance is sane given that, according to you, no one should ever complain. You've failed to explain that.
Instead you decided to wax philosophical to "the general Internet 40k community in general" and not respond to any comments that disagree with you.

This thread was literally created to hear if others think 40k qualifies as a beer and pretzels game. Your first post in the thread, instead of addressing that, mocked someone for deciding to play - even though he has fun doing so - for saying it wasn't a beer and pretzels game. Your black and white viewpoint just has no basis in reality and you're attempting to shove it onto everyone. Please stop.

Yes, I've noticed how you carefully ignore anything that makes your stance look silly and instead just restate the same generic crap that has no basis in reality.

I only feel it is necessary to reply to things that are directly related/relevant to the discussion.

No, it's not. It's directed at the people reading this thread (because no one else would read it) and, based on the fact that people have posted to disagree with you, while not addressed to specific people it's safe to assume it's directed at them.

Now you are making assumptions. I am dealing with generalizations because otherwise it becomes personal. Nothing good comes of that, as noted by how personal you are making this. Clearly something I said has struck a cord, otherwise you wouldn't be at my throat over what amounts to an opinion/observation.

I'm not getting defensive. You're making comments without actually backing them up with reality about people who choose to complain about something. Since I choose to complain about something your comments are directed at me.

I asked you why you think your stance is sane given that, according to you, no one should ever complain. You've failed to explain that.
Instead you decided to wax philosophical to "the general Internet 40k community in general" and not respond to any comments that disagree with you.

Backing what up? My point in this entire thread, other than explaining what I believe the definition of beer and pretzels and how it correlates to 40k is, is how overly negative a large portion of this community is, which breeds complaining. Dakka is renown for being incredibly volatile. The rep here isn't exactly overly positive.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I never stated nobody has a right to complain, just that people are complaining incessantly despite the circumstances beyond their control and with blatant solutions to their problems.

This thread was literally created to hear if others think 40k qualifies as a beer and pretzels game. Your first post in the thread, instead of addressing that, mocked someone for deciding to play - even though he has fun doing so - for saying it wasn't a beer and pretzels game. Your black and white viewpoint just has no basis in reality and you're attempting to shove it onto everyone. Please stop.

Mockery? How? And yes, this is very black and white. Complainers are complainers, and negativity breeds negativity.

XenosTerminus wrote:
Now you are putting words in my mouth. I never stated nobody has a right to complain, just that people are complaining incessantly despite the circumstances beyond their control and with blatant solutions to their problems.

No, you absolutely did say,

XenosTerminus wrote:
What I tire of in every thread that appears with this topic are the poisonous people that show up and bombast the ruleset, yet continue to support the very thing they belittle.

And if they don't support it? Evidently they must enjoy complaining to other hobbyists who often want nothing more than to find the positives/make the experience positive. I really don't know anymore.

So people can't complain if they keep buying it, and can't complain if they don't buy it. Those are your words.

Barfolomew wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Obviously you didn't play the same MtG that I did. I got out of that game faster than water out of the Sun - hated getting my tribal Angel deck's face beaten in by players who had the money and time to build decks that basically were themeless but kicked ass.

Here is the big difference. Using the same cards, WotC has about 8 different official formats one can choose to play. 4 are constructed, 3 are not pre-constructed decks. You have:

With official tournaments
1) Standard Constructed - Runs about $350 uses the 2 most recent blocks
2) Modern Constructed - Runs about $1000 uses the 9 (I think?) most recent blocks, has some banned cards.
3) Legacy Constructed - Runs about $2500 uses everything except for a limited number of banned cards.
4) Vintage Constructed - Runs about $3000 uses everything, though some cards are 1 of.
5) Draft - Runs about $15, open 3 boosters, each player picks a card and passes to their left or right, build your 40 card deck and play
6) Sealed - Runs about $25, open 6 boosters and build a deck

Intended for casual only
7) Commander Constructed - Runs up to $2000(?) uses everything except for a limited number of banned cards.
8) Cube - Runs up to $4000(?) for whomever builds the cube and power level. Everyone drafts, builds decks and plays.

I can also add layers on top of this by playing one of these officially supported formats.
- Two-headed giant
- Planechase
- Archenemy

A lot of people I know attend limited drafts and sealed events, use those cards in Standard Constructed decks (filling out the rest with single card trades or purchases), then move them to a Commander or casual constructed deck once they rotate out of Standard. The card gets multiple uses in multiple formats, even if it under performs at one of them.

If I buy a Space Marine, I can only play 40K and then, I can only play it in a Space Marine army. If my Space Marine army sucks, I'm screwed until they feel like updating it.

Either that stuff didn't exist when I played, or I didn't get into it. I was playing on cafeteria tables in my high school for about 3 years way back in the day (during the Apocalypse set iirc). The game isn't good for that kind of play, it seemed.

rigeld2 wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
Now you are putting words in my mouth. I never stated nobody has a right to complain, just that people are complaining incessantly despite the circumstances beyond their control and with blatant solutions to their problems.

No, you absolutely did say,

XenosTerminus wrote:
What I tire of in every thread that appears with this topic are the poisonous people that show up and bombast the ruleset, yet continue to support the very thing they belittle.

And if they don't support it? Evidently they must enjoy complaining to other hobbyists who often want nothing more than to find the positives/make the experience positive. I really don't know anymore.

So people can't complain if they keep buying it, and can't complain if they don't buy it. Those are your words.

Reading comprehension.

Nowhere in my comment do I state nobody has a right to complain. You can do whatever you want.

My point, as written, is that people CONTINUE to complain while simultaneously doing what caused them to complain in the first place, IE I am not happy with some aspect of GW, but still buy their products/use their rules as written.

Or if they don't support it still complain about something they are not invested in anymore.

Nowhere in there did I say they have no RIGHT to complain, just that they are, in fact, complaining regardless of their course of action.

Now, if you are done personally attacking/analyzing my comments out of context, let's move on.

Again with the binary, black and white thinking.

It is possible to like some aspects of a thing while disliking other aspects of a thing.

I find my Nike trainers comfortable to wear, I'm not entirely sure I'm as comfortable with some of the practices they are supposed to employ in their manufacture.

I still own Nike trainers.

 azreal13 wrote:
Again with the binary, black and white thinking.

It is possible to like some aspects of a thing while disliking other aspects of a thing.

I find my Nike trainers comfortable to wear, I'm not entirely sure I'm as comfortable with some of the practices they are supposed to employ in their manufacture.

I still own Nike trainers.

Yeah, that's fine.

But nobody wants to hear you complain about your Nike shoes every time you run a marathon, especially if there are more comfortable shoes available.

XenosTerminus wrote:
My point, as written, is that people CONTINUE to complain while simultaneously doing what caused them to complain in the first place, IE I am not happy with some aspect of GW, but still buy their products/use their rules as written.

Or if they don't support it still complain about something they are not invested in anymore.

Nowhere in there did I say they have no RIGHT to complain, just that they are, in fact, complaining regardless of their course of action.

Now, if you are done personally attacking/analyzing my comments out of context, let's move on.

So why even bring it up when it's completely off topic for the thread?
Either people can complain regardless of having purchased the product or not (and your statement is meaningless), or they can't (and your statements have meaning).

I'm not personally attacking you - I'm trying to understand your thought process that leads to you say things like that.
And again - I have fun with 40k despite the rules, not because of them. Feel free to complain about the fact that I'm going to complain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

XenosTerminus wrote:
But nobody wants to hear you complain about your Nike shoes every time you run a marathon, especially if there are more comfortable shoes available.

This thread says otherwise. The OP even goes into it a little bit.

XenosTerminus wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Again with the binary, black and white thinking.

It is possible to like some aspects of a thing while disliking other aspects of a thing.

I find my Nike trainers comfortable to wear, I'm not entirely sure I'm as comfortable with some of the practices they are supposed to employ in their manufacture.

I still own Nike trainers.

Yeah, that's fine.

But nobody wants to hear you complain about your Nike shoes every time you run a marathon, especially if there are more comfortable shoes available.

The fact that you are acting this shocked about a pretty common aspect of human behavior is far more interesting to me then your actual point.

People complain, even about voluntary things. It's what people do. Part of it is to help establish a shared emotional bond amongst a group.

Sure, there are times it gets annoying, but honestly, you're flame war over it is far more hurtful to people than the complaining.

There it is! I am literally at a 100% 'not surprised' success rate with people using this defense.

Just calling it as I see it.

What defense?

rigeld2 wrote:
What defense?

'you are complaining about complaining'

It's the natural response of someone who is deflecting or excusing their behavior after being called out for behaving a certain way.

XenosTerminus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
What defense?

'you are complaining about complaining'

It's the natural response of someone who is deflecting or excusing their behavior after being called out for behaving a certain way.

I absolutely accept that I'm complaining and still buying the product. I have no issues with it.
I'm trying to understand why you have issues with it. You've failed to explain that so far.

the thing is, it's valid defense on any practical ground.

What is the harm to complaining? It derails threads, and stifles conversations.

What is the harm in complaining about complaining? it derails thread, and stifles conversations.

I suppose you have the joy of feeling morally superior, but when you're doing more to fill a conversation with written feces then anybody else, its hard to think you actually care about the quality of the forum.

rigeld2 wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
What defense?

'you are complaining about complaining'

It's the natural response of someone who is deflecting or excusing their behavior after being called out for behaving a certain way.

I absolutely accept that I'm complaining and still buying the product. I have no issues with it.
I'm trying to understand why you have issues with it. You've failed to explain that so far.

It's impossible to have a mature/adult conversation in these forums pertaining to any topic related to GW rules without someone complaining.

Perhaps that means this isn't the right place for me, and I can accept that.

But life is stressful enough. Work, Marriage, Kids, etc.. the last thing I need is to walk into a maelstrom of negativity over something that is honestly supposed to be fun, and an escape from the actual problems in life.

But really, quite honestly, complaining is tiresome and irritating. I have a 3 year old. Guess what he does a lot? The last thing I want to hear is a bunch of grown men complaining over plastic army men.

I fully endorse and embrace actual discussions on this game and most things involved with it. I don't enjoy seeing what could be legitimate discussions on improving/making the best out of an admittedly imperfect game manifest into outlets for people to lash out and relieve stress.

TLDR, negativity sucks

XenosTerminus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
What defense?

'you are complaining about complaining'

It's the natural response of someone who is deflecting or excusing their behavior after being called out for behaving a certain way.

I absolutely accept that I'm complaining and still buying the product. I have no issues with it.
I'm trying to understand why you have issues with it. You've failed to explain that so far.

It's impossible to have a mature/adult conversation in these forums pertaining to any topic related to GW rules without someone complaining.

Perhaps that means this isn't the right place for me, and I can accept that.

But life is stressful enough. Work, Marriage, Kids, etc.. the last thing I need is to walk into a maelstrom of negativity over something that is honestly supposed to be fun, and an escape from the actual problems in life.

But really, quite honestly, complaining is tiresome and irritating. I have a 3 year old. Guess what he does a lot? The last thing I want to hear is a bunch of grown men complaining over plastic army men.

I fully endorse and embrace actual discussions on this game and most things involved with it. I don't enjoy seeing what could be legitimate discussions on improving/making the best out of an admittedly imperfect game manifest into outlets for people to lash out and relieve stress.

TLDR, negativity sucks

It probably isn't the place for you, given you seem to believe anyone with a negative opinion is just whining and complaining rather than voicing their opinion. Most of the time, they even back it up with facts.

Edit* Part of having an adult conversation is recognizing 2 different things. One, everything isn't always sunshine and rainbows. Two, some people will always believe something different than you, calling them names and accusing them of whining and complaining doesn't solve that.

XenosTerminus wrote:
It's impossible to have a mature/adult conversation in these forums pertaining to any topic related to GW rules without someone complaining.

I don't think that's true at all - unless you're talking about any level of complaining (ie, GW rules suck. This rule right here, what if it was worded like this?).

I fully endorse and embrace actual discussions on this game and most things involved with it. I don't enjoy seeing what could be legitimate discussions on improving/making the best out of an admittedly imperfect game manifest into outlets for people to lash out and relieve stress.

So - and I'm honestly curious, not asking for any other reason - why bother reading and posting in a thread that started out negative?

Using your own statements, you know what disappoints you, you know what's coming (based off the tone of the first post) and yet you continued to read and post, knowing nothing would change.

XenosTerminus wrote:
TLDR, negativity sucks

yet you have turned this thread almost entirely into a discussion about how you hate negativity.

Do you not see the inherent hypocrisy in that? Other people have jobs, and relationships, and responsibilies. Others want to have conversations without flamewars derailing them.

And you deny that. Over your desires.

Who is the three year old now?

 Polonius wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
TLDR, negativity sucks

yet you have turned this thread almost entirely into a discussion about how you hate negativity.

Do you not see the inherent hypocrisy in that? Other people have jobs, and relationships, and responsibilies. Others want to have conversations without flamewars derailing them.

And you deny that. Over your desires.

Who is the three year old now?

And on that note I am done.

Here is the gist of what happened in this thread:
-I comment on the original issue, and then proceed to point out how overly negative, generally, people are in this hobby (emphasis online)
-People point out I am complaining about complaining
-I explain why I dislike complaining
-I get called hypocritical and ultimately am insulted (Who's the three year old now?)

Stay classy Dakka

Can you guys just go somewhere and make out and get it over with? Geez...

My definition of "B&P" is if I enjoy the game even if I lose the game. Something you aren't investing huge amounts of time, anxiety, and study into.

For me, once you get to know the codexs you use and the rules n the rulebook (fairly well) then 40k and Fantasy and LOTR are all beer and pretzel games.

I don't take it to seriously, I play with friends so it's just fun to hang out, I always have fun no matter if I win or loose, I never argue rules (if there is a disagreement then we role off if we can't find it in the rulebook), I can be half paying attention.

I think GW doesn't want the hobby to be a competitive hobby, I say this because when people start getting super competative in tourneys and stuff people just get pissed about "That is OP and full of cheese this is Bull"
If people took it less serious and just looked at it as a casual (not as casual as monopoly or something) with some strategy then people might enjoy it more.

 chiefbigredman wrote:
For me, once you get to know the codexs you use and the rules n the rulebook (fairly well) then 40k and Fantasy and LOTR are all beer and pretzel games.

Given one of the recurring elements of what people consider beer and pretzels games are is a quick and easy ruleset that can be picked up in 20 minutes, do you think that qualifies?

I don't take it to seriously, I play with friends so it's just fun to hang out, I always have fun no matter if I win or loose, I never argue rules (if there is a disagreement then we role off if we can't find it in the rulebook), I can be half paying attention.

Yeah, but wouldn't it be nice if there was no dice roll, and you could resolve disagreements just by rereading the rules and applying them in a logical fashion?

I think GW doesn't want the hobby to be a competitive hobby, I say this because when people start getting super competative in tourneys and stuff people just get pissed about "That is OP and full of cheese this is Bull"
If people took it less serious and just looked at it as a casual (not as casual as monopoly or something) with some strategy then people might enjoy it more.

GW is not the hobby. GW want you to think that, just as they want you to think that if you're playing to win, you're doing it wrong. If the rules were better written, and the codexes better balanced, people could take it as seriously or casually as they liked. It is only the current situation which causes those who wish to take it more seriously issues. There is no reason a well written ruleset can't be played for lols, the inverse is unfortunately not true. As a consequence, that player segment feels overlooked by GW, breeding a large amount of the toxic attitude you see on this and other boards, and likely costing GW sales in the process.

At it's heart, GW not catering to the competitive player base is just a poor business decision.

XenosTerminus wrote:
If you do not like the current state of the game, why do you play it?

Because I enjoy playing it, for the most part.

Thinking something can be better than it is does not preclude enjoying that thing. I can see the flaws in the game, some of which I really dislike... but so long as playign the game remains enjoyable, I'll keeo doing so.

There's also the fact that there currently is no directly comparable alternative to 40K. There are loads of skirmish games, and I have Warmahordes and Necromunda to play when I want to scratch that particular itch... but if I want something bigger scale, the only alternative is to go for one of the various 6mm games... and I pretty much universally dislike the models in that scale.

Why do you continue to buy the books, models, and support a company who evidently is doing nothing right in your eyes?

Where did I say they were doing nothing right?

I don't buy GW's books any more. Or not new, at least. $75 hardcover codexes sent that little ship sailing off into the sunset.

I would buy models, if not for GW's ridiculously outdated regional sales policy... because by and large I like GW's models. That doesn't have to be directly related to my liking of or playing of the game... I have a load of models from Malifaux, Anime Tactics, Void, Confrontation, AT-43, WHFB, and a bunch of smaller companies as well. I have no intention of playing any of those games... I bought the models because I like them.

It's one thing to make a conscious decision when something is not to your liking and find a solution (I am not suggesting that quitting 40k is necessarily the only answer- there are countless ways you can increase your enjoyment in the hobby regardless of GW's shortcomings). It's another thing entirely to continuously complain about something you have 100% control over, expecting different results every time you are disappointed.

Here's the thing: GW do pay attention to the forums, despite occasionally claiming that they don't. They have in the past, made changes or implemented FAQs based on community feedback. So complaining loudly on forums isn't just pissing into the wind... it does potentially make a difference, eventually.


In the meantime, having a bit of a whinge on forums is, for some of us, a way of letting off a little steam and avoiding throwing in the towel completely. I have 20 years invested in this game. I've seen the cycle of the game go around several times now... some things get better, some get worse. SO I'll wait around in the hope that 7th ed will improve at least some of the things that I dislike about 6th, and I'll discuss those things I dislike in the hope that those discussions will get noticed by the right people.

++Priority Transmission++
++Thought for the Day: Death to the False God Emperor++

It means that Kren and Frepp, have resotcked their supply in their Bar.


++End Transmission++

 Anpu42 wrote:
Just getting together for the purposes of blowing the out of each other. If someone wins, someone wins, if someone looses, someone looses.
What is important is having a good time.

This - often with beer and pretzels too.

xruslanx wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
What do you snack on then? ...crisps?

Usually crisps. Sometimes a sandwich. When I get my own place I might start doing paninis.

Hah nice - I'd like a panini while gaming.

 Roci wrote:
Any game you that requires you to read multiple books and contains strategy, list building and playing, is far from being casual beer drinking level of games. To me anyway.

Apparently you don't get it. In 40k all those rules, books, list building and strategy exist for you to ignore and never use with any deeper thought except maybe about what is OP so you won't be acussed of being WAAC. You need to make a crappy list, get drunk, lay back and never try to win. Fun.

 chiefbigredman wrote:
I think GW doesn't want the hobby to be a competitive hobby

Funny I see that point raised every 5 posts by casual brigade but even the casual king Jervis Johnson, not that long ago in one of his WD articles (issue with Hobbit Unexpected Journey figs afair) wrote about 2 gaming groups - one fluffy story writing and other where people play the most powerful builds there are - that BOTH are entirely valid ways to play the game. He also wrote that there is a problem where players from such groups meet and have different expectations, that they should find a middle ground. Not competitive player drops his Riptides and become laid back fluff bunny because 40k is not competitive, but middle ground.

Anyway seems like the 40k is not intended for competitive play is bs.

For me, it means nothing to me in a literal sense: I don't drink, and I don't like pretzels.

...But if we're talking of the mentioned idiosyncrasy in metaphorical level, isn't "beer and pretzels" the pursuit of many people in ANY forms of entertainment: to have a maximum gain of enjoyment and new experiences with acquaintances?

last weekend i went to a friends house to play some games, I took over my Imperial fists army, but since it was a group gathering we decided not to play 40k, and instead, with beer (and soft drinks) and nibbles we played Man'o'war (i had a nerdgasm) Touch of evil, chez geek, munchkin and finished off by playing Zombie flux and desperately trying to make the zombies win every game.

Beer and Pretzels to me means playing cooperatively to have a good time, and the 40k ruleset by its very nature is a competitive one, which compared to 'real' beer and pretzels games is too complex, and obviously confrontational with each player trying to beat the opponents army into submission. Sure you can play a nice fluffy game with weird objectives, and go for 'cinematic' moments, but ultimately there are some armies (and builds of those armies) that are head and shoulders above the rest.

Playing 40k you should absolutely not have to discuss with your opponent before hand what kind of game you want, and agree to put limits on whatever army you are playing. a properly balanced ruleset, and codices with proper balance both internally and externally should lend itself to fluffy 'lets get drunk and throw dice around' as well as highly competitive 'smash your face into the ground' styles of play.

Since 40k is not balanced by any stretch of the imagination, beer and pretzels means playing Zombie flux of an evening

Anyone notice the difference in clarify for the Las Vegas Open:

Warmachine / Hordes:

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/las-vegas-open/las-vegas-open-warmachine-and-hordes-events/

Basically 2 bullets point to PP supported terminology and publications.

Warhammer 40K

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/las-vegas-open/las-vegas-open-warhammer-40k-championships/

Probably 4+ pages of rules, potential different from other tournaments. I'll excuse the scenarios as I think they making up their own in order to make things more interesting.

"Beer and Pretzels" gameplay would in my book be shown by comparing the gameplay and the mental dedication therin of a game like Warhammer: Diskwars, versus the actual Warhammer Fantasy. Either can give you a similar feel, but the latter requires a much vaster mental investment during gameplay.

It means very casual games with very low investment.

Like cards.

B & P to me is meeting up with friends and trying to piss each other off off by bringing the cheesiest lists possible or springing your new models on them that they had no idea you had. While at the same time drinking beer [and Tyrells crisps], ridiculing each other, badmouthing GW for writing shat rules, and talking about shagging. And win or lose having a great time.