But in all seriousness, I originally came to dakkadakka in search of tactical insight and little tips and tricks on how to make unit x work, and for a while it was possible to find these kind of things. Now, I have to wade through about 20 turds of whine and cheese to find some sort of decent post. All I ever seem to come across is "This sucks, this sucks, this sucks" or "GW sucks" or "Lame, no assault sucks". People seem unhappy here on the interwebz, but the moment I step into a *GASP* GamesWorkshop, the entire game becomes cool again. I can have a pickup match against just about anyone and the won't be bringing cheese. 2 riptides? Not cheese, he's not turning them into a deathstar. Daemons? Nope, flying circus is all you find in the way of cheese. Eldar??? Please, I have never seen serpent spam, unless you count 2 as spam.
The thing I'm tired of is the doom and gloom of these forums. It's not the game, it's the community, because it's just a game. Have fun, share your tips and tricks, don't be a trying to rain on other people's parades. We're all here because we like some sort of aspect about 40k.
Also, i dont see an issue with part of your post.
You want tactical advice on how to make a unit work well, but then you complain about cheese?
Cheese refers to an overly strong unit.
You wanted the unit working well, that was a way to do it.
Im sorry you are unhappy that people have given you an answer.
Now, im off to part the red sea or do something else just as amusing.
Good day sir
Psienesis wrote: You should try reading the Tactics forums, which is where you will find the content you're looking for.
Me, I come here for the discussions, the background fluff, the debates, the exchange of ideas.
But if this is your "I'm out" post? Don't let the door hit you in your sanctimonious rear armor.
Nah, not my last post. I still find the odd bit of useful info here and there, the best being the sob and nids megathreads, but I don't like how much poo I have to sift through to get it.
Kilkrazy wrote: You should check out Bolter & Chainsword. I understand that they are very pro-GW.
And anti-anythingwithoutpowerarmour.
Actually now they're just pro-Humanity. Anything human, be it Chaos or Loyalist is welcome, but you want to play some spaces elves then you need to GTFO.
Jackal wrote: Banned from seer and B&C so i live on dakka.
Also, i dont see an issue with part of your post.
You want tactical advice on how to make a unit work well, but then you complain about cheese?
Cheese refers to an overly strong unit.
You wanted the unit working well, that was a way to do it.
Im sorry you are unhappy that people have given you an answer.
Now, im off to part the red sea or do something else just as amusing.
Good day sir
I just don't like all the beating on dead horses with the cheese. I already know what is cheesy, what I would like to know is why people are so negative about things that aren't cheese as well.
Aleph-Sama wrote:The thing I'm tired of is the doom and gloom of these forums.
Dakka was known as "the tournament forum" for a long time. As such, you're going to have a higher concentration here of people who want to take 40k seriously.
Said kinds of people are going into full-on crisis mode as GW purges them from the game. As such, dakka (and other forums filled with members that think that 40k is chess with different pieces) is undergoing an existential crisis.
MWHistorian wrote: Doesn't like how Dakka is all threads about complaints.
Starts a thread about a complaint.
Nah, just seeing if I can turn this ship a bit. I know it won't turn all the way around. I'm just asking for some decency. If you want to complain about something go ahead! But don't complain if people have been saying it for months now, AKA beating dead horses, preaching to the choir, etc, it jumbles the forum with stuff we've already heard!
People are negative about something thats not full of cheese because your asking how to make a unit better.
But you dont want cheese.
Its like asking how to make flashgitz worth the points.
The only real answer is that you cant.
Some units just arent even up for use in casual games without being a huge burden.
MWHistorian wrote: Doesn't like how Dakka is all threads about complaints.
Starts a thread about a complaint.
Nah, just seeing if I can turn this ship a bit. I know it won't turn all the way around. I'm just asking for some decency. If you want to complain about something go ahead! But don't complain if people have been saying it for months now, AKA beating dead horses, preaching to the choir, etc, it jumbles the forum with stuff we've already heard!
What is the problem? Many of us have supported the game for many years and are increasingly tired of a company that pretty much gives the impression it just cares about fleecing people for money and not making an actual game. A lot of GW decisions over the past few years have literally flown in the face of every other business on the planet, while basic things remain broken (just look at how certain codexes haven't even had an update, but the "pet" armies get more and more models churned out that they don't need).
This isn't a "love it or leave it" situation, as much as that gets thrown around. Many of us "whiners" used to love GW and have some small bit of hope that the company will wake up and say "What the hell have we been doing all this time?!" and change course.
IMO it's the people who just go along with everything that are the real issue, because they are just conveying the message that this kind of sham is acceptable.
IMO it's the people who just go along with everything that are the real issue, because they are just conveying the message that this kind of sham is acceptable.
It is acceptable. They produce something all my friends and I enjoy doing once a week. So we buy their books when needed along with a few models sometimes. We pay them for their product we appreciate. Which is perfectly reasonable and I hope they continue. Just like most players who spend their money on GW.
Outside of the intertubes I've met plenty of awesome players, plenty of tournament types, plenty of d-bags, and plenty of people who have quit because of the d-bags - so just like everything else theres good and bad people playing this game
However whenever I enjoy a decent game of 40k, it is universlly in spite of the rules rather than because of them. Thats something that differentiates 40k from other wargames out there - that its really kinda crappy.
Its works as a place for all the triptide players and such to accumulate, so that they stay out of our other games. For that I'm very glad it exists
Well, i think OP is at least partially right. I came to Dakka full of enthusiasm and newbie flair...and it worked few weeks...and after that it was big cold shower.
For me, this time, only part of forum Im interested in is background. Tactics...sometimes. You know there is very, very annoying one tendency. There comes moment when, even in on topic discussion comes POT (Preacher of Truth) and begins bombing the thread like "yeah...it would work, if GW didnt gakked Nids...yeah that would be nice if CSM wasnt joke because of stupid GW...no, its completely unplayable, you simply cant play WH40K seriously now because GW isnt playtesting and you got stomped by Taudar/ Baron/ Flying Circus...no, you cant play Orcs, its unplayable..."
OK? I got it,you are not happy with current state...but for god sake, other people just want to play and are not interested in cycled whinning. And its same in Rumours/ News threads. Really, there isnt fun from anticipation of the new anymore. Its just frenetic bashing "How would GW make it wrong now" and after that making your own made up stories (with argument "hey, its rumour thread!") and using those invented stories like another fodder why is GW most evil structure in the world, why is WH40K doomed and, worst of all, why is anyone still playing it just fool who did not see The Truth.
Seriously, I dont care about GW, dont love them, dont hate them, they are producers and Im consumer. When I dont like product? I dont buy. But, Jesus, I wont to talk about game itself and not make some childish pro-GW, anti-GW summer camp armies. And if you wish to, dont stick it into everyones face just because you feel entitled.
So... Im not so frequent visitor of Dakka as I was (and not just Dakka) and actually talk about the game in FLGS and smaller forums. And just today I have read this article which describes what buggers my mind...in almost (almost) every way round WH40K. Internet echo chamber fanatism simply sucks.
Harriticus wrote: It's GW's fault they've alienated their fanbase so badly and have rendered a game to be essentially unplayable in its current form.
Also go to the tactics and fluff sections if you want that.
This. Truthsayer stating the game is "essentially unplayable"...despite fact that still "few" people are still playing it and having fun and, to be honest, sorry, finding the game still well playable. Believe me, internet Doomsayers are just small fraction of fanbase from what I have seen in real playing.
And of course stating, its GW fault that there must always pop some Truthsayer stating "hey, its useless talk about it, its unplayable, because GW is evil" (but yeah, here you are on topic, I agree...just in hamfisted form)
Harriticus wrote: It's GW's fault they've alienated their fanbase so badly and have rendered a game to be essentially unplayable in its current form.
Also go to the tactics and fluff sections if you want that.
This. Truthsayer stating the game is "essentially unplayable"...despite fact that still "few" people are still playing it and having fun and, to be honest, sorry, finding the game still well playable. Believe me, internet Doomsayers are just small fraction of fanbase from what I have seen in real playing.
And of course stating, its GW fault that there must always pop some Truthsayer stating "hey, its useless talk about it, its unplayable, because GW is evil" (but yeah, here you are on topic, I agree...just in hamfisted form)
Wel done mate, you've made good example.
"Denial" is more than just a big river flowing through Egypt....
Yes, you can play a game of 40k, but the amount of hoops you have to jump through (never mind the minefield that getting a random pickup game has become) with your opponent just to agree on what rules are allowed to be used "no escalation" "no formations" "no stronghold assault". Take your pick. Gone are the days when you could just walk into a store or club for a random pickup game and both you and your opponent would know exactly what the fething rules for the game were!
GW is releasing rules for the game faster than anyone can keep it. It's becoming a chore to keep up with what exactly is legal for this game. The wheels truly have come off the wagon, not to even mention the mess that 6th's rules are to begin with. 40k does not know what it wants to be. You have rules for orbital bombardments along with rules for individual types of close combat weapons depending on if you have an axe or sword. 40kWTF do you want to be? Apocalypse or Necromunda? You. Can't. Be. Both.
40k needs a reboot in the same way we had with 2nd to 3rd. I love the background to this universe and long for the days when we have a playable version of 40k again, no this hippy-dippy mess where strange allied armies that gak all over the background rule the roost due to GW not giving a flying feth about balance.
motyak wrote: How many threads complaining about complaining are on the first page ok 40K discussions now? I mean honestly.
Not enough. Its a nice change
Because the way to fix it is to make sure everyone knows they have no right to complain, since they've already bought the product, right? Right? And to hammer on incessantly about how much everyone else is complaining. Because that's more logical than figuring out why they are complaining.
There's something else I've noticed as well, from a personal note. It could be nothing but a change in myself, but I have a hunch that my behavior is reactive to my environment.
And that change is Dakka's "ignore" feature. For all the time I'd been on dakka, I'd never used the ignore feature until a year and a half ago when I added one person. I didn't add my second until about 6 months ago. The reason was simple - most people who were on dakka would write good posts and bad posts, but either seemed to be having conversation in good faith, or they would show up and then quickly disappear.
Now, though, every other week I feel like I'm adding someone to the list. Someone who writes dozens and dozens of posts in a row with nothing but useless, angry drivel that seems to have nothing but degrading other people's experience of the game. Nothing but complaining, or vigorously refuting anyone who has the impudence of enjoying themselves.
The mud isn't getting thrown and then sliding off, it's people who are coming on and with an almost professional zeal dedicating themselves towards bad faith posting. The worst, and most curious, are people who complain about 40k or GW who don't even play 40k, or buy GW products anymore. They appear to want nothing more than to be bitter and angry and to make everyone else around them bitter and angry.
And so, at an accelerating pace, I'm finding I'm adding more people who can't ever seem to rise to the level of nice, pleasant, or useful to my ignore list. Which feels sad to me.
motyak wrote: How many threads complaining about complaining are on the first page ok 40K discussions now? I mean honestly.
Not enough. Its a nice change
Because the way to fix it is to make sure everyone knows they have no right to complain, since they've already bought the product, right? Right? And to hammer on incessantly about how much everyone else is complaining. Because that's more logical than figuring out why they are complaining.
I know why they are complaining. I see some of the same problems. But I dont think the amount of complaining is right for the problem. Let alone the fact that many just want to enjoy the game, which is kinda stupid really. Wanting something doesnt mean you can complain a great deal. Its simple to move on. You are simply a consumer, nothing more to companies. If you want to be more than a consumer, get a job with them or move on to a company that views you as such.
I think constructive moderate complaining is ok. I wish 40k had a better moral system. But if instead of complaining I play Flames of war which has a pretty decent moral system.
I just think there are better ways of voicing opinion, like moving on or writing a balanced lengthy review and then moving on. You slowed people seem to think that I want everyone to share my opinion and nothing more or less. Which is far from the case. Selective hearing (or reading) may be the cause I dont know. Just be productive. How all you complainers complain is not productive. Wasteful.
So instead of spending 20% of your life wishing to enjoy something thats clearly not for you (exaggeration) move on for a while. Some of you are as bad as those you tube comment lingerers who search out justin bieber videos and state how much better some other rubbish band is, because it makes you feel intelligent. (or something). It does nothing to promote your cause, does nothing to fix anything and just annoys people.
So I see no reason for people to continue. Because just like 10+ years ago, your complaints are the same, they fix nothing and rarely change opinions. Time to move on.
Nah, not my last post. I still find the odd bit of useful info here and there, the best being the sob and nids megathreads, but I don't like how much poo I have to sift through to get it.
Welcome to the internet.
There's lots of useful information ALL over the net (not just restricted to gaming fora) but you have to do an awful lot of selective crap filtering to sort the nuggets from the gems.
Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is the ability to figure out which parts can be used and what is just filler and background noise.
Grimtuff wrote:You don't write tight rules then the players will try to jump through those loopholes you've created.
That's like saying that all behavior is acceptable so long as it isn't illegal.
It's the government's fault for not writing tougher laws against murder if I can kill someone and get away with it, is that it?
I guess so long as we don't have to take responsibility for our own actions, or live with the consequences therefrom, then I guess we're all all right, right?
I think constructive moderate complaining is ok. I wish 40k had a better moral system. But if instead of complaining I play Flames of war which has a pretty decent moral system.
Don't normally pick people up on their spelling, but this is independently amusing.
So FoW is better at rewarding players who are nice with their models?
Grimtuff wrote:You don't write tight rules then the players will try to jump through those loopholes you've created.
That's like saying that all behavior is acceptable so long as it isn't illegal.
It's the government's fault for not writing tougher laws against murder if I can kill someone and get away with it, is that it?
I guess so long as we don't have to take responsibility for our own actions, or live with the consequences therefrom, then I guess we're all all right, right?
Erm, the law says murder is illegal. If you commit murder and get away with it, then it is either a failure of the law enforcement community or testament to your knowledge and forward planning.
Unless you're arguing that the government failed because they didn't upgrade murder to really illegal and if they had, you'd have stayed in the straight and narrow?
Yes, you can play a game of 40k, but the amount of hoops you have to jump through (never mind the minefield that getting a random pickup game has become) with your opponent just to agree on what rules are allowed to be used "no escalation" "no formations" "no stronghold assault". Take your pick. Gone are the days when you could just walk into a store or club for a random pickup game and both you and your opponent would know exactly what the fething rules for the game were!
Uh... those are the rules. When you're looking for a game with no this, no that and no of the other thing... now you're house-ruling.
If people want to play the game as published, it's pretty much anything-goes. If you do not want to have that, then that's where people are running into problems.
I think constructive moderate complaining is ok. I wish 40k had a better moral system. But if instead of complaining I play Flames of war which has a pretty decent moral system.
Don't normally pick people up on their spelling, but this is independently amusing.
So FoW is better at rewarding players who are nice with their models?
Sorry, I try pretty hard to not let my dyslexia show (years of practice) but it still shows
Also im only on dakka at work so I dont get to proof read much. So read that as Morale please haha.
Kilkrazy wrote: You should check out Bolter & Chainsword. I understand that they are very pro-GW.
And anti-anythingwithoutpowerarmour.
Considering its a dedicated space marine forum what were you expecting?
OP remember that the internet is a vocal minority, albeit a very large one here on Dakka. People rarely go onto the internet to post about how everything is fine and working properly. The problems with 40k exist but they may not be as noticeable in your particular gaming group. Play the game your guys way and take the opinions of Dakka as indications of wider trends in the 40k "fandom" (urgh I hate using that word but in this case its appropriate)
Ailaros wrote: There's something else I've noticed as well, from a personal note. It could be nothing but a change in myself, but I have a hunch that my behavior is reactive to my environment.
And that change is Dakka's "ignore" feature. For all the time I'd been on dakka, I'd never used the ignore feature until a year and a half ago when I added one person. I didn't add my second until about 6 months ago. The reason was simple - most people who were on dakka would write good posts and bad posts, but either seemed to be having conversation in good faith, or they would show up and then quickly disappear.
Now, though, every other week I feel like I'm adding someone to the list. Someone who writes dozens and dozens of posts in a row with nothing but useless, angry drivel that seems to have nothing but degrading other people's experience of the game. Nothing but complaining, or vigorously refuting anyone who has the impudence of enjoying themselves.
The mud isn't getting thrown and then sliding off, it's people who are coming on and with an almost professional zeal dedicating themselves towards bad faith posting. The worst, and most curious, are people who complain about 40k or GW who don't even play 40k, or buy GW products anymore. They appear to want nothing more than to be bitter and angry and to make everyone else around them bitter and angry.
And so, at an accelerating pace, I'm finding I'm adding more people who can't ever seem to rise to the level of nice, pleasant, or useful to my ignore list. Which feels sad to me.
This, except the part about ignoring people, because reading posts by ex-40kers ranting on 40k forums about how terrible 40k is has a morbid fascination for me.
It's not all bad, to be fair. There is some positive attitude among the 30k players and people seem to like the fluff good enough.
On the other hand... it's kind of hard not to feel angry at Games Workshop when they seem to disregard our feelings so callously and commit bad decisions while telling us it's for our own good.
Not all analogies a person fails to understand are straw men.
Furthermore, the opposite is a gigantic post-hoc fallacy. Really, GW CAUSED you to behave badly by writing bad rules? A person's behavior is their own choice. They can't then blame their choices on others as if the other was the cause of their actions.
It's the same blatantly broken logic that tells us guns kill people, rich people cause poverty, low wages for teachers causes drug use, and any other desperate attempt to get other people to be the cause of their actions.
The responsibility of what a person does lies squarely and solely on the person doing them. If you do bad things, it's because you're an ass. Demanding that someone else force you to stop being an ass is just as asinine.
Not all analogies a person fails to understand are straw men.
Furthermore, the opposite is a gigantic ad-hoc fallacy. Really, GW CAUSED you to behave badly by writing bad rules? A person's behavior is their own choice. They can't then blame their choices on others as if the other was the cause of their actions.
It's the same blatantly broken logic that tells us guns kill people, rich people cause poverty, low wages for teachers causes drug use, and any other desperate attempt to get other people to be the cause of their actions.
The responsibility of what a person does lies squarely and solely on the person doing them. If you do bad things, it's because you're an ass. Demanding that someone else force you to stop being an ass is just as asinine.
Well worded.
The blame can only be passed for so long. The rules may let you, but they certainly dont make you.
Dakkamite wrote: However whenever I enjoy a decent game of 40k, it is universlly in spite of the rules rather than because of them. Thats something that differentiates 40k from other wargames out there - that its really kinda crappy.
This.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swastakowey wrote: The blame can only be passed for so long. The rules may let you, but they certainly dont make you.
Yeah, the solution is to deliberately cripple your own list so that nobody complains that you're "trying too hard to win". Who cares if you enjoy coming up with new strategies to win, and don't enjoy making deliberate mistakes so your opponent will stop whining. CASUAL AT ALL COSTS.
Dakkamite wrote: However whenever I enjoy a decent game of 40k, it is universlly in spite of the rules rather than because of them. Thats something that differentiates 40k from other wargames out there - that its really kinda crappy.
This.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swastakowey wrote: The blame can only be passed for so long. The rules may let you, but they certainly dont make you.
Yeah, the solution is to deliberately cripple your own list so that nobody complains that you're "trying too hard to win". Who cares if you enjoy coming up with new strategies to win, and don't enjoy making deliberate mistakes so your opponent will stop whining. CASUAL AT ALL COSTS.
No not at all. Since you dont play 40k you probably dont understand.
The goal is not to cripple your list to make a bland easy lose game, but to make your list in a way that creates a better experience for both you AND your opponent. So its not taking a weak casual at all cost list. Its taking a FUN at all cost list. If your opponent does the same, then you will both have fun AT ALL COSTS. This involves a quick 1 minute talk about goals, units and map. Easy.
Communication is key. If my opponent whined id tell him to get over it because I made my list fair and played hard. But nobody whines because we both know we made fair lists to match the situation. It only takes 1-10 minutes.
Its called not being self obsessed to the point you think you should do anything you want and have fun. Its about setting up a game where both of you get what you want. If its competitive, the same rules apply, if its casual same rules apply. Its simple.
Not all analogies a person fails to understand are straw men.
If someone fails to understand an analogy (and in this case, I believe it to be a big if) them surely the analogy itself is the failure?
Furthermore, the opposite is a gigantic ad-hoc fallacy. Really, GW CAUSED you to behave badly by writing bad rules? A person's behavior is their own choice. They can't then blame their choices on others as if the other was the cause of their actions.
What? No, GW has never caused me to behave badly. Just, to further torture your earlier analogy, nobody has ever caused me to become enraged enough to murder them. Bad behaviour can be incited by external influences though, but this is a massively more complex issue than is appropriate for a discussion about unhappy people talking about things in their hobby that they aren't happy about.
It's the same blatantly broken logic that tells us guns kill people, rich people cause poverty, low wages for teachers causes drug use, and any other desperate attempt to get other people to be the cause of their actions.
The responsibility of what a person does lies squarely and solely on the person doing them. If you do bad things, it's because you're an ass. Demanding that someone else force you to stop being an ass is just as asinine.
Still failing to see how this, in any way, is relevant to the subject at hand? Interesting debating point, totally irrelevant.
MWHistorian wrote: Doesn't like how Dakka is all threads about complaints.
Starts a thread about a complaint.
Nah, just seeing if I can turn this ship a bit. I know it won't turn all the way around. I'm just asking for some decency. If you want to complain about something go ahead! But don't complain if people have been saying it for months now, AKA beating dead horses, preaching to the choir, etc, it jumbles the forum with stuff we've already heard!
You're free not to read posts you don't like
In addition, people have a right to voice their opinions as long as they are not violating any forum rules
If you don't care for these posts I'm sure there are other forums where you can find a tone you prefer
Peregrine wrote: Yeah, the solution is to deliberately cripple your own list so that nobody complains that you're "trying too hard to win". Who cares if you enjoy coming up with new strategies to win, and don't enjoy making deliberate mistakes so your opponent will stop whining. CASUAL AT ALL COSTS.
If someone really wants the challenge of coming up with new strategies to win I say play armies that are considered "not good" like Blood Angels. Take it from experience, there is nothing like winning with a sub-par codex against a codex that is not only considered better than yours but is considered one of the best (beating both Blood Angels AND Space Wolves during 5th with Sisters was always fun).
Peregrine wrote: Yeah, the solution is to deliberately cripple your own list so that nobody complains that you're "trying too hard to win". Who cares if you enjoy coming up with new strategies to win, and don't enjoy making deliberate mistakes so your opponent will stop whining. CASUAL AT ALL COSTS.
If someone really wants the challenge of coming up with new strategies to win I say play armies that are considered "not good" like Blood Angels. Take it from experience, there is nothing like winning with a sub-par codex against a codex that is not only considered better than yours but is considered one of the best (beating both Blood Angels AND Space Wolves during 5th with Sisters was always fun).
Or, in a better world, anyone could turn up with anything at least tipping a nod to a balanced list, and would win or lose based not in the models they'd chosen, but on the decisions they made during the game, modified slightly by dice results.
MWHistorian wrote: Doesn't like how Dakka is all threads about complaints.
Starts a thread about a complaint.
Nah, just seeing if I can turn this ship a bit. I know it won't turn all the way around. I'm just asking for some decency. If you want to complain about something go ahead! But don't complain if people have been saying it for months now, AKA beating dead horses, preaching to the choir, etc, it jumbles the forum with stuff we've already heard!
Ailaros wrote: Wait, how does refusing to play WAAC absolutely full throttle 100% mean that you're crippling yourself or playing a maximum fluff list?
Sounds like a false dichotomy to me.
Because people tend to have different, personal, definitions of what constitutes what, and it is those differing ideas, in a ruleset flabby enough to accommodate it, which is the root cause of all this discussion.
No not at all. Since you dont play 40k you probably dont understand.
You know what I don't understand? Why building an optimised list and playing to the best of your ability is a problem in 40Kspecifically.
I have to tone down my Flames of War japs so my friends have a chance of winning. That game is regarded as well balanced. It is, but it still depends on factors like models or terrain etc as well.
Also its a problem in 40k because the game is not made to cater for people like that no matter how bad you want it to. Its made for people to discus and quickly plan the kind of game they want and work together to create a fun game. Which goes completely against what most people with optimized lists want.
Swastakowey wrote: I have to tone down my Flames of War japs so my friends have a chance of winning. That game is regarded as well balanced. It is, but it still depends on factors like models or terrain etc as well.
I would argue that if the game is balanced and you *have* to handicap yourself so your friends have a chance then either a) you're exceptionally good or b) your friends are exceptionally bad. Either is possible but I don't see how you can be approximately equal in skill and have to self balance to make it a fair fight.
Swastakowey wrote: I have to tone down my Flames of War japs so my friends have a chance of winning. That game is regarded as well balanced. It is, but it still depends on factors like models or terrain etc as well.
I would argue that if the game is balanced and you *have* to handicap yourself so your friends have a chance then either a) you're exceptionally good or b) your friends are exceptionally bad. Either is possible but I don't see how you can be approximately equal in skill and have to self balance to make it a fair fight.
Not overly. What they do on defense is what I also would do. My army just seems superior. Although we have only played like 18 games or so. My list was even beating mid war lists.
No not at all. Since you dont play 40k you probably dont understand.
You know what I don't understand? Why building an optimised list and playing to the best of your ability is a problem in 40Kspecifically.
I have to tone down my Flames of War japs so my friends have a chance of winning. That game is regarded as well balanced. It is, but it still depends on factors like models or terrain etc as well.
Also its a problem in 40k because the game is not made to cater for people like that no matter how bad you want it to. Its made for people to discus and quickly plan the kind of game they want and work together to create a fun game. Which goes completely against what most people with optimized lists want.
No, this is a consequence of the flaws in 40K, that you take it as the intent suggests you have sipped a little too much of what GW is offering.
No not at all. Since you dont play 40k you probably dont understand.
You know what I don't understand? Why building an optimised list and playing to the best of your ability is a problem in 40Kspecifically.
I have to tone down my Flames of War japs so my friends have a chance of winning. That game is regarded as well balanced. It is, but it still depends on factors like models or terrain etc as well.
Also its a problem in 40k because the game is not made to cater for people like that no matter how bad you want it to. Its made for people to discus and quickly plan the kind of game they want and work together to create a fun game. Which goes completely against what most people with optimized lists want.
No, this is a consequence of the flaws in 40K, that you take it as the intent suggests you have sipped a little too much of what GW is offering.
But then, I knew that already.
? I f I dont feel like one of GW games ill simply play one of the other many games I play. Simple. I dont expect a mega game that caters to my every whim and need.
I have participated in several 40k forums over the years, and I really like dakkadakka. The forum is quite active and there are usually one or more threads that catch my interest at any given time and many threads are quite informative.
The forum is also, for the most part, quite civil. You are always going to have your trolls and what not who give the forum, and the internet as a whole, a bad name, but those are the exception rather than the rule. After all, why are you even posting here if you think dakka is such an awful place?
Given the nature of 40k, with its sloppy rules, poor game balance, and the fact that GW seems to live in a bubble, combined with the enormous investment of time and money necessary to get into the game, criticism of different aspects of this game and GW are to be expected. If you find such criticism so repulsive, why are you entering those threads who titles obviously indicate they will be filled with said criticism? Or even worse, creating thread titles that invite some criticism. For instance, there is a thread on the first page of General 40k that includes in it's title the question: "it's not all bad is it?". Guess what, the OP of that topic is going to find out exactly why it is all bad.
No not at all. Since you dont play 40k you probably dont understand.
You know what I don't understand? Why building an optimised list and playing to the best of your ability is a problem in 40Kspecifically.
I have to tone down my Flames of War japs so my friends have a chance of winning. That game is regarded as well balanced. It is, but it still depends on factors like models or terrain etc as well.
Also its a problem in 40k because the game is not made to cater for people like that no matter how bad you want it to. Its made for people to discus and quickly plan the kind of game they want and work together to create a fun game. Which goes completely against what most people with optimized lists want.
No, this is a consequence of the flaws in 40K, that you take it as the intent suggests you have sipped a little too much of what GW is offering.
But then, I knew that already.
? I f I dont feel like one of GW games ill simply play one of the other many games I play. Simple. I dont expect a mega game that caters to my every whim and need.
So now a game where both players can turn up with whatever they feel like, go at it and have a fair chance of winning without copious amounts of pre-game negotiation is a mega game?
motyak wrote: How many threads complaining about complaining are on the first page ok 40K discussions now? I mean honestly.
Not enough. Its a nice change
Because the way to fix it is to make sure everyone knows they have no right to complain, since they've already bought the product, right? Right? And to hammer on incessantly about how much everyone else is complaining. Because that's more logical than figuring out why they are complaining.
I know why they are complaining. I see some of the same problems. But I dont think the amount of complaining is right for the problem. Let alone the fact that many just want to enjoy the game, which is kinda stupid really. Wanting something doesnt mean you can complain a great deal. Its simple to move on. You are simply a consumer, nothing more to companies. If you want to be more than a consumer, get a job with them or move on to a company that views you as such.
I think constructive moderate complaining is ok. I wish 40k had a better moral system. But if instead of complaining I play Flames of war which has a pretty decent moral system.
I just think there are better ways of voicing opinion, like moving on or writing a balanced lengthy review and then moving on. You slowed people seem to think that I want everyone to share my opinion and nothing more or less. Which is far from the case. Selective hearing (or reading) may be the cause I dont know. Just be productive. How all you complainers complain is not productive. Wasteful.
So instead of spending 20% of your life wishing to enjoy something thats clearly not for you (exaggeration) move on for a while. Some of you are as bad as those you tube comment lingerers who search out justin bieber videos and state how much better some other rubbish band is, because it makes you feel intelligent. (or something). It does nothing to promote your cause, does nothing to fix anything and just annoys people.
So I see no reason for people to continue. Because just like 10+ years ago, your complaints are the same, they fix nothing and rarely change opinions. Time to move on.
Companies that forget that consumers are their bosses often go out of business
? I f I dont feel like one of GW games ill simply play one of the other many games I play. Simple. I dont expect a mega game that caters to my every whim and need.
So now a game where both players can turn up with whatever they feel like, go at it and have a fair chance of winning without copious amounts of pre-game negotiation is a mega game?
Yeesh.
wow, never knew I had so many mega games in my house
Peregrine wrote: Yeah, the solution is to deliberately cripple your own list so that nobody complains that you're "trying too hard to win". Who cares if you enjoy coming up with new strategies to win, and don't enjoy making deliberate mistakes so your opponent will stop whining. CASUAL AT ALL COSTS.
If someone really wants the challenge of coming up with new strategies to win I say play armies that are considered "not good" like Blood Angels. Take it from experience, there is nothing like winning with a sub-par codex against a codex that is not only considered better than yours but is considered one of the best (beating both Blood Angels AND Space Wolves during 5th with Sisters was always fun).
Or, in a better world, anyone could turn up with anything at least tipping a nod to a balanced list, and would win or lose based not in the models they'd chosen, but on the decisions they made during the game, modified slightly by dice results.
Yeah, but for now we can't do that unless everyone plays the same exact army.
Peregrine wrote: Yeah, the solution is to deliberately cripple your own list so that nobody complains that you're "trying too hard to win". Who cares if you enjoy coming up with new strategies to win, and don't enjoy making deliberate mistakes so your opponent will stop whining. CASUAL AT ALL COSTS.
If someone really wants the challenge of coming up with new strategies to win I say play armies that are considered "not good" like Blood Angels. Take it from experience, there is nothing like winning with a sub-par codex against a codex that is not only considered better than yours but is considered one of the best (beating both Blood Angels AND Space Wolves during 5th with Sisters was always fun).
A well built game would let you take the army you like and still have only about an even chance of winning against someone else of equal skill
You should not have to haggle over what units are going to be allowed and how the rules will be interpreted, etc.
You should only have to agree on the points involved and the scenario you'll play (should take maybe 5 minutes)
Peregrine wrote: Yeah, the solution is to deliberately cripple your own list so that nobody complains that you're "trying too hard to win". Who cares if you enjoy coming up with new strategies to win, and don't enjoy making deliberate mistakes so your opponent will stop whining. CASUAL AT ALL COSTS.
If someone really wants the challenge of coming up with new strategies to win I say play armies that are considered "not good" like Blood Angels. Take it from experience, there is nothing like winning with a sub-par codex against a codex that is not only considered better than yours but is considered one of the best (beating both Blood Angels AND Space Wolves during 5th with Sisters was always fun).
Or, in a better world, anyone could turn up with anything at least tipping a nod to a balanced list, and would win or lose based not in the models they'd chosen, but on the decisions they made during the game, modified slightly by dice results.
Yeah, but for now we can't do that unless everyone plays the same exact army.
For feths sake how many more times?
Balance doesn't equal everything the same!!!
Perfect balance isn't possible, not even chess has that if you take a big enough sample size, but something where player skill is a larger factor than rule inequality is eminently achievable, certainly if you're the largest wargaming company on the planet by a significant margin.
EDIT
Might have slightly misinterpreted that posts intent, but will leave comment unchanged as it bears repeating, even if not now necessarily!
No not at all. Since you dont play 40k you probably dont understand.
You know what I don't understand? Why building an optimised list and playing to the best of your ability is a problem in 40Kspecifically.
I have to tone down my Flames of War japs so my friends have a chance of winning. That game is regarded as well balanced. It is, but it still depends on factors like models or terrain etc as well.
Also its a problem in 40k because the game is not made to cater for people like that no matter how bad you want it to. Its made for people to discus and quickly plan the kind of game they want and work together to create a fun game. Which goes completely against what most people with optimized lists want.
No, this is a consequence of the flaws in 40K, that you take it as the intent suggests you have sipped a little too much of what GW is offering.
But then, I knew that already.
? I f I dont feel like one of GW games ill simply play one of the other many games I play. Simple. I dont expect a mega game that caters to my every whim and need.
So now a game where both players can turn up with whatever they feel like, go at it and have a fair chance of winning without copious amounts of pre-game negotiation is a mega game?
Yeesh.
Are you suffering a concussion?
How are 2 people who have different interests gonna get a game they enjoy in a game designed to cater to many different people? A short simple discussion. If you are so socially inept that a simple few questions while setting up a board takes 3 hours, then that is not the fault of GW. That is your own fault.
Its easy to talk to your opponent to get what you want out of the game, whatever it may be.
Ill make it simple again.
Talk = Good.
I just dont expect 40k to cater to every single persons want and whim. Like you seem to.
Ailaros wrote: There's something else I've noticed as well, from a personal note. It could be nothing but a change in myself, but I have a hunch that my behavior is reactive to my environment.
And that change is Dakka's "ignore" feature. For all the time I'd been on dakka, I'd never used the ignore feature until a year and a half ago when I added one person. I didn't add my second until about 6 months ago. The reason was simple - most people who were on dakka would write good posts and bad posts, but either seemed to be having conversation in good faith, or they would show up and then quickly disappear.
Now, though, every other week I feel like I'm adding someone to the list. Someone who writes dozens and dozens of posts in a row with nothing but useless, angry drivel that seems to have nothing but degrading other people's experience of the game. Nothing but complaining, or vigorously refuting anyone who has the impudence of enjoying themselves.
The mud isn't getting thrown and then sliding off, it's people who are coming on and with an almost professional zeal dedicating themselves towards bad faith posting. The worst, and most curious, are people who complain about 40k or GW who don't even play 40k, or buy GW products anymore. They appear to want nothing more than to be bitter and angry and to make everyone else around them bitter and angry.
And so, at an accelerating pace, I'm finding I'm adding more people who can't ever seem to rise to the level of nice, pleasant, or useful to my ignore list. Which feels sad to me.
Do you think it's you or possibly a higher amount of vitriol from the community as a result of the recent issues with 6E as it has progressed? I'm honestly curious, not trying to "lead the witness" or troll.
Peregrine wrote: Yeah, the solution is to deliberately cripple your own list so that nobody complains that you're "trying too hard to win". Who cares if you enjoy coming up with new strategies to win, and don't enjoy making deliberate mistakes so your opponent will stop whining. CASUAL AT ALL COSTS.
If someone really wants the challenge of coming up with new strategies to win I say play armies that are considered "not good" like Blood Angels. Take it from experience, there is nothing like winning with a sub-par codex against a codex that is not only considered better than yours but is considered one of the best (beating both Blood Angels AND Space Wolves during 5th with Sisters was always fun).
Does playing with SoB still count? Granted I'm probably not helping by taking IG allies with an Inquisitorial detachment. However, that was also a codex some years ago, too.
How are 2 people who have different interests gonna get a game they enjoy in a game designed to cater to many different people? A short simple discussion. If you are so socially inept that a simple few questions while setting up a board takes 3 hours, then that is not the fault of GW. That is your own fault.
Its easy to talk to your opponent to get what you want out of the game, whatever it may be.
Ill make it simple again.
Talk = Good.
I just dont expect 40k to cater to every single persons want and whim. Like you seem to.
If the game is balanced, that discussion wouldn't need to be held. I have seen it in Warmachine/Hordes, Infinity, and Malifaux. "Game Breaking" is just some degree of difficulty in those settings, not "compare two lists... well it's pretty obvious who'd win, if both players are equal".
FoW is a well balanced game, as I am told by many players both in person and on the net. It will never cater to me because I don't like historicals. However, if I chose to play, I could find some fun as I know it's not a matter of a complete off balance system like Games Workshop.
Peregrine wrote: Yeah, the solution is to deliberately cripple your own list so that nobody complains that you're "trying too hard to win". Who cares if you enjoy coming up with new strategies to win, and don't enjoy making deliberate mistakes so your opponent will stop whining. CASUAL AT ALL COSTS.
If someone really wants the challenge of coming up with new strategies to win I say play armies that are considered "not good" like Blood Angels. Take it from experience, there is nothing like winning with a sub-par codex against a codex that is not only considered better than yours but is considered one of the best (beating both Blood Angels AND Space Wolves during 5th with Sisters was always fun).
A well built game would let you take the army you like and still have only about an even chance of winning against someone else of equal skill
You should not have to haggle over what units are going to be allowed and how the rules will be interpreted, etc.
You should only have to agree on the points involved and the scenario you'll play (should take maybe 5 minutes)
And if we were playing that well built game there would be a lot less complaints and issues, wouldn't there be? I'm talking about the current game as it is now, not the game we wish we had.
Perfect balance isn't possible, not even chess has that if you take a big enough sample size, but something where player skill is a larger factor than rule inequality is eminently achievable, certainly if you're the largest wargaming company on the planet by a significant margin.
EDIT
Might have slightly misinterpreted that posts intent, but will leave comment unchanged as it bears repeating, even if not now necessarily!
Normally, I'd agree balance =/= mirror matching. In current 40k as it is now though? Yeah, that's pretty much what is is in the current game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheKbob wrote: Does playing with SoB still count? Granted I'm probably not helping by taking IG allies with an Inquisitorial detachment. However, that was also a codex some years ago, too.
I'd say Pure Sisters more than with allies. And now it looks like Stormtroopers getting their own codex will let Sisters armies ally them back in (without all the extra Guard stuff) and play the old Witch Hunters army by slapping an Inquisitor into the list too.
No not at all. Since you dont play 40k you probably dont understand.
You know what I don't understand? Why building an optimised list and playing to the best of your ability is a problem in 40Kspecifically.
I have to tone down my Flames of War japs so my friends have a chance of winning. That game is regarded as well balanced. It is, but it still depends on factors like models or terrain etc as well.
Also its a problem in 40k because the game is not made to cater for people like that no matter how bad you want it to. Its made for people to discus and quickly plan the kind of game they want and work together to create a fun game. Which goes completely against what most people with optimized lists want.
No, this is a consequence of the flaws in 40K, that you take it as the intent suggests you have sipped a little too much of what GW is offering.
But then, I knew that already.
? I f I dont feel like one of GW games ill simply play one of the other many games I play. Simple. I dont expect a mega game that caters to my every whim and need.
So now a game where both players can turn up with whatever they feel like, go at it and have a fair chance of winning without copious amounts of pre-game negotiation is a mega game?
Yeesh.
Are you suffering a concussion?
Careful, this sort of apparently harmless comment is the sort of thing that ends up with something ban worthy.
How are 2 people who have different interests gonna get a game they enjoy in a game designed to cater to many different people? A short simple discussion. If you are so socially inept that a simple few questions while setting up a board takes 3 hours, then that is not the fault of GW. That is your own fault.
How different are two people's interests going to be if they are both looking for a game of 40K? Contrary to your internet social ineptness. Kid. I am an experienced, management level professional in retail sales, with a background in hospitality, my entire fething career is based on being able to generate positive social interactions with total strangers, at a moments notice. My point which you have spectacularly failed to grasp, perhaps down to you own limited experience in 40K, is that regardless of my, or anyone else's ability to negotiate is irrelevant to the fact that if the ruleset were better constructed then it would be, and should be, irrelevant.
Its easy to talk to your opponent to get what you want out of the game, whatever it may be.
Ill make it simple again.
Good idea, stay in your comfort zone.
Talk = Good.
I just dont expect 40k to cater to every single persons want and whim. Like you seem to.
Poor game design = Bad
I don't expect 40K to cater to everyone either. Just the people who want to play 40K
Whats wrong with a game that involves talking about your opponent before the match in regards to goals and lists?
I do that with all games. Weither it be 15mm historics, mordheim and the list goes on.
Each game caters to different audiences. Jusging by the comments by people like you throughout GW short history (you would know old man) id say the game has never been what you wanted and people like you would complain regardless.
Im very interested in the modeling, the social interaction and setting up interesting face offs etc. But someone new at the club has these crazy lists. A simple talk and we both had a lot of fun. A simple talk is all you need.
Unless the person across the table is stubborn and wont compromise if you happen to be drastically different in tastes then just move on.
Wargames require effort. At every turn. 40K is not an exception. Its not perfect. But no wargame is.
Avinash_Tyagi wrote:Companies that forget that consumers are their bosses often go out of business
Or...
Henry Ford wrote:If I had given people what they asked for, I would have build them a faster horse
Really, most of what's going on right now, from supplements, to faster codex cycle, to more new plastics, to integration of forgeworld into 40k, to more comprehensive kits, etc. etc. is all coming about because they listened to customers.
It turns out, though, that customers are often idiots and don't really know what they want, as evidenced by how many of them complain when they get what they want.
Really, GW should ignore its customers MORE instead of less, and focus on being good at what it wants to be good at and produce what it thinks is good, rather than pandering to people and getting twisted into doing things that they are bad at in the name of consumer demand or creating the image of being thoughtful and compassionate.
Harriticus wrote: It's GW's fault they've alienated their fanbase so badly and have rendered a game to be essentially unplayable in its current form.
Also go to the tactics and fluff sections if you want that.
How often do you actually play? I get close to three semi-competitive games in a week, followed up with three to five competitive games a week and the game is actually very playable. All these forums are vocal minorities of people who follow each other around and circle jerk and read their battle porn. Go into a GW and play some games and stop QQing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: All people used to do was complain that there was not enough new minis, not enough codices, not enough releases, no fliers, no fortifications, no buildings and they get it and they cry over it. You have the nicest minis of any game, a game line that has very easy to paint paint line and a very easy to follow rule set. But don't bother mentioning this or you'll most likely get a PM or ban. :S
Says the user "markerlight junkie" whose profile lists last year as the time he started playing.
Tau were the beginning of the tailspin 40K has gotten itself into. Glad you're having fun, but you have no frame of reference for the state of the game. You're entitled to think whatever you like, but don't expect it to carry a huge weight with those who have been around for decades and multiple,e editions.
Oh, and I'd rather dip my freshly sandpapered scrotum into a jar of lemon juice coated scorpions than play in a GW. YMMV.
EDIT
Oh, and nicest minis? Darklands and Infinity would like a word. Oh, and Kingdom Death. Hell, I don't even like the Warmachine minis as a rule, but they've probably released more models I'd spend money on this year than GW. Oh, and the paint is fair quality, but massively overpriced, Vallejo, Reaper and possibly P3 are all of at least equal quality, offer a similar or larger range and are much cheaper.
Avinash_Tyagi wrote:Companies that forget that consumers are their bosses often go out of business
Or...
Henry Ford wrote:If I had given people what they asked for, I would have build them a faster horse
Really, most of what's going on right now, from supplements, to faster codex cycle, to more new plastics, to integration of forgeworld into 40k, to more comprehensive kits, etc. etc. is all coming about because they listened to customers.
It turns out, though, that customers are often idiots and don't really know what they want, as evidenced by how many of them complain when they get what they want.
Really, GW should ignore its customers MORE instead of less, and focus on being good at what it wants to be good at and produce what it thinks is good, rather than pandering to people and getting twisted into doing things that they are bad at in the name of consumer demand or creating the image of being thoughtful and compassionate.
Rather, is this a case of cut off the nose to spite the face?
We all wanted faster releases. I know I did. But we also wanted the continued support of the game we enjoyed. We are fast approaching or past the point of being a year without a real FAQ update (are we counting Techmarine servo-arms as an update?). Instead, we are getting a rapid fire of poor quality releases that need FAQs day one. And it's FAQs for books that have one or two actual playable units, not actual codecis.
We all wanted faster releases, but we wanted at least the same quality we got before. And the flat out removal of customer support in the form of community involvement only frustrates a player base. You may be ignoring more individuals not because whining is louder, but because there is no appropriate forum to express these concerns. If there was a medium in which GW could say "We hear you on this, we have plans to correct that at this time in the future, please stay tuned," there wouldn't be lengthy forum wars posts, just a simple "you see it this way, I see it another, let's both wait until X date."
But we are getting none of that. We are getting faster releases, with lower value, more errors, and higher costs on top of that. Being around so long, we all know what just a price increase does to the player base, let alone a perceived (and actual) cost increase to enter and play this game on top of all the current things happening. Before, during the slower release, each "pot" of problems would proceed to roil up. But because we all had time to relax, adapt, and GW would course correct, we'd simmer down and move on. Now, with no support medium fanning the flames on top of price increases, massive game changes, and loss of value within the products, what before just roiled is now boiling over.
This isn't a case of the motor car and the faster horse. This GW giving us a faster horse when we all already have motor cars and saying it's a better product and deserving of a higher price tag. We pulled into the lot in a car and see the neighboring dealers all offering better business, but we're stuck with horse salesmen. That never actually answer a question, just dangle another shiny add-on.
The state of the forums and the internet community is very much a state of the times of Warhammer 40k.
Edits because I'm tired and I can't type and what's proofreading?
Says the user "markerlight junkie" whose profile lists last year as the time he started playing.
Tau were the beginning of the tailspin 40K has gotten itself into. Glad you're having fun, but you have no frame of reference for the state of the game. You're entitled to think whatever you like, but don't expect it to carry a huge weight with those who have been around for decades and multiple,e editions.
Oh, and I'd rather dip my freshly sandpapered scrotum into a jar of lemon juice coated scorpions than play in a GW. YMMV.
EDIT
Oh, and nicest minis? Darklands and Infinity would like a word. Oh, and Kingdom Death. Hell, I don't even like the Warmachine minis as a rule, but they've probably released more models I'd spend money on this year than GW. Oh, and the paint is fair quality, but massively overpriced, Vallejo, Reaper and possibly P3 are all of at least equal quality, offer a similar or larger range and are much cheaper.
Love that you are so upset that you go and read my profile. I played 2nd and 3rd Ed. and stopped playing after taking third at GW's Oakville Battle Bunker Eye of Terror tournament. Warmachine has terrible minis on a detail level and Kingdom Death has what for gameplay? Heck Warmachine changes their rules all the time because they're not set. Go read the PDF for their quick rules and you'll give up on trying to learn right there. Same thing with Infinity. Games Workshop is P4P the king of nicest miniatures and if you cannot see that then you are simply blinded by your hate for some company and are just a sheep.
Can you perhaps provide an example of the last few times the rules changed? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you know the difference between changing the rules and issuing errata.
Says the user "markerlight junkie" whose profile lists last year as the time he started playing.
Tau were the beginning of the tailspin 40K has gotten itself into. Glad you're having fun, but you have no frame of reference for the state of the game. You're entitled to think whatever you like, but don't expect it to carry a huge weight with those who have been around for decades and multiple,e editions.
Oh, and I'd rather dip my freshly sandpapered scrotum into a jar of lemon juice coated scorpions than play in a GW. YMMV.
EDIT
Oh, and nicest minis? Darklands and Infinity would like a word. Oh, and Kingdom Death. Hell, I don't even like the Warmachine minis as a rule, but they've probably released more models I'd spend money on this year than GW. Oh, and the paint is fair quality, but massively overpriced, Vallejo, Reaper and possibly P3 are all of at least equal quality, offer a similar or larger range and are much cheaper.
Love that you are so upset that you go and read my profile. I played 2nd and 3rd Ed. and stopped playing after taking third at GW's Oakville Battle Bunker Eye of Terror tournament. Warmachine has terrible minis on a detail level and Kingdom Death has what for gameplay? Heck Warmachine changes their rules all the time because they're not set. Go read the PDF for their quick rules and you'll give up on trying to learn right there. Same thing with Infinity. Games Workshop is P4P the king of nicest miniatures and if you cannot see that then you are simply blinded by your hate for some company and are just a sheep.
Of course they have the nicest miniatures pound for pound - it's all plastic ! However, miniature aesthetics are very subjective when speaking in terms of bests and worsts. Personally, I look at a Guardsman and think it could have been done a lot better - something along the lines of this. You may not like the look of Infinity models, that's cool - doesn't mean either of us are wrong - much less blind.
As for rules changes, I can't speak for Kingdom Death or Infinity, but Warmachine has not had a core rule change since 2010, when their second edition was released. There have been erratas to clarify language - much like GW's FAQs/erratas had done before. One model received actual rules changes during the summer of 2013, but that particular model didn't win anyone any major con titles. The last errata was updated in December 2013. If you meant to say there's constant ADDITIONS being made, you'd almost be right. There's generally one major release per year, alternating between Hordes and Warmachine in which every full faction receives new things. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong though? Regarding the quick start PDF, I read it when it was released in 2010 and have been playing since - it was a lot easier to understand than other rule sets I've tried to pick up (including Infinity, 40K, Fantasy, Flames, Battlegroup, Mordheim, Blood Bowl, Necromunda). To each their own though!
The frustration of many players seems to be the result of GW's business practices. GW does not communicate with its customers and does not do anything to address the problems. When a unit comes along that is obviously over powered or utterly useless, something is wrong. It shows a lack of attention to detail. And when something is broken like that, players will (justifiably) complain....but there's no where to really voice their opinion. That turns into frustration.
There are many people that don't understand that game balance doesn't mean game sameness. With a better designed game, two completely different styled armies should be roughly equal. For example, a light fast army versus a slow tough one, both should have a near equal chance of winning.
Please, for the love of all that's good and bright in the world, please, please stop saying that game balance equal sameness. That's not at all what it is at all. It should be that if someone shows up with a Blood Angles army, they should have a good chance of winning against Tau/Dar. As it is, the Blood Angles have an undeniable disadvantage. That's not good game design nor is it fun for most players.
However, the levels of negativity do become comic sometimes. We have people who say that the new Imperial Guard codex is so awful that they're going to sell their army. The codex hasn't even come out yet. That's absurd. When the negativity becomes toxic, that helps no one. Perhaps that toxicity is GW's fault, I don't know, but they aren't helping.
We need to keep the criticism constructive and realistic.
But the idea that criticism is "whining," then that's not very helpful either. There are so many people complaining because perhaps there are some things to complain about. The people that think the critics are crazy, generally don't understand the nature of their complaints. (aka: balance = sameness argument.)
Says the user "markerlight junkie" whose profile lists last year as the time he started playing.
Tau were the beginning of the tailspin 40K has gotten itself into. Glad you're having fun, but you have no frame of reference for the state of the game. You're entitled to think whatever you like, but don't expect it to carry a huge weight with those who have been around for decades and multiple,e editions.
Oh, and I'd rather dip my freshly sandpapered scrotum into a jar of lemon juice coated scorpions than play in a GW. YMMV.
Ooooh mate, you just lost...so big way Yeah, you won the argument but visiting his profile and destroying his arguments because he diesnt play long enough as you, grizzled veteran, which makes your arguments better (surprise - it does not). And he is playing wrong army, yeah, his arguments are clearly weaker! (another - it doesnt)
Yeah, you lost it...nicely...but enjoy your scrotum lemon juice bath, you've earned it
Ailaros wrote: Really, most of what's going on right now, from supplements, to faster codex cycle, to more new plastics, to integration of forgeworld into 40k, to more comprehensive kits, etc. etc. is all coming about because they listened to customers.
Only if you assume that when we said we wanted a faster release cycle we wanted GW to rush out garbage releases because they don't have time to do a good job, and then split the same amount of content into multiple $50 books and day-1 DLC. The simple truth is nobody was asking for the things they're currently criticizing GW for.
Really, GW should ignore its customers MORE instead of less, and focus on being good at what it wants to be good at and produce what it thinks is good, rather than pandering to people and getting twisted into doing things that they are bad at in the name of consumer demand or creating the image of being thoughtful and compassionate.
That's a nice theory, but what GW wants is better profit margins on selling space marines to kids. The thing you (and other people here who shall remain nameless) don't understand is that the things "competitive" players criticize GW for don't make 40k a better "casual" or "fluff" game, they just make it a bad game. This isn't a case of GW making a conscious choice to provide the best possible game for a player group that we don't happen to belong to, it's GW abandoning any pretense of publishing quality rules so that they can save a bit of money on design and playtesting.
Honestly I'd try out Warseer. It's a lot more measured in its opinions, which is to say that there are people who have an irrational and vitriolic hatred of GW, *but* they don't spam threads with it. Dakka seems to tolerate this spamming of negativity, especially in News & Rumours, which is why I don't go on here much (though it is better for hobby stuff imo).
KommissarKarl wrote: Honestly I'd try out Warseer. It's a lot more measured in its opinions, which is to say that there are people who have an irrational and vitriolic hatred of GW, *but* they don't spam threads with it. Dakka seems to tolerate this spamming of negativity, especially in News & Rumours, which is why I don't go on here much (though it is better for hobby stuff imo).
Is her view on the state of the game equally valid as mine, who has been playing nearly 10 years?
Yes. Being involved in something for a very long time doesn't give you a free licence to whinge incessantly.
Wrong being a vet who's seen previous editions gives you perspective that allows you to see pros and cons with the latest edition, the new player does not know the game used to be better they just take it at face value.
Having started in 96 I can say 6th ed is a hot mess that's fast getting worse as they pile on new rules with no testing, a new player would have no idea.
KommissarKarl wrote: Honestly I'd try out Warseer. It's a lot more measured in its opinions, which is to say that there are people who have an irrational and vitriolic hatred of GW, *but* they don't spam threads with it. Dakka seems to tolerate this spamming of negativity, especially in News & Rumours, which is why I don't go on here much (though it is better for hobby stuff imo).
azreal13 wrote: Tau were the beginning of the tailspin 40K has gotten itself into. Glad you're having fun, but you have no frame of reference for the state of the game. You're entitled to think whatever you like, but don't expect it to carry a huge weight with those who have been around for decades and multiple,e editions.
Ummm... I've never been a competitive 40k player, but I take issue with this statement. I'm certainly willing to get corrected if I'm wrong, but I believe the progression of "tailspin-nes" goes a little something like this:
(the giant mud pit of broken that was 2nd edition) -> blood angel rhino rush/eldar ridiculousness all around -> ultra amazing broken CSM codex -> (my knowledge breaks down going into the end of 3rd/ most of 4th) -> IG leafblower -> land raiders as far as the eye can see -> Grey Knight absurdity -> Necron flying bakery/IG Air Cavalry ->our hellldrakes will blot out the sun -> tau bullet hell -> serpent spam -> Tau+Eldar = two great tastes that are better together -> Revenant Titan/ Transcendent C`tan stomping grounds (with demon hound rush or screamer star jammed in there somewhere near the end)
Sorry. Just rather sick of people constantly blaming Tau for breaking the game when the cheese wheel has been merrily rolling along for about 3 editions without us thank you very much.
Oh, and nicest minis? Darklands and Infinity would like a word. Oh, and Kingdom Death. Hell, I don't even like the Warmachine minis as a rule, but they've probably released more models I'd spend money on this year than GW. Oh, and the paint is fair quality, but massively overpriced, Vallejo, Reaper and possibly P3 are all of at least equal quality, offer a similar or larger range and are much cheaper.
Infinity - incredibly anime style that doesn't appeal to everyone (the annoying models are the reason I can't make myself get into that game sadly)
Kingdom Death - apparently not released yet, and apparently a board game not a wargame (the models do look pretty cool from what I can see though)
Warmachine - have you ever assembled any PP models? Their plastic quality is kinda horrible and the assembly in general is a lot harder than most GW models I have attempted.
A lot of people (including myself for sure) might be spoiled by GW models. I still remember being shocked and appalled when I opened my Warmachine starter set and found out they didn't come with instructions or sprues. all the pieces were just thrown together in a plastic bag and you had to sort them out.
For what it's worth, I am firmly convinced that Warmachine is a much better designed game than 40k, but I don't think 40k deserves as much hate as a lot of people give it and it's not really meant to be played the same way as a lot of other wargames on the market.
People don't give it hate though. That's a lazy shorthand that is getting increasingly over used for anyone who doesn't think all in the 40K garden is rosy.
Note I've never made any argument that 40K was once perfect, but I do consider the Tau, or, more specifically, the Riptide, the genesis of the current crop of problems. The 6th edition books prior to that had people cautiously optimistic for a new, more toned down edition. The Riptide trampled all over it them took a steaming dump in the remains.
With regard to models, there will never be an objective consensus for something that is so inherently personal, but you have applied a bunch of criteria that I simply wasn't including in my comparison. It goes without saying that a range with such a strong aesthetic as Infinity will have people not so keen, I'm aware of some of the issues with PP models and materials, but that has no bearing in how they look, and the fact that Kingdom Death are working on a board game doesn't either.
You'll get no argument from me that some of the GW plastics (specifically the troop boxes by and large) are both technically very good, and sometimes not bad value either (although the Perrys and Dreamforge are making that less obvious these days) but to try and argue that they're anything more than average in terms of the visual quality of their output recently, for me (which is ultimately the only person I can speak for) just isn't true.
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK, I think the Imperial Knight Titan looks awesome, though apparently it isn't a very well thought out, flexible kit.
(You can get three better Gundam kits for the same price. But let's not moan and whinge™ about prices.)
Oh, agreed on both counts, the Knight gets a free pass, that is an awesome model, and I currently have one half done on my painting desk. (Which, thanks to good friends with contacts I didn't pay anything like RRP, got to love quid pro quo arrangements!)
I've had to essentially ignore the instructions and butcher some of the bits in order to retain any hint of poseability though, and I really wasn't prepared to undertake the work needed to avoid the "one foot forward" pose on the legs - but then, I'd have done something similar anyway, so it would have been diminishing returns.
But the IK is somewhat of an outlier. I'm aware I come off as a critic, but I have repeatedly stated, and firmly believe, that I take all that GW do and release on a case by case basis, I'm positive when I feel positive about something, and critical when I don't. In that context, I genuinely haven't wanted to own anything else that GW have made in at least a year, to my recollection, and if I have, I've generally found something from a third party that's appropriate that I prefer.
I'll openly, and happily, admit that this couldn't be a more personal opinion if I tried, but, for me, GW talk the talk of being the best, but have regularly failed at walking the walk pretty consistently, perhaps as far back as the DE release.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PhantomViper wrote:
GuardStrider wrote: I wonder which will come first, GW turning 40k unplayable or whining turning Dakka unreadable.
40k already is unplayable unless you modify it extensibly.
Co'tor Shas wrote:Not really. Not at all in fact.
Agreed, 40K is playable, in as much as two people can have a game. It isn't a video game with a bug that prevents it booting or anything.
I do wonder how much of this is down to the players mentally filling in the blanks and making logical assumptions though, wouldn't want to try it, but I would be interested in the results of a game where both players played absolutely strict, mindless RAW with no deviation from exactly how the rules were written.
Actually, it pretty much is to anyone who doesn't play with a known group of people. But it's always been that way, because GW doesn't care beyond selling gak.
Most people have never played any game without a change or restriction to the rules of the game (often unknowingly). That's a pretty high bar for making something playable.
I came here because I wanted to talk an learn more about 40k.
I don't really mind people complaining about something, but it is getting out of hand here on Dakka. On other forums it isn't nearly as bad. Come on people, grow up.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Sure. Now I just have to go to portugal and play a game.... I don't think it will be worth it .
No you don't, you just have to make a full battle report where you and your opponent use the entirety of the 40k 6th edition rules without any modification.
Even I, who have complained and moaned about chaos and the things that have been done to it have been avoiding the forum a bit more because it's gotten quite negative.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Sure. Now I just have to go to portugal and play a game.... I don't think it will be worth it .
No you don't, you just have to make a full battle report where you and your opponent use the entirety of the 40k 6th edition rules without any modification.
Sure, my 500 point tau against my brother 500 point eldar.
PhantomViper wrote: Of course you can, just as soon as you give me proof that you are telling the truth.
What's the point of leveling accusations you can't prove only to demand proof you can't get?
What accusation are you talking of? I know you white knight types like to play the persecution card at every excuse but I didn't accuse anyone of anything, I just made a claim and one that is perfectly viable to prove.
PhantomViper wrote: Of course you can, just as soon as you give me proof that you are telling the truth.
What's the point of leveling accusations you can't prove only to demand proof you can't get?
What accusation are you talking of? I know you white knight types like to play the persecution card at every excuse but I didn't accuse anyone of anything, I just made a claim and one that is perfectly viable to prove.
I'm no "White Knight". I'm pretty sure calling GW's Board of Directors "the Idiots In Charge" is not a white knight move.
You essentially accused someone of never playing the game without modifying it, and then asked for proof when they disagreed with you. You can't really prove that no one plays the game unmodified, and really demanding they prove it to you is pretty childish.
Besides, with my preference for playing Sisters and the Ecclesiarchy as a whole should you be accusing me of being a Bishop instead?
Iron_Captain wrote: I came here because I wanted to talk an learn more about 40k.
I don't really mind people complaining about something, but it is getting out of hand here on Dakka. On other forums it isn't nearly as bad. Come on people, grow up.
Pretty much my opinion, everyone is aware of GW and 40k fallings, but the sheer amount of whining on Dakka is absurd. Yes it's important to discuss it, but it should stay on a couple respective threads and not spill all over Dakka all the time infecting half of the threads on the boards, it ruins the experience of plenty of users who just want to discuss what they like.
Some people do still enjoy 40K, there is no need to have on 40K boards an army of "stop liking what I don't like" preachers spouting utter nonsense like the game is unplayable.
hobojebus wrote: The problem is the white knights come in and dismiss all complaints even those that are 100% valid, they just wave their hands and declare all's well.
Companies don't get this much bile if they are doing everything right.
One problem is when either side takes extreme views of the situation.
Another problem is when people pigeon-hole other people as 'haters' or 'white knights'.
Psienesis wrote: You should try reading the Tactics forums, which is where you will find the content you're looking for.
Me, I come here for the discussions, the background fluff, the debates, the exchange of ideas.
But if this is your "I'm out" post? Don't let the door hit you in your sanctimonious rear armor.
Case in point why he should leave!
Now I don't quite think that is fair Soteks. The OP is just as dismissive as this comment, if not exceptionally more so. For God's sake, it's comparing our conversations on here to throwing poop at each other. Plus the "inb4" stuff is not conducive of any sort of civil discussion.
hobojebus wrote: The problem is the white knights come in and dismiss all complaints even those that are 100% valid, they just wave their hands and declare all's well.
Companies don't get this much bile if they are doing everything right.
One problem is when either side takes extreme views of the situation.
Another problem is when people pigeon-hole other people as 'haters' or 'white knights'.
This. Both sides lend themselves to extremism and its not helpful at all. There are those that have said GW is great, the rules don't need changing and nothing is wrong. There are also others who think that everything GW does is horrible and the end of the Hobby.
There are a lot of books but I've never really run into issues with playing it as the rules are written for it to be played personally. I can't speak for everyone but I just haven't had any major problems with the rules or anything.
PhantomViper wrote: I'm willing to bet that you've never had a single game of 6th without ANY change or restriction to the rules of the game.
I have, every single game I have played in 6th.
So, you always use mysterious objective ? At my FLGS, the staff encourage a no-hold-barred with everything allowed, yet there is just one thing, only one, that we do not use (voluntarily, because there are lots of stuff we just forget to use), and it is mysterious objectives.
PhantomViper wrote: I'm willing to bet that you've never had a single game of 6th without ANY change or restriction to the rules of the game.
I have, every single game I have played in 6th.
So, you always use mysterious objective ? At my FLGS, the staff encourage a no-hold-barred with everything allowed, yet there is just one thing, only one, that we do not use (voluntarily, because there are lots of stuff we just forget to use), and it is mysterious objectives.
Yes, because it says to. I only play with people other than my brother rarely because It's an hour drive to the nearest place. We don't play competitively and find them entertaining. We often play missions that are not in the BRB such as the altar of war mission in the suplements though.
No, I think "I don't know what this means, I'm going to think about it. Aha, that is what it must mean." You look at words and figure out what they mean. It's not a difficult concept.
Co'tor Shas wrote: No, I think "I don't know what this means, I'm going to think about it. Aha, that is what it must mean." You look at words and figure out what they mean. It's not a difficult concept.
The moment a rule is subject to interpretation, it becomes a bad rule, because it can be interpreted differently by different people, and then you get YMDC threads 50+ pages long.
It is essentially a practical impossibility to get to a point where every possible combination of rules is anticipated in advance and the rules are written to account for it, but with FAQs and errata, it is possible to get much closer than GW do. This eyes thing is your classic RAI vs RAW debate, and to the overwhelming majority (both of us included) the resolution is obvious. That doesn't stop it being an assumption that runs contrary to the rules as they are written though. Easy fix for GW no? Shame they don't take the time.
Speaking of weird LOS rules, did they ever solve the problem with Exorcists being restricted to short-range AA fire because their weapon barrels point straight up and vertical swiveling is limited to a 45 degree up/down tilt?
Good thing I play Sisters and the only armies I've played against this edition have eyes.
So nobody plays Tau? All Marines (and SoB) do not wear helmets?
Those models with helmets still have eyes you know. Or what do you think looks through the lenses on the helmets?
And like 95% of the Sisters models don't have helmets.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pouncey wrote: Speaking of weird LOS rules, did they ever solve the problem with Exorcists being restricted to short-range AA fire because their weapon barrels point straight up and vertical swiveling is limited to a 45 degree up/down tilt?
Old FAQ said to draw LOS from any of the pipes. Which means you can be hull down and still shoot thanks to LOS without exposing the tank, or shoot sideways thanks to some pipes that are angled that way.
No they don't. They have eye-shaped details on their helmets (sometimes, Tau helmets for example do not), but not eyes.
Or what do you think looks through the lenses on the helmets?
Fluff =/= rules. Fluff-wise of course they have eyes. Rules-wise the models do not, therefore they can not draw LOS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: No, I think "I don't know what this means, I'm going to think about it. Aha, that is what it must mean." You look at words and figure out what they mean. It's not a difficult concept.
Except there's no possible way to make "eyes" mean anything other than "eyes". This isn't a failure to understand what GW is saying, it's a failure to write rules that actually say what GW wants them to say.
azreal13 wrote: It is essentially a practical impossibility to get to a point where every possible combination of rules is anticipated in advance and the rules are written to account for it, but with FAQs and errata, it is possible to get much closer than GW do.
The difference between the 40KYMDC page and the WM/H one is telling. GW has is larger, has more resources and are running a simpler system yet they can't even get the same level of clarity a much, much smaller company does with a more complex system. Given GWs age, resources and size there is absolutely no excuse for this. I want GW rules to be up to that standard. The fact that smaller groups with a fraction of the resources are doing better should be embarrassing for GW.
No they don't. They have eye-shaped details on their helmets (sometimes, Tau helmets for example do not), but not eyes.
Or what do you think looks through the lenses on the helmets?
Fluff =/= rules. Fluff-wise of course they have eyes. Rules-wise the models do not, therefore they can not draw LOS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: No, I think "I don't know what this means, I'm going to think about it. Aha, that is what it must mean." You look at words and figure out what they mean. It's not a difficult concept.
Except there's no possible way to make "eyes" mean anything other than "eyes". This isn't a failure to understand what GW is saying, it's a failure to write rules that actually say what GW wants them to say.
That whole line of thinking strikes me as being intentionally obtuse for the sake of making a rules argument exist. But that's just me. This isn't YMDC so I'm not going to partake in an internet shouting match over it.
ClockworkZion wrote: That whole line of thinking strikes me as being intentionally obtuse for the sake of making a rules argument exist.
No, it's just reading what the rules actually say. The point here is that GW's rules are so bad that most people don't even realize that their house rules are house rules because they're so used to fixing GW's mistakes.
ClockworkZion wrote: That whole line of thinking strikes me as being intentionally obtuse for the sake of making a rules argument exist.
No, it's just reading what the rules actually say. The point here is that GW's rules are so bad that most people don't even realize that their house rules are house rules because they're so used to fixing GW's mistakes.
Like I said, this isn't YMDC so I don't think an arguement on if a model should be treated as if it has eyes or not behind their face mask is really that important here.
I also don't think we're house ruling it as much as just applying the same logic that we would in real life: that there is a face behind that mask, even if we can't see it. But that's my take on it, and we've already established yours is different so I don't see a need to carry that train of thought any further.
And yes, GW does write rules in a fairly loose manner sometimes (some rules they do a great job on, but others make you scratch your head). This is one of those ones I feel was written more for flavor of trying to get players into the mindset of TLOS rather than saying that eyeless models couldn't shoot (unless your poor ol Zogwart. He can't shoot AND he's eyeless).
At least they're getting better about how to approach USRs by consolidating them in the core rulebook instead of rewriting them all the time under different names in each codex (Night Vision/Acute Senses in 5th anyone?).
No they don't. They have eye-shaped details on their helmets (sometimes, Tau helmets for example do not), but not eyes.
Actually, there is not a single model that has eyes. They have plastic, eye-shaped details, but not actual eyes. Your argument is so ridiculous and detached from reality here that it makes you look funny.
Also very important regarding 40k rules, many people seem to dismiss on of the most important parts of it; it is the 'Spirit of the Game' part in the front of the book.
No they don't. They have eye-shaped details on their helmets (sometimes, Tau helmets for example do not), but not eyes.
Actually, there is not a single model that has eyes. They have plastic, eye-shaped details, but not actual eyes. Your argument is so ridiculous and detached from reality here that it makes you look funny.
Also very important regarding 40k rules, many people seem to dismiss on of the most important parts of it; it is the 'Spirit of the Game' part in the front of the book.
So, in your interpretation of the rules, they have no eyes, ergo can never have LOS.
But, you're missing the point here. It was to highlight how hippy dippy 40k's rules are and how you have to rely on your common sense (or the "spirit of the game", or whatever) and thus modify the rules as written to make them work as you think they should. How individual people interpret the above rule is unimportant for this thread. The very fact such a fething simple thing is so open to interpretation is a shocking indictment on the state of the game.
There was a long debate during 4th edition that confirmed that Terminators did not have Terminator armour.
There was another long debate about AP1 versus Skimmers Moving Fast. Eventually GW announced that the rules given with mathematical precision in the rulebook were not to be followed.
Legion of the Damned (if taken on their own as a primary detachment) auto lose every game.
Teleporting Yarrick (though this may have been corrected in the new book).
Going back a few editions with this one, but Vehicles never actually being defined as models. Made for a few "interesting" YMDC discussions I seem to remember...
The whole crouching Wraithlords thing from 3rd.
The fact that at one point there were 4! (IIRC) versions of the 3.5 CSM codex in circulation. With no indication from GW said printing had been replaced.
Terminators not wearing Terminator armour.
Kilkrazy wrote: There was a long debate during 4th edition that confirmed that Terminators did not have Terminator armour.
There was another long debate about AP1 versus Skimmers Moving Fast. Eventually GW announced that the rules given with mathematical precision in the rulebook were not to be followed.
So basically GW itself says "don't use RAW"?
Well that kind of invalidates what YMDC is all about then.
Kilkrazy wrote: There was a long debate during 4th edition that confirmed that Terminators did not have Terminator armour.
There was another long debate about AP1 versus Skimmers Moving Fast. Eventually GW announced that the rules given with mathematical precision in the rulebook were not to be followed.
So basically GW itself says "don't use RAW"?
Well that kind of invalidates what YMDC is all about then.
Quite egregious example here in their current FAQs.
Q: As Butchers and Slaughtermasters can take an ironfist, does this
mean that they can also wear magical armour? (p32)
A: Yes.
Designers Note: I have to hold my hands up for not spotting that
allowing a Butcher or Slaughtermaster to take an ironfist, would also
allow them to take magic armour. Allowing them access to magic
armour certainly wasn’t my intention, and it’s something we’ll
certainly fix when we do the next edition of the Ogre Kingdoms army
book. However, after much debate, we’ve decided that it does not
give the Ogres an unfair advantage, so we’ve decided to leave the
rule as it is written for the time being. That said, I’d personally
recommend that you avoid giving your Butchers and
Slaughtermasters magic armour – doing otherwise goes against the
spirit, if not the letter, of the rule.
Yep. It was a rule that was mathematically defined, and some people still could not understand it, because of a fixed idea that high die rolls are "better" than low ones. (In disregard of the fact that when rolling Leadership, low rolls are better than high ones.)
Eventually the whinging and moaning™ led GW to overrule the rules. At least then there was clarity.
The more time I spent as a lawyer, the more sense GW makes. Not because you need to have a good grasp on logic, legal principles, or analysis to read the GW rules, but because you learn to understand the underlying "here's what we meant" that underpins nearly all written rules, in games and the law.
In other words, the sort of exacting RAW wrangling that exists in YMDC would be laughed out of nearly any court in the country.
Kilkrazy wrote: There was a long debate during 4th edition that confirmed that Terminators did not have Terminator armour.
There was another long debate about AP1 versus Skimmers Moving Fast. Eventually GW announced that the rules given with mathematical precision in the rulebook were not to be followed.
So basically GW itself says "don't use RAW"?
Well that kind of invalidates what YMDC is all about then.
Quite egregious example here in their current FAQs.
Q: As Butchers and Slaughtermasters can take an ironfist, does this
mean that they can also wear magical armour? (p32)
A: Yes.
Designers Note: I have to hold my hands up for not spotting that
allowing a Butcher or Slaughtermaster to take an ironfist, would also
allow them to take magic armour. Allowing them access to magic
armour certainly wasn’t my intention, and it’s something we’ll
certainly fix when we do the next edition of the Ogre Kingdoms army
book. However, after much debate, we’ve decided that it does not
give the Ogres an unfair advantage, so we’ve decided to leave the
rule as it is written for the time being. That said, I’d personally
recommend that you avoid giving your Butchers and
Slaughtermasters magic armour – doing otherwise goes against the
spirit, if not the letter, of the rule.
Kilkrazy wrote: There was a long debate during 4th edition that confirmed that Terminators did not have Terminator armour.
There was another long debate about AP1 versus Skimmers Moving Fast. Eventually GW announced that the rules given with mathematical precision in the rulebook were not to be followed.
So basically GW itself says "don't use RAW"?
Well that kind of invalidates what YMDC is all about then.
Quite egregious example here in their current FAQs.
Q: As Butchers and Slaughtermasters can take an ironfist, does this mean that they can also wear magical armour? (p32)
A: Yes. Designers Note: I have to hold my hands up for not spotting that allowing a Butcher or Slaughtermaster to take an ironfist, would also allow them to take magic armour. Allowing them access to magic armour certainly wasn’t my intention, and it’s something we’ll certainly fix when we do the next edition of the Ogre Kingdoms army book. However, after much debate, we’ve decided that it does not give the Ogres an unfair advantage, so we’ve decided to leave the rule as it is written for the time being. That said, I’d personally recommend that you avoid giving your Butchers and Slaughtermasters magic armour – doing otherwise goes against the spirit, if not the letter, of the rule.
Jervis Johnson 7/12/2011
This kids, is why you need outside playtesting.
What FAQs?
Fax, you say? Wasn't that an old way of documents, before emails? Note sure what that has to do with warhammer...
Kilkrazy wrote: There was a long debate during 4th edition that confirmed that Terminators did not have Terminator armour.
There was another long debate about AP1 versus Skimmers Moving Fast. Eventually GW announced that the rules given with mathematical precision in the rulebook were not to be followed.
So basically GW itself says "don't use RAW"?
Well that kind of invalidates what YMDC is all about then.
Quite egregious example here in their current FAQs.
Q: As Butchers and Slaughtermasters can take an ironfist, does this
mean that they can also wear magical armour? (p32)
A: Yes.
Designers Note: I have to hold my hands up for not spotting that
allowing a Butcher or Slaughtermaster to take an ironfist, would also
allow them to take magic armour. Allowing them access to magic
armour certainly wasn’t my intention, and it’s something we’ll
certainly fix when we do the next edition of the Ogre Kingdoms army
book. However, after much debate, we’ve decided that it does not
give the Ogres an unfair advantage, so we’ve decided to leave the
rule as it is written for the time being. That said, I’d personally
recommend that you avoid giving your Butchers and
Slaughtermasters magic armour – doing otherwise goes against the
spirit, if not the letter, of the rule.
Jervis Johnson 7/12/2011
This kids, is why you need outside playtesting.
What FAQs?
Oh touché! You waited in the wings until the new website launch to plop that one down didn't you?
Polonius wrote: The more time I spent as a lawyer, the more sense GW makes. Not because you need to have a good grasp on logic, legal principles, or analysis to read the GW rules, but because you learn to understand the underlying "here's what we meant" that underpins nearly all written rules, in games and the law.
In other words, the sort of exacting RAW wrangling that exists in YMDC would be laughed out of nearly any court in the country.
IANAL*, but I've always thought the same. RAW always seems to ignore some sort of underpinning or thought process that can be gleaned on what makes sense. But you also cannot deny the hard left of some of the FAQs that defy any form of logic.
*I wanted to do law, but a lot of my law school and post law school friends said "Just,... don't..." with glum faces.
Grimtuff wrote: Oh touché! You waited in the wings until the new website launch to plop that one down didn't you?
Nope, that'd require me to expect them to drop FAQs and I frankly didn't know what to expect for this update in general. It just crossed my mind when I saw your post again.
Polonius wrote: The more time I spent as a lawyer, the more sense GW makes. Not because you need to have a good grasp on logic, legal principles, or analysis to read the GW rules, but because you learn to understand the underlying "here's what we meant" that underpins nearly all written rules, in games and the law.
In other words, the sort of exacting RAW wrangling that exists in YMDC would be laughed out of nearly any court in the country.
IANAL*, but I've always thought the same. RAW always seems to ignore some sort of underpinning or thought process that can be gleaned on what makes sense. But you also cannot deny the hard left of some of the FAQs that defy any form of logic.
*I wanted to do law, but a lot of my law school and post law school friends said "Just,... don't..." with glum faces.
Heldrake cough cough, that made no sense, mostly because it was an FAQ and not an errata, meaning we were justs supposed to infer that it broke all the well layed out and incredibly specific rules for vehicle fire arcs. Stuff like that sets a horrible precedent.
Yaaay! Until they get the Faqs back up the Heldrake isn't so cheese anymore!
Woohoo!! Woo...what? we're still going to act like the faqs are...oh. Okay.
trying to rain on other people's parades. We're all here because we like some sort of aspect about 
