Not flame bait... seriously. After adding the house rule "2 detachments max, LoW/Fortifications need to have substitute points incase opponent doesn't want to deal with them, Battle forged only, only primary detachment units and allied troops score" I think I'm good. My club won't bat an eye at that restriction and after we get over that this is a really good edition.
I love the objective placement, psychic, jink, allocation, and scoring changes. Cover tweaks are better, Str D is better, Vehicle damage is much better as are Walker, MC special rules. The change to night fight is huge (for good), I'm good with the FMC changes (like them in fact).
Don't like:
Too much battle bro-fisting
Can't assault out of stationary vehicle... that's about it
Don't mean to sound dismissive, but what's all the troubles gents? I've read every stinking post in the News Rumors threads and most here, and I'm just not seeing any problems once you get over the FoC issues. The rage quitters and edition banners just seem to be generating nerd-rage white noise. Seriously, look at the armies I play (sig). The ones I run the most are Daemons/CSM allies (lots of FMC), SM varieties, Guard. I play against/with a ton of Tau, Cron, Eldar, Nids. I don't see any of these getting overtly nerfed.
All in all this a fairly subtle and needed edition change. I don't see these rules as complex (not at all). Come on. I think a deep breath, a moment of mature calm reflection, and taking a step back is needed for the DakkaDakka community as a whole. IMO 6th was the best edition yet (played at least a little of all, owned models since the RT days) and in 7th I see only improvements if you have a club of even barely socially aware, reasonable people. If you don't why would you play there anyway?
If you've looked at my posts, I'm hardly a glass half full guy or a GW apologist (those epic, morons), but I'm a big enough man to give the rules a fair shake and it looks good to me.
Not flame bait... seriously. After adding the house rule "2 detachments max, LoW/Fortifications need to have substitute points incase opponent doesn't want to deal with them, Battle forged only, only primary detachment non troops score" I think I'm good. My club won't bat an eye at that restriction and after we get over that this is a really good edition.
But that is like playing a totaly different game then w40k rules say.
And If demons are your main army , then I am sure your happy for 7th , they got better. On the other hand tau got nerfed a lot . My AM won't work unless I take ally . I for example have nothing that can counter a demon spawning list that drops 2-3 squads of horrors per turn , while buffing their invs and stoping my two casters from doing anything.
Not flame bait... seriously. After adding the house rule "2 detachments max, LoW/Fortifications need to have substitute points incase opponent doesn't want to deal with them, Battle forged only, only primary detachment non troops score" I think I'm good. My club won't bat an eye at that restriction and after we get over that this is a really good edition.
But that is like playing a totaly different game then w40k rules say.
If people are unwilling to get together and make a minor tweak (whatever that needs to be for their meta... I'm not even suggesting people adopt my houserule) that changes a game/edition that they're ready to quit/ignore/nerd rage post etc about... well stupid them. So because a conversation might take some effort, and a club/FLGS might have to have a 10min meeting to set down a sentence of house rules to bypass GW's epic inability to think things through, people are willing to walk away from part of a hobby that they've sunk hundreds or thousands of dollars into? I dunno... little hard not to judge.
I and the folks where I play are tentatively excited. To be fair, the places I play at do not have a glut of people who look for rules to abuse so many of the lines of how broken things will be here (unbound, daemon summoning) are really nto coming up as a big issue. And while none of us are particularly hardcore tournament players, we've all been playing for at least 2 editions now, most more than that.
The biggest issue I have with 7th really is the speed of its release. It is fast and it strikes me as unusual.
But in all, I exalt this because this whole 7th thing is showing the worst side of Dakka. There are legitimate questions and concerns, but they are drowned out by histrionics and nonsense yelling without any kind of complete picture to react on.
how is any of those you listed minor. Battleforged only removes 50% of all possible lists taken. Thats more then saying no to FW.. Main change in 7th is that everything is scoring , your version of the game has only troops scoring , more only troops from the primary detachment.
I say that is playing a whole different game then w40k . You could as well say that power dice cap at 10 dice or that all base cover is suddenly +4 or limit ally and formations in some way.
And If demons are your main army , then I am sure your happy for 7th , they got better. On the other hand tau got nerfed a lot . My AM won't work unless I take ally . I for example have nothing that can counter a demon spawning list that drops 2-3 squads of horrors per turn , while buffing their invs and stoping my two casters from doing anything.
I play everything. I've truly got know in-game loyalties or bias. In fluff, I like Ultramarines and enjoy the "newb" label I get for it (playing 40k since early 90s). I'm neither so self absorbed or dense to evaluate an edition based on my armies. I run Tau, Guard, etc. I'd gladly take a Tau force to a tourney still. AM with an ally will work fine... really well infact. Look at the actual rolls needed to pull off the daemon spawning you're all worried about. It just isn't that bad... surely not ignores cover, riptide, buff commanders, hammerhead, skyfiring broadside bad. and the amount for fire a good IG list can put out is just wicked. IG are top tier and are their to stay until assault rules fundamentally change.
Can you run the same lists you did in 6th, probably.. they're going to need a tweak though.
I liked some of the changes they made to 7th. But in general, there are too many other games available that are cheaper, easier to play, involve more critical thinking, and are just flat out more fun.
The great majority of the games of 40k that I have played recently were more or less decided by turn 2. Close games that truly exhibit each players own abilities are pretty rare in 40k. That will not be changing in 7th edition.
Which does not mean that I will give up on 40k. I'll still pull out the models from time to time. I just stopped spending money on Games Workshop products. I'm sure their fanbase is large enough to support them, they don't need my assistance.
Makumba wrote: how is any of those you listed minor. Battleforged only removes 50% of all possible lists taken. Thats more then saying no to FW.. Main change in 7th is that everything is scoring , your version of the game has only troops scoring , more only troops from the primary detachment.
I say that is playing a whole different game then w40k . You could as well say that power dice cap at 10 dice or that all base cover is suddenly +4 or limit ally and formations in some way.
The point isn't about my scoring house rules at all... but whatever. No, I'm saying ALL UNITS in primary score, only troops from allies... but if you leave it ALL UNITS score, who cares? Sure. Do that then. The point being that a very small, reasonable change lets everyone play their armies and move on. 50% of possible lists may have disappeared but no models or codices did. Saying no to FW would remove models. I edited original post for clarity.
Putting reasonable limits on lists makes the game predictable enough for people to have fun. If that generates rage for you, that's on you.
I’m OK with what I’ve heard about 7th. I wouldn’t say “pumped” but mildly optimistic. One of my big issues is the Business side of GW vs. the Gaming side. I like the mechanical bits I’ve seen, but the $85 book after 6th only went 2 years is a major cloud hanging over 7th. I’m waiting for a small book before I pick it up, but that has nothing to do with the rules themselves.
My local group never saw any of the truly abusive things in 6th. I suspect that for ordinary joes playing fun games, 7th is going to be a refined 6th. Minor tweaks for the most part, but in the right direction. Sure you can break it, but that’s been true about 40k for a while now.
One thing I like is that I don’t see any "must haves". When 6th dropped, it was a scramble for air cover. Once I read the book and FAQs, I drew up a short list of things I needed to buy before I to hit the table in any sort of competitive fashion. While I don’t have the whole picture on 7th yet, I don’t see anything paradigm shifting lurking about. I’m going to keep fielding my mono-Ultramarine, TAC lists.
Lobukia wrote: Not flame bait... seriously.
Don't mean to sound dismissive, but what's all the troubles gents? I've read every stinking post in the News Rumors threads and most here, and I'm just not seeing any problems once you get over the FoC issues. The rage quitters and edition banners just seem to be generating nerd-rage white noise. Seriously, look at the armies I play (sig). The ones I run the most are Daemons/CSM allies (lots of FMC), SM varieties, Guard. I play against/with a ton of Tau, Cron, Eldar, Nids. I don't see any of these getting overtly nerfed.
All in all this a fairly subtle and needed edition change. I don't see these rules as complex (not at all). Come on. I think a deep breath, a moment of mature calm reflection, and taking a step back is needed for the DakkaDakka community as a whole. IMO 6th was the best edition yet (played at least a little of all, owned models since the RT days) and in 7th I see only improvements if you have a club of even barely socially aware, reasonable people. If you don't why would you play there anyway?
If you've looked at my posts, I'm hardly a glass half full guy or a GW apologist (those epic, morons), but I'm a big enough man to give the rules a fair shake and it looks good to me.
Says he's not flame baiting, then calls anyone with a criticism "rage quitters."
Okay, ignoring the obvious flame baiting....
So, you read 200+ pages of the news and rumors thread and you're still clueless as to what the criticisms actually are?
Okay, I'll break it down for you, though its been broken down by people in that previous thread and far more eloquent than I can manage.
For one, you've made a lot of house rules to make the game playable. You've said that you had a game club of like minded individuals. Of course you're going to be OK with this edition. That's who 7th was made for. For everyone that's not in your exact same situation (yes, there are actually people like that) people that have to rely on pickup games, it's made the pre-game negotiation much more difficult and the chances for an actual fair game far less likely. "So, are super heavies in? What about unbound or Battle forged? D weapons? FOC shennanigans? Etc etc...) No one I know brings their whole collection to a pick up game just to see what they're actually able to play.
Fluff breakage. This is a big one for me. Oh, Ultramarine librarians summoning deamons? Totally legit now. That goes against everything 40k has been about since my RT days. Yes, I know a marine will occasionally fall to Chaos, but not to the point where it should ever be represented on the tabletop like this. Unbound armies with Wraithknights, riptides and Vendetta all working together? Sure. That's totally narrative.
It's too soon for me for a new edition, especially not at this price range. For some, it's worth it. But not for me.
Unbound and demon summoning weren't added to improve the game. It's all just an obvious cash grab by a increasingly desperate GW.
I'm not happy with the pyschic phase thing because neither of my armies have psykers and that seems to be a handicap now. Also, its adding a lot more complexity and an additional turn to the game.
Random charts for everything. They love the term "narrative" but don't actually know what it means. Random charts aren't narrative.
GW business practices help keep me away.
Basically its become a huge unbalanced mess that moves further and further away from a well balanced, good rule set and more into a "feth it, just do whatever you want" kind of ruleset. Not paying $85 for that.
Does that clear it up for you or are you still going to pretend problems don't exist? You may disagree with some, but at least try to see why people have criticisms.
I'm not a GW hater, I've been playing since I was 9 years old. I love the game and the universe of 40k, but I hate what the game's becoming because of shady, poor and ill conceived business practices by GW.
So, yes, I'm sitting 7th out.
(Side note: Still no friggin' legions and still NOTHING new for Sisters of Battle.)
Nevelon wrote: I’m OK with what I’ve heard about 7th. I wouldn’t say “pumped” but mildly optimistic. One of my big issues is the Business side of GW vs. the Gaming side. I like the mechanical bits I’ve seen, but the $85 book after 6th only went 2 years is a major cloud hanging over 7th. I’m waiting for a small book before I pick it up, but that has nothing to do with the rules themselves.
Yeah, this complaint really does hold with me too. While I'm fine getting a new book (only $60 ish for the papercopy through other retailers), I do wish GW would get Orks and BA out and then lift up a bit on the pace. I've always thought their pricing was self-destructive (and the numbers show that) and their financial acumen weak. But that doesn't impact my ability to appreciate the new edition.
I was actually kind of surprised at how much I liked this edition. A lot of the major changes seemed to be in there to tone back some of the crazier armies (FMCs can't assault on the turn they drop, Psychic Phase makes casting a lot more difficult), and there are a bunch of smaller, subtler changes that, I think, change things for the better. I love that there are no more rules for setting up a table, it's just a matter of making one that looks scenic.
Even the Unbound stuff, which I completely expected to hate, isn't too bad in the context of everything being scoring again. Taking objectives is now a major aspect of the game with the Maelstrom of War missions, and Unbound armies are going to be at a major disadvantage in that department.
Sure it’s powerful, and tempting. But Evil and wrong. I like that they include the option. There are a lot of cases in the fluff where good people do dabble in the dark arts. "Using the enemies tools against them” and such. And while I as a fluff adherent Ultramarine will never do so, I am not offended that they include the option for those with more flexible world views.
I will gladly administer a good purging to those that do on the tabletop though. Filthy heretics. And while it might be a rare occurrence in the fluff, the games we play on the tabletop don’t represent the average day-to-day battle of the galaxy, but the exceptional ones.
The one thing I’ve seen so far in 7th that does bother me is the lumping of guard in with the IoM. One of the things about the guard codex is that it could be used to represent traitor guard, or other normal human forces fighting in a lot of situations. The new ally chart makes that a little rough for them.
MWHistorian wrote: .
Says he's not flame baiting, then calls anyone with a criticism "rage quitters."
Okay, ignoring the obvious flame baiting....
How cute, I'm calling the rage quitters, rage quitters.... cause they're in a rage... and quitting... all over Dakka, everywhere (and we know they'll mostly be back in 6 months).
For one, you've made a lot of house rules to make the game playable. You've said that you had a game club of like minded individuals. Of course you're going to be OK with this edition. That's who 7th was made for. For everyone that's not in your exact same situation (yes, there are actually people like that) people that have to rely on pickup games, it's made the pre-game negotiation much more difficult and the chances for an actual fair game far less likely. "So, are super heavies in? What about unbound or Battle forged? D weapons? FOC shennanigans? Etc etc...) No one I know brings their whole collection to a pick up game just to see what they're actually able to play.
Where on earth do you play? It has to be a place owned by someone who has said "you can play 40k here at such and such time at such and such points". There has to be frequent players at that place, or you're not having pick up games. Either the people playing or the owner now has to say "you can play 40k here at such and such time at such and such points and follow such and such list building guidelines" Is that so beyond the abilities of the typical gaming group to pull off?
Look, I'm not saying its good that GW is making us nerds have to reach a consensus on something instead of them writing a tight rule set. But Magic and other games do this. "only these cards from these decks on these nights". Are we so inept as a community that instead of being mature about this game we'd rather whine and moan.
Should Gdub have not gone all "KraZy HAts MOAR KRazy RULES!!! use EVERYTHING!!!" Yes, of course yes. They're idiots. They just are. But we're equally pathetic if we can't look past one page in a whole rulebook that marketing/JJ put in there and put on big boy pants and treat 40k game night at our local club/FLGS as something that might need a minimal amount of ground rules and structure.
Fluff breakage. This is a big one for me. Oh, Ultramarine librarians summoning deamons? Totally legit now. That goes against everything 40k has been about since my RT days. Yes, I know a marine will occasionally fall to Chaos, but not to the point where it should ever be represented on the tabletop like this. Unbound armies with Wraithknights, riptides and Vendetta all working together? Sure. That's totally narrative.
Ok, but if I want to play an UM-successor renegade chapter that still fights sorta like the UM but is willing to run the very real risks of summoning a daemon to put down a foe (which is tough for SM to pull off in 7th, I might add... game mechanics and all that), then that hardly breaks fluff.
It's too soon for me for a new edition, especially not at this price range. For some, it's worth it. But not for me.
Unbound and demon summoning weren't added to improve the game. It's all just an obvious cash grab by a increasingly desperate GW.... GW business practices help keep me away.
No arguments, a part of GW is stupid.
I'm not happy with the pyschic phase thing because neither of my armies have psykers and that seems to be a handicap now. Also, its adding a lot more complexity and an additional turn to the game.
Random charts for everything. They love the term "narrative" but don't actually know what it means. Random charts aren't narrative.
I really think the psychic powers just got a HUGE nerf. I'm amazed more aren't seeing this (some are, most aren't). FAQs could prove me wrong, but as it stands, things aren't that bad.
(Side note: Still no friggin' legions and still NOTHING new for Sisters of Battle.)
I feel bad for SoBs... but Legions won't happen. GW is letting FW do that. Its pretty clear that's the route you need to go for those (and the 30k stuff is looking really really good, I can't wait to see what they do as legions get more chaos-y.
Army lists for the Emperor's Children, Death Guard, Sons of Horus, World Eaters, Word Bearers, Night Lords, Iron Hands, Salamanders, Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion, Imperial Fists and Raven Guard can be found in these 2 books. Bam.
Other then a few very specific rules I am ok with 7th edition. The only thing that really bothers me is in the psyker rules saying that if one model gets denied a power then no other model in the unit can try and manifest the same power.
-2" charge range when assaulting into cover wasn't really needed either.
I am glad for the FMC changes. Makes them more durable but less assaulty as they have to spend an entire turn on the ground prior to assaulting. This was needed as was the change to Smash. Too much Smash shenanigans (myself included with the wraithknight).
Vehicles being more durable slightly effects my vehicles as most time all the pens will turn into glance (serpent shields) but it does make falcons, fire prisms, and nightspinners more durable. In addition you can fire off serpent shields and still be semi durable as long as nothing is shooting at you with AP1 or 2.
Some armies need their deny special abilities modified a bit (space wolves) in order to stop them from dominating over all enemy psykers due to a RaW in thier codex.
The new cards for objectives makes the game more dynamic (like a battlefield should be) and I can't wait to try them out.
I could have sworn FW was only doing 30K legions. This is shocking, but 30k And 40k are very different. Alot has happened to the legions in 10,000 years. So no, 40k still has no legion rules. Also just saying you don't have to use a stupid rule, doesn't make it not stupid.
How cute, I'm calling the rage quitters, rage quitters.... cause they're in a rage... and quitting... all over Dakka, everywhere (and we know they'll mostly be back in 6 months).
This is flame bait, whether you think so or not. Few people are 'raging', though I'm sure many are quitting. Labeling them as raging completely dismisses any of their valid reasons for leaving or criticisms of the game.
If you start a thread with 'Not to flamebait', and then proceed to do exactly that, well, it shows you were never really interested in hearing the other side's case.
I'm glad you're liking the new edition (albeit with a dozen house rules for the most broken aspects, fair), but I didn't like the direction 6th took, and I don't like the continuation that 7th is taking. Combined with the shorten shelf-life of the last edition and the increase in price, and I may very well sit this edition out.
Lucky for me, I'm moving to a new city in a month, and there are some people I know who play. Maybe they think like me and I can play a heavily modified version of 40k.
My space marines largely profit from the changes and I also don't expect anyone in my vicinity to try one of the doom and gloom lists that people fear about the 7th. So I'm looking forward to it.
I really like the unbound idea. Sure it's a cash grab (grubby, stupid business trying to make money) but I love the fact that I can now browse the ENTIRE lineup of 40K and play pretty much whatever I want now. This is an exciting format for me, and I was so happy to see it. Sure there will be people who abuse this, but honestly, I game in a pretty small circle and guys at my FLGS aren't into that sort of thing.
I am very optimistic about this edition, and aside from the ludicrous price of the new rule book I imagine that this will make me enjoy the hobby even more.
I'm not calling the OP a blinded white knight, but he's a blinded white knight.
See how that works?
(I don't actually think that, I'm just making a point about obvious hypocrisy while being simultaneously condescending and dismissive.)
Not flame bait... seriously. After adding the house rule "2 detachments max, LoW/Fortifications need to have substitute points incase opponent doesn't want to deal with them, Battle forged only, only primary detachment non troops score" I think I'm good. My club won't bat an eye at that restriction and after we get over that this is a really good edition.
But that is like playing a totaly different game then w40k rules say.
And If demons are your main army , then I am sure your happy for 7th , they got better. On the other hand tau got nerfed a lot . My AM won't work unless I take ally . I for example have nothing that can counter a demon spawning list that drops 2-3 squads of horrors per turn , while buffing their invs and stoping my two casters from doing anything.
How'd I get a buff? My herald can't shoot flickering fire in a unit of pink horrors and I can't assault after flying. The hard to drop and daemon summoning might help certain competitive lists though. Still bad to see another nerf to assault.
Besides it basically forced turn 3 assaults, made thirsters worse, made Khornate DP worse, and made assault oriented not FMC we will fly and spam shots and then assault to finish off dramatically worse.
Mixed opinions. I don't see either of my armies changing much(Legion and DE). I have some younger kids in my group(18-25) and they might go hog wild, however a simple No should suffice. Not a fan of Unbound and will not be playing it, will still play no lord of war unless the other player has a lord of war to balance it, and will continue to refuse to play against Screamerstars.
My vehicles got better and it looks like my assault squads can consolidate into combat after winning one. Nice for my Primarch
Not flame bait... seriously. After adding the house rule "2 detachments max, LoW/Fortifications need to have substitute points incase opponent doesn't want to deal with them, Battle forged only, only primary detachment non troops score" I think I'm good. My club won't bat an eye at that restriction and after we get over that this is a really good edition.
But that is like playing a totaly different game then w40k rules say.
And If demons are your main army , then I am sure your happy for 7th , they got better. On the other hand tau got nerfed a lot . My AM won't work unless I take ally . I for example have nothing that can counter a demon spawning list that drops 2-3 squads of horrors per turn , while buffing their invs and stoping my two casters from doing anything.
How'd I get a buff? My herald can't shoot flickering fire in a unit of pink horrors and I can't assault after flying. The hard to drop and daemon summoning might help certain competitive lists though. Still bad to see another nerf to assault.
Besides it basically forced turn 3 assaults, made thirsters worse, made Khornate DP worse, and made assault oriented not FMC we will fly and spam shots and then assault to finish off dramatically worse.
Good points, StarTrotter... and you're proving my point
People who don't play Daemons, think Daemons are broken and will be spawning a hundred blood thirsters.... those who think through the new dynamic realize that for every buff there seems to be a nerf... and things that others are freaked out about are actually pretty tricky to pull off
Bikes got better (increased save) but nerfed (snapfire)
MC got worse, their never before 6th smash rule got knocked back to reasonable levels, but they can move through terrain better, assault through terrain better, and still can really hurt most vehicles.
This is a rebalance... and a tweak, cooler heads will prevail, but why does it take us a year to get there, and in all the negative pouting we turn off more people to the game. If people don't like a town, they move, but they don't try to set it on fire on the way out... why are gamers so willing to burn bridges and do damage on the way out?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote: I'm not calling the OP a blinded white knight, but he's a blinded white knight.
See how that works?
(I don't actually think that, I'm just making a point about obvious hypocrisy while being simultaneously condescending and dismissive.)
Wow. How about you make a point about avoiding the topic, and ignoring counter points to arguments? That would be even more clever witty and cutting
Musashi363 wrote: I could have sworn FW was only doing 30K legions. This is shocking, but 30k And 40k are very different. Alot has happened to the legions in 10,000 years. So no, 40k still has no legion rules. Also just saying you don't have to use a stupid rule, doesn't make it not stupid.
Actually, Legion rules, that I've seen, still make a lot of sense, both for representing the Chapters that were originally Legions and their successors in 40K, for both Loyalists and Traitors in lieu of the 'proper' 40K books.
Sure, it would take opponents permission, but the rules are out there to make a really fluffy, effective but not broken and fun Legion list.
Fluff breakage. This is a big one for me. Oh, Ultramarine librarians summoning deamons?
Don't do it, then.
You'd say the same about allies shenanigans, death stars, D weapons, and all the other issues with 6th, right? I'm having trouble finding that in your post history.
Dismissing bad rules with, "Hey, don't use them," only gets you so far. Fewer people are buying GW products now than this time last year. They're not bringing in new blood. They've cut costs to the bone and are releasing entire editions on a whim in an effort to make EOTY figures look good. I'd say, "Don't do it, then," has gotten them as far as it's going to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lobukia wrote: This is a rebalance... and a tweak, cooler heads will prevail, but why does it take us a year to get there, and in all the negative pouting we turn off more people to the game. If people don't like a town, they move, but they don't try to set it on fire on the way out... why are gamers so willing to burn bridges and do damage on the way out?
I find it fascinating you believe it's the "negativity" that's turning potential new people off rather than the $500+ start-up cost to get involved and the availability of cheaper, better alternatives out there.
Triton wrote: Fewer people are buying GW products now than this time last year. They're not bringing in new blood.
So true, their pricing and lack of rules support is killing them (as is the bafflingly bizarre one man store approach and their screw the FLGS tactics). Though a good chunk of the blame is at the feet of the bitter and self destructive vocal minority that's practicing a scorched earth policy on the old interwebz and the unwillingness of club/league/pick up game organizer to set ground rules.
Triton wrote: Fewer people are buying GW products now than this time last year. They're not bringing in new blood.
So true, their pricing and lack of rules support is killing them (as is the bafflingly bizarre one man store approach and their screw the FLGS tactics). Though a good chunk of the blame is at the feet of the bitter and self destructive vocal minority that's practicing a scorched earth policy on the old interwebz and the unwillingness of club/league/pick up game organizer to set ground rules.
So GW's failing is that not enough of its players are willing to fix its bad rules they paid ridiculous amounts of money for?
Lobukia wrote: This is a rebalance... and a tweak, cooler heads will prevail, but why does it take us a year to get there, and in all the negative pouting we turn off more people to the game. If people don't like a town, they move, but they don't try to set it on fire on the way out... why are gamers so willing to burn bridges and do damage on the way out?
I find it fascinating you believe it's the "negativity" that's turning potential new people off rather than the $500+ start-up cost to get involved and the availability of cheaper, better alternatives out there.
I find it fascinating you can't read. I've said the same... in this thread.
Triton wrote: Fewer people are buying GW products now than this time last year. They're not bringing in new blood.
So true, their pricing and lack of rules support is killing them (as is the bafflingly bizarre one man store approach and their screw the FLGS tactics). Though a good chunk of the blame is at the feet of the bitter and self destructive vocal minority that's practicing a scorched earth policy on the old interwebz and the unwillingness of club/league/pick up game organizer to set ground rules.
So GW's failing is that not enough of its players are willing to fix its bad rules they paid ridiculous amounts of money for?
Yeah, shame on those guys.
I bolded the parts you can't understand so that you can at least make clear retorts that aren't already countered in what you're quoting... you're welcome
Not flame bait... seriously. After adding the house rule "2 detachments max, LoW/Fortifications need to have substitute points incase opponent doesn't want to deal with them, Battle forged only, only primary detachment non troops score" I think I'm good. My club won't bat an eye at that restriction and after we get over that this is a really good edition.
But that is like playing a totaly different game then w40k rules say.
And If demons are your main army , then I am sure your happy for 7th , they got better. On the other hand tau got nerfed a lot . My AM won't work unless I take ally . I for example have nothing that can counter a demon spawning list that drops 2-3 squads of horrors per turn , while buffing their invs and stoping my two casters from doing anything.
How'd I get a buff? My herald can't shoot flickering fire in a unit of pink horrors and I can't assault after flying. The hard to drop and daemon summoning might help certain competitive lists though. Still bad to see another nerf to assault.
Besides it basically forced turn 3 assaults, made thirsters worse, made Khornate DP worse, and made assault oriented not FMC we will fly and spam shots and then assault to finish off dramatically worse.
Good points, StarTrotter... and you're proving my point
People who don't play Daemons, think Daemons are broken and will be spawning a hundred blood thirsters.... those who think through the new dynamic realize that for every buff there seems to be a nerf... and things that others are freaked out about are actually pretty tricky to pull off
Bikes got better (increased save) but nerfed (snapfire)
MC got worse, their never before 6th smash rule got knocked back to reasonable levels, but they can move through terrain better, assault through terrain better, and still can really hurt most vehicles.
This is a rebalance... and a tweak, cooler heads will prevail, but why does it take us a year to get there, and in all the negative pouting we turn off more people to the game. If people don't like a town, they move, but they don't try to set it on fire on the way out... why are gamers so willing to burn bridges and do damage on the way out?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote: I'm not calling the OP a blinded white knight, but he's a blinded white knight.
See how that works?
(I don't actually think that, I'm just making a point about obvious hypocrisy while being simultaneously condescending and dismissive.)
Wow. How about you make a point about avoiding the topic, and ignoring counter points to arguments? That would be even more clever witty and cutting
Because I"m not here to argue. Your original post said that you didn't understand why people are complaining. My post was to explain why they were so you could understand. I even said you might not agree. My further posts were to show that you wouldn't agree because you're being automatically dismissive of the other side.
I liked 6th, Escalation, and Stronghold Assaults, so I'll like 7th.
What we have been delivered is 6th with Escalation and Stronghold Assaults, a couple new spell charts, and a new Psyker Phase.
I think the new Psyker Phase looks fun, and I'm looking forward to trying it out...that seems to be the only real change to 6th I see other than minor rules and chart twerks.
My major issue with 7th is that they have done very little to fix the weakness of assault armies. Heck, changing WS to mean something, having assault grenades effect overwatch, making a set charges range, terrain giving a set int penalty (like -2 or -3) would have done a lot. Melee units are still priced like they were in 4th.
Lets look a the genestealer. Correct me if I am wrong, but they have been getting progressively worse since 3rd. They used to be boss, but now they are just sad.
AdeptSister wrote: My major issue with 7th is that they have done very little to fix the weakness of assault armies. Heck, changing WS to mean something, having assault grenades effect overwatch, making a set charges range, terrain giving a set int penalty (like -2 or -3) would have done a lot. Melee units are still priced like they were in 4th.
Lets look a the genestealer. Correct me if I am wrong, but they have been getting progressively worse since 3rd. They used to be boss, but now they are just sad.
Its true, but placing objective before choosing sides alone will help assault armies quite a bit. Is it enough? Who knows, but it might be. I will say, I run mostly assault armies and in all but GT top table stuff, they do quite well.
Lobukia wrote: Not flame bait... seriously.
Don't mean to sound dismissive, but what's all the troubles gents? I've read every stinking post in the News Rumors threads and most here, and I'm just not seeing any problems once you get over the FoC issues. The rage quitters and edition banners just seem to be generating nerd-rage white noise. Seriously, look at the armies I play (sig). The ones I run the most are Daemons/CSM allies (lots of FMC), SM varieties, Guard. I play against/with a ton of Tau, Cron, Eldar, Nids. I don't see any of these getting overtly nerfed.
All in all this a fairly subtle and needed edition change. I don't see these rules as complex (not at all). Come on. I think a deep breath, a moment of mature calm reflection, and taking a step back is needed for the DakkaDakka community as a whole. IMO 6th was the best edition yet (played at least a little of all, owned models since the RT days) and in 7th I see only improvements if you have a club of even barely socially aware, reasonable people. If you don't why would you play there anyway?
If you've looked at my posts, I'm hardly a glass half full guy or a GW apologist (those epic, morons), but I'm a big enough man to give the rules a fair shake and it looks good to me.
Says he's not flame baiting, then calls anyone with a criticism "rage quitters."
Okay, ignoring the obvious flame baiting....
So, you read 200+ pages of the news and rumors thread and you're still clueless as to what the criticisms actually are?
Okay, I'll break it down for you, though its been broken down by people in that previous thread and far more eloquent than I can manage.
For one, you've made a lot of house rules to make the game playable. You've said that you had a game club of like minded individuals. Of course you're going to be OK with this edition. That's who 7th was made for. For everyone that's not in your exact same situation (yes, there are actually people like that) people that have to rely on pickup games, it's made the pre-game negotiation much more difficult and the chances for an actual fair game far less likely. "So, are super heavies in? What about unbound or Battle forged? D weapons? FOC shennanigans? Etc etc...) No one I know brings their whole collection to a pick up game just to see what they're actually able to play.
Fluff breakage. This is a big one for me. Oh, Ultramarine librarians summoning deamons? Totally legit now. That goes against everything 40k has been about since my RT days. Yes, I know a marine will occasionally fall to Chaos, but not to the point where it should ever be represented on the tabletop like this. Unbound armies with Wraithknights, riptides and Vendetta all working together? Sure. That's totally narrative.
It's too soon for me for a new edition, especially not at this price range. For some, it's worth it. But not for me.
Unbound and demon summoning weren't added to improve the game. It's all just an obvious cash grab by a increasingly desperate GW.
I'm not happy with the pyschic phase thing because neither of my armies have psykers and that seems to be a handicap now. Also, its adding a lot more complexity and an additional turn to the game.
Random charts for everything. They love the term "narrative" but don't actually know what it means. Random charts aren't narrative.
GW business practices help keep me away.
Basically its become a huge unbalanced mess that moves further and further away from a well balanced, good rule set and more into a "feth it, just do whatever you want" kind of ruleset. Not paying $85 for that.
Does that clear it up for you or are you still going to pretend problems don't exist? You may disagree with some, but at least try to see why people have criticisms.
I'm not a GW hater, I've been playing since I was 9 years old. I love the game and the universe of 40k, but I hate what the game's becoming because of shady, poor and ill conceived business practices by GW.
So, yes, I'm sitting 7th out.
(Side note: Still no friggin' legions and still NOTHING new for Sisters of Battle.)
"Fluff breakage. This is a big one for me. Oh, Ultramarine librarians summoning deamons? Totally legit now. That goes against everything 40k has been about since my RT days. Yes, I know a marine will occasionally fall to Chaos, but not to the point where it should ever be represented on the tabletop like this. Unbound armies with Wraithknights, riptides and Vendetta all working together? Sure. That's totally narrative. " So because you don't want to field a freshly or nearly corrupted librarian, nobody else should be allowed to either? So because you don't want to field a Gue'vesa/Tau and Eldar temporarily allying to stop a hive fleet, or chaos incursion, nobody else should? The daemon summoning is part of the fluff. Psychic powers go wrong all the time, maybe that Wyrdvane psyker squad accidentally spewed Khornates in the enemy's lap and is about to get a Commissar breathing down their collective necks. (And sure, none of this applies to none narrative games, but then the criticism of anti-fluff can't apply to non narrative games because winning, not fluff, is the measured used.
"Unbound and demon summoning weren't added to improve the game. It's all just an obvious cash grab by a increasingly desperate GW." Who would have expected a company to maximise profits whilst simultaneously giving consumers new ways of using their product? It's as if GW isn't a charity or something.
"I'm not happy with the pyschic phase thing because neither of my armies have psykers and that seems to be a handicap now. Also, its adding a lot more complexity and an additional turn to the game." It's literally no more of a handicap now than it was before, if anything the armies without psykers got improved because casting psychic powers got more difficult, more risky and fewer in number (check out the threads of psychic power probabilities. If you were happy to use non-psyker armies before, you're situation has only improved since. The last point will need time to tell. It could be that moving all the psychic powers into their own phase will mean players don't forget them and actually become quicker by not using them at all manner of different times of the turn.
"Basically its become a huge unbalanced mess that moves further and further away from a well balanced, good rule set and more into a "feth it, just do whatever you want" kind of ruleset. Not paying $85 for that." It's always been unbalanced. Rhino Rush, Draigowing, Leafblowers, Herohammer, etc.
The rest of the stuff I didn't comment I totally agree with. If only they'd be a nice company. That doesn't stop the criticisms I'm reading seeming absurd and premature to me.
God In Action wrote: So because you don't want to field a freshly or nearly corrupted librarian, nobody else should be allowed to either? So because you don't want to field a Gue'vesa/Tau and Eldar temporarily allying to stop a hive fleet, or chaos incursion, nobody else should? The daemon summoning is part of the fluff. Psychic powers go wrong all the time, maybe that Wyrdvane psyker squad accidentally spewed Khornates in the enemy's lap and is about to get a Commissar breathing down their collective necks. (And sure, none of this applies to none narrative games, but then the criticism of anti-fluff can't apply to non narrative games because winning, not fluff, is the measured used.
A "freshly or nearly corrupted librarian" would be quite well-covered by Chaos Space Marines. Because that's what they are. Chaos Space Marines.
You're making a very specific argument that we absolutely need to have guys who turn traitor in the middle of a battlefield codified into rules. That's a new one. Points for creativity, at least.
And none of it addresses why the Great Unclean One you just summoned would fight for your loyalist Ultramarine brothers against, say, the Death Guard on the other side of the table. It's an incredibly stupid addition to the game. I understand that people who don't particularly care about the fluff or want to battle sounds as they move their guys across the table feel the need to argue in favor for it, but there's no justification found in the fluff.
Who would have expected a company to maximise profits whilst simultaneously giving consumers new ways of using their product? It's as if GW isn't a charity or something.
They're getting pretty close to a charity (or at least a non-profit) in terms of their P/L. As has been said before in this thread, they're not gaining new customers, and they're losing a lot of established ones as the editions go by. You like the, "Take anything you want, we've decided that bloodletters and Gray Knights fight side by side all the time!"-style changes? Great. I'm genuinely happy for you. But other people don't. Other people don't like the unjustifiably high prices, the patently obvious cash grab releases, etc. You can argue against them all you like, but they're not listening. They're too busy taking their money elsewhere.
I find the anti-fluff argument just somewhat odd. Think of it this way. If the vast new options available don't fit people's vision of the fluff, they shouldn't do it- problem solved. If they are doing something against the fluff- well the fluff isn't their main concern in the first place so how can they be using it is a criticism? Those that care about fluff will follow it, and those that don't won't. (I admit, there'll be problems in pick up games, but that's a universal problem of finding a player that wants the same sort of game as you, and not specific to daemon summoning).
I don't like using Bloodletters and Grey Knights side by side so I never will be, but if someone else wants to it isn't hurting me. More power to them if that's what's fun.
And definitely vote with your money. I' too skipped several GW purchase for other products because of price, for example. This doesn't relate to the merits of 7th as a ruleset though- only to the initial purchase (and there's other options than buying the £50 book tomorrow).
God In Action wrote: I find the anti-fluff argument just somewhat odd. Think of it this way. If the vast new options available don't fit people's vision of the fluff, they shouldn't do it- problem solved.
Well, then let's not divide units up into factions at all. I mean, if someone wants to take a Space Marine only force, they can do it. Everyone else can enjoy the vast new options available by having a hive tyrant lead crisis suits, orks, Plague Marines, and Blood Angels into battle.
Grey Knights cannot use Malefic powers, if I'm reading the chart correctly.
Exorcists are loyalist marines who are "possessed" by a summoned daemon in the fluff before being exorcised, so yes, summoning daemons is known even to loyalists.
Unbound lists need to be agreed with the opponent, and most people who play them will either be doing some sort of theme (Pedro Kantor leading an army of Sternguard = Deathwatch) or just doing a "run what you brung" event. Since they're agreed to, they'll often be against Unbound lists, and massed Riptides fighting massed Tyranid Monstrous Creatures has a very Pacific Rim vibe to it.
Not a long time player (started at the dawn of 6th), but I am liking 7th quite a bit so far. I agree with your assessment, Lobukia, completely. My group won't bat an eye about not using Unbound and will likely rein in the FoC spam for Battleforged armies. Other than that, I think this edition has much promise.
Freman Bloodglaive wrote: Grey Knights cannot use Malefic powers, if I'm reading the chart correctly.
No, but they can certainly fight alongside summoned daemons.
Exorcists are loyalist marines who are "possessed" by a summoned daemon in the fluff before being exorcised, so yes, summoning daemons is known even to loyalists.
And that's a secret that they keep extremely quiet, because it's, you know, heresy, and they'd be purged if it got out.
I mean, sure, we absolutely needed rules to allow us to play Exorcists who went well beyond what they're doing in the fluff and summoned daemons to fight for them rather than just allowing temporary possession.
I'm happy with it mostly so far. My problem with 6th was random charge and overwatch potency...seeing how that's not going anywhere anytime soon, I accept it 2 years later.
There isn't a new rule yet I don't like. So far as far as core rules go, everything seems pretty black and white with little confusion like past books. Once all the codex gets tossed into the rules though is where it gets wonkey.
Kal-El wrote: I'm happy with it mostly so far. My problem with 6th was random charge and overwatch potency...seeing how that's not going anywhere anytime soon, I accept it 2 years later.
There isn't a new rule yet I don't like. So far as far as core rules go, everything seems pretty black and white with little confusion like past books. Once all the codex gets tossed into the rules though is where it gets wonkey.
Yeah the FAQs will be telling. Don't know why they're not out yet.
I was looking forward to the new rules, but then they axed my chariots. Well, not literally axed, but the mechanic of one dead=both dead is a show stopper for me. I'm trying to keep a positive outlook though. All my Necron lists have an extra 160 points to play with. I just need to figure out how to footslog Overlords again.
I'm just sad because my double CCB rush with scarab swarming behind was such a fun dynamic.
Fafnir13 wrote: I was looking forward to the new rules, but then they axed my chariots. Well, not literally axed, but the mechanic of one dead=both dead is a show stopper for me. I'm trying to keep a positive outlook though. All my Necron lists have an extra 160 points to play with. I just need to figure out how to footslog Overlords again.
I'm just sad because my double CCB rush with scarab swarming behind was such a fun dynamic.
Our local Nercon player was pumped. Said necron chariots were better and that he as allowed to split allocation until one died... and that if reanimated both chariot and 'cron came back with 1 HP/W each. Maybe he's just reading it wrong or despite that they're still "axed"??
I'll admit, of all the codices I am weakest on the Necrons, so I may not even be passing his reading of the rules on correctly. I don't have book in hand yet, so I'm simply a second hand repository at the moment.
Lobukia wrote: Not flame bait... seriously.
Don't mean to sound dismissive, but what's all the troubles gents? I've read every stinking post in the News Rumors threads and most here, and I'm just not seeing any problems once you get over the FoC issues. The rage quitters and edition banners just seem to be generating nerd-rage white noise. Seriously, look at the armies I play (sig). The ones I run the most are Daemons/CSM allies (lots of FMC), SM varieties, Guard. I play against/with a ton of Tau, Cron, Eldar, Nids. I don't see any of these getting overtly nerfed.
All in all this a fairly subtle and needed edition change. I don't see these rules as complex (not at all). Come on. I think a deep breath, a moment of mature calm reflection, and taking a step back is needed for the DakkaDakka community as a whole. IMO 6th was the best edition yet (played at least a little of all, owned models since the RT days) and in 7th I see only improvements if you have a club of even barely socially aware, reasonable people. If you don't why would you play there anyway?
If you've looked at my posts, I'm hardly a glass half full guy or a GW apologist (those epic, morons), but I'm a big enough man to give the rules a fair shake and it looks good to me.
Says he's not flame baiting, then calls anyone with a criticism "rage quitters."
Okay, ignoring the obvious flame baiting....
So, you read 200+ pages of the news and rumors thread and you're still clueless as to what the criticisms actually are?
Okay, I'll break it down for you, though its been broken down by people in that previous thread and far more eloquent than I can manage.
For one, you've made a lot of house rules to make the game playable. You've said that you had a game club of like minded individuals. Of course you're going to be OK with this edition. That's who 7th was made for. For everyone that's not in your exact same situation (yes, there are actually people like that) people that have to rely on pickup games, it's made the pre-game negotiation much more difficult and the chances for an actual fair game far less likely. "So, are super heavies in? What about unbound or Battle forged? D weapons? FOC shennanigans? Etc etc...) No one I know brings their whole collection to a pick up game just to see what they're actually able to play.
Fluff breakage. This is a big one for me. Oh, Ultramarine librarians summoning deamons? Totally legit now. That goes against everything 40k has been about since my RT days. Yes, I know a marine will occasionally fall to Chaos, but not to the point where it should ever be represented on the tabletop like this. Unbound armies with Wraithknights, riptides and Vendetta all working together? Sure. That's totally narrative.
It's too soon for me for a new edition, especially not at this price range. For some, it's worth it. But not for me.
Unbound and demon summoning weren't added to improve the game. It's all just an obvious cash grab by a increasingly desperate GW.
I'm not happy with the pyschic phase thing because neither of my armies have psykers and that seems to be a handicap now. Also, its adding a lot more complexity and an additional turn to the game.
Random charts for everything. They love the term "narrative" but don't actually know what it means. Random charts aren't narrative.
GW business practices help keep me away.
Basically its become a huge unbalanced mess that moves further and further away from a well balanced, good rule set and more into a "feth it, just do whatever you want" kind of ruleset. Not paying $85 for that.
Does that clear it up for you or are you still going to pretend problems don't exist? You may disagree with some, but at least try to see why people have criticisms.
I'm not a GW hater, I've been playing since I was 9 years old. I love the game and the universe of 40k, but I hate what the game's becoming because of shady, poor and ill conceived business practices by GW.
So, yes, I'm sitting 7th out.
(Side note: Still no friggin' legions and still NOTHING new for Sisters of Battle.)
I got the book Wednesday and couldn't be bothered with it, its a $100 copy paste job they did in a month to desperately try and make it look they are profiting, best part is GW stores wont let you return them with the wrap is open.
loving it, cant wait to put the maelstrom missions through their paces
Also chariots got super buffed so I would not worry about wanting to play them. Seriously read the shooting allocation and then get back to me.
"O your shot can hurt my armor, I will take it on my 2+/3++ character, if not it is on my chariot" Seriously really the new chariot rules, they are CRAZY.
What if I don't agree with your tweaks? For you making "tweaks" in the first place is showing you are not that excited to begin with, but have reservation, or dislike to begin with. So your title is a lie, or flame bating even if that is not your intent. At least be truthful with your title.
So how can we agree if you are already changing the rules?
Fafnir13 wrote: I was looking forward to the new rules, but then they axed my chariots. Well, not literally axed, but the mechanic of one dead=both dead is a show stopper for me. I'm trying to keep a positive outlook though. All my Necron lists have an extra 160 points to play with. I just need to figure out how to footslog Overlords again.
I'm just sad because my double CCB rush with scarab swarming behind was such a fun dynamic.
Our local Nercon player was pumped. Said necron chariots were better and that he as allowed to split allocation until one died... and that if reanimated both chariot and 'cron came back with 1 HP/W each. Maybe he's just reading it wrong or despite that they're still "axed"??
I'll admit, of all the codices I am weakest on the Necrons, so I may not even be passing his reading of the rules on correctly. I don't have book in hand yet, so I'm simply a second hand repository at the moment.
He's most likely being overly optimistic with the resurrection bit. I don't have the rule book, so perhaps there's some special note in it about the chariot getting special rules from the character. I highly doubt that though....
The changes to chariots help it survive the shooting phase better, especialy vs Melta. The problem is in close combat where a chariot is supposed to be doing it's thing. If what I've read on DakkaDakka is correct, the enemy is still delegating where their attacks go. The chariot now gets it's FA vs melee attacks, but you'd be surprised how many STR 10 Ap 2 things are out there (with the new Sanctic table, even more things...). With open topped, the Catacomb Command Barge is too easy for the big guys to pop with no saves to keep that from happening. Used to be I would at least get the consolation prize of having my Overlord around to feth with things.
The biggest issue for me is I've had too many fun experiences with the old mechanics. Just the other day, I rolled the Outflanking warlord trait for one of my Bargelords. Since I had a good unit of Immortals in that game, I popped him in with those and had a nice backfield gunline turn 2. Meanwhile, the empty chariot charged up with the other Bargelord. It turned out really well for him as His ride got blasted by some Stormraven Melta. He just hopped in the other chariot and continued to have a jolly old time.
Another time, two landraider's worth of paladins and terminators got the charge off on my two Bargelords. One had his chariot bashed out, the other got gibbed by a hammer and didn't rez. The surviving Overlord piled into the now empty barge, scythed a couple terminators, and blew up a Landraider in the following turn. That chariot then got blasted out from underneath him, but he still managed to get another landraider and then contested a key objective whilst in a challenge for the rest of the game.
I'm just really bummed crazy stuff like that really can't happen anymore. It strips out a lot of flexibility which made the unit so much fun for me to use.
huh, consider me surprised. Thanks for the info.
Ok, I'll still complain about the loss of flexibility, but I'll at least give some Bargelords with ressurecction orbs a try. I'll withdraw my "axed" comment for now
A "freshly or nearly corrupted librarian" would be quite well-covered by Chaos Space Marines. Because that's what they are. Chaos Space Marines.
Except that they wouldn't. He's making a very valid point that you just dismiss without at least trying to understand what he wrote. It's been repeatedly stated that Codex: Chaos Space Marines is not a good way of playing a recently corrupted Space Marine chapter unless you want to play a mutation-heavy one like the Crimson Slaughter. Overall playing Codex: Space Marines as renegades with a daemonology Librarian is a much, much smarter and better way to represent Renegade Chapters than CSM will ever be. And if you still need a better example, think about Blood Ravens from Dawn of War 2 when their Chapter Master got corrupted and turned the majority of the chapter traitor. They didn't suddenly start mutating, they didn't grow horns and spikes - they were regular Space Marines with the Librarian Chapter Master going corrupted by Chaos.
Triton wrote: You're making a very specific argument that we absolutely need to have guys who turn traitor in the middle of a battlefield codified into rules.
We don't need it. We also don't need half of the armies or units in Codexes. It's there to give some players options, as simple as that. Get it now? Option. For those who want to use it. Yeah.
Triton wrote: That's a new one. Points for creativity, at least.
Not sure if douchebaggy sarcasm. I hope not, otherwise I'll donate all my money towards internet slap technology research. If it's low sarcasm like that, it's despicable and should be reflected upon.
Triton wrote: And none of it addresses why the Great Unclean One you just summoned would fight for your loyalist Ultramarine brothers against, say, the Death Guard on the other side of the table.
Yes, that's the downside of that option, but it's something that can't be predicted while making a fluffy renegade chapter army with daemonology. And even then it's possible to justify through a proper narrative. "Brother-Librarian [insert name] felt that doom was upon his brothers as he saw the relentless advance of the Traitor forces merely heralding a much greater Chaos offensive. In a final act of sacrifice he decided to damn himself to protect his brethren and mock the vile traitors by using all of his psychic powers to conjure up the very creature they revered and order it against them even if it costs him his name and his very soul. The Emperor protects." See? That hard? Cheesy, you say? I made it up on the spot. Could do better if I had enough time. Remember that Possession removes the psyker and replaces him with the Greater Daemon, you don't just 'summon it'.
Triton wrote: It's an incredibly stupid addition to the game.
Only when stupid people use it in stupid ways. You can also jam a knife in your eye, but you won't, right? The option still remains there.
Triton wrote: I understand that people who don't particularly care about the fluff or want to battle sounds as they move their guys across the table feel the need to argue in favor for it, but there's no justification found in the fluff.
I just did. I know 40k fluff well enough to know that it's plausible.
Triton wrote: You like the, "Take anything you want, we've decided that bloodletters and Gray Knights fight side by side all the time!"-style changes? Great. I'm genuinely happy for you. But other people don't.
Except that they don't. GK as far as I remember are not going to be able to take powers from Malefic Daemonology just like Daemons can't take powers from Sanctic. Unless you mean Unbound, but again - it's just GW's courtesy to give some players some optional free will to have a little creative fun with Unbound armies. Be it for lulz with random crap slapped in, for ultra-powergaming(which was somewhat debunked lately in most threads) or.. sic! For some wild fluffy combinations that the particular player might find interesting!
Before you dismiss it, think of a friendly agreement to play Gue'vesa army. Or combined Chaos forces with renegade Guard, CSM and Daemons. Or even the very simple idea of adding a Knight to a Chaos army, because why not! It's not like Chaos didn't have them, right? Now you can put them in your Chaos force if you want. See - just because it allows you to make unfluffy combinations it doesn't mean that it can't be used as an official statement from GW that you can actually have such fun as long as your opponent doesn't mind playing it. Now I'll get the "we don't need GW to allow us to do it" reply, but it's silly - GW didn't officially 'allow' Forge World and see how many people have problems with it, honestly.
Triton wrote: Other people don't like the unjustifiably high prices, the patently obvious cash grab releases, etc. You can argue against them all you like, but they're not listening. They're too busy taking their money elsewhere.
At least I can agree here, but then again there always will be people that are genuinely interested in some of those things and they're okay with paying for them. I, for one, want to play Codex: Stormicus Trooperus because I like it and no amount of "BUT THEY COULD ROLL IT INTO CODEX: ASTRA MILITARUM!" will ever convince me that GW would ever do that these times. The golden era of White Dwarf 'supplement' releases is gone. It can be back, but it's not at the moment, so.. yeah. If you want it, you buy it. If you don't feel that the price is justified/is going to be paid back in sheer fun, you don't buy it. Applies to wargaming, video games, cars, holiday vacations, everything. It's the wallets that decide nowadays.
Long story short - just because you can't think of something such as fluffy explanation doesn't mean there aren't any. People generally come up with plausible ideas for stuff they can't field normally, GW just gives the opportunities and if players only use them for stupid exploits, then it's the players that are douchebags and THEY should be branded as butthats by the community. At my FLGS guys like that would be told to get lost and noone would play with them if they ruin the game for others, as simple as that.
Leth wrote: loving it, cant wait to put the maelstrom missions through their paces
Also chariots got super buffed so I would not worry about wanting to play them. Seriously read the shooting allocation and then get back to me.
"O your shot can hurt my armor, I will take it on my 2+/3++ character, if not it is on my chariot" Seriously really the new chariot rules, they are CRAZY.
Interesting... I will check it up. Some Daemon Chariots may see some action.
@Klerych: sorry but there is absolutely no way you can justify Farseers or loyal Librarians summoning Daemons and using them as if they were part of the same army. We are not talking about a psyker being devoured by a Daemon and then the Daemon materializing and killing everything. This is a formerly loyal psyker who summon Daemons, which in 99% of the cases means dooming the entire world, and then the Daemons obey his orders and the rest of the army is OK with that. It is the ultimate heresy, the definite step towards damnation. And the rest of the army does nothing? And how did the loyal Librarian learn how to control Daemons? Does he have an entire section about Daemons in the Librarium or is he a natural who hear demonic voices since he is a child?
Also... what´s the point? You stopped the Orks so now the Doors of Hell are open and the entire planet is devoured by Daemons or doomed by Exterminatus? And your Dark Angels are now Chaos Space Marines? In which sense is this a victory? How do you forge a narrative about that?
And Grey Knights can do it too. They can get some IG psykers as allies and fight side by side with Daemons.
I understand the 'do not do it if you think it is not correct' argument, but trying to justify this butchering of the setting by saying that this is something that may occur in the setting... no way. It makes no sense. If you play because you like the background, this rule is badly damaging the game.
Leth wrote: loving it, cant wait to put the maelstrom missions through their paces
Also chariots got super buffed so I would not worry about wanting to play them. Seriously read the shooting allocation and then get back to me.
"O your shot can hurt my armor, I will take it on my 2+/3++ character, if not it is on my chariot" Seriously really the new chariot rules, they are CRAZY.
Interesting... I will check it up. Some Daemon Chariots may see some action.
@Klerych: sorry but there is absolutely no way you can justify Farseers or loyal Librarians summoning Daemons and using them as if they were part of the same army. We are not talking about a psyker being devoured by a Daemon and then the Daemon materializing and killing everything. This is a formerly loyal psyker who summon Daemons, which in 99% of the cases means dooming the entire world, and then the Daemons obey his orders and the rest of the army is OK with that. It is the ultimate heresy, the definite step towards damnation. And the rest of the army does nothing? And how did the loyal Librarian learn how to control Daemons? Does he have an entire section about Daemons in the Librarium or is he a natural who hear demonic voices since he is a child?
Also... what´s the point? You stopped the Orks so now the Doors of Hell are open and the entire planet is devoured by Daemons or doomed by Exterminatus? And your Dark Angels are now Chaos Space Marines? In which sense is this a victory? How do you forge a narrative about that?
And Grey Knights can do it too. They can get some IG psykers as allies and fight side by side with Daemons.
I understand the 'do not do it if you think it is not correct' argument, but trying to justify this butchering of the setting by saying that this is something that may occur in the setting... no way. It makes no sense. If you play because you like the background, this rule is badly damaging the game.
Except there are plenty of cases in the fluff of loyalist psykers summoning deamons, either because they've turned or they think it'd help defeat chaos. If you're complaining about a loyal, by-the-book librarian summoning demons, then complain about the player who's summoning, not the rules that allow you to do so. The 40k rules also allow a loyalist Space Marine chapter to fight and destroy a unit of Grey Knights, does that mean GW doesn't care about the fluff too?
KommissarKarl wrote: (...)
Except there are plenty of cases in the fluff of loyalist psykers summoning deamons, either because they've turned or they think it'd help defeat chaos.
That´s the problem. It is quite the contrary indeed: there are none.
I am not talking about a radical Inquisitor or a random Librarian. I am talking about a Farseer or a known loyal Chapter. And it is not summoning a Daemon, it is doing it and then commanding them to battle with the rest of the army being OK with it. And what about the Imperial Guard? A random psyker of the IG summoning Daemons and the Commissars saying 'ok no problem, they will help us in battle; it is not that if I don´t kill you on the spot we are all gonna be killed either way because Daemons are such a horrific moral threat that the Imperium blows up entire worlds if there is even a small risk of someone knowing that they physically exist'.
So no. Feel free to prove me wrong be quoting a single place where a Farseer or a force with Sisters or GK invoked a Greater Daemon and they all fight together like good friends. Or an IG psyker summoning Daemons in battle (and commanding them) with Comissars around.
I dare you.
The worst part being, of course, that it is quite possible that the Black Library is releasing some books on the matter, to make it 'part of the setting'. So I guess eventually you will be right. But not now.
If you're complaining about a loyal, by-the-book librarian summoning demons, then complain about the player who's summoning, not the rules that allow you to do so.
That´s another completely different question. It is a decision the player is taking. I am ok with that. I don´t think the player should be blamed for fielding what he likes.
But if the player says 'no I am not [a power-gamer | someone who really likes the Daemon models | insane | someone who finds the look of pain in fluffy players´ eyes both deligthful and arousing | insert random reason], I do believe this is totally ok with the setting', then he is justifying himself quite badly, and I would politely point out that no, it is not 'fluffy', he is just butchering the background.
The 40k rules also allow a loyalist Space Marine chapter to fight and destroy a unit of Grey Knights, does that mean GW doesn't care about the fluff too?
Space Marines vs Grey Knights? This is not against the fluff. Quite the contrary. There are many examples of the Grey Knights been sent to destroy a Chapter, for things like 'there is a small chance of this people using Chaos'. It happens. In this setting 'there is only war'. There is always a reason to fight against someone. On the other side, justifying alliances is far harder.
You know, one of the better things of this background is that it is so massive that most things are possible. You really need to push it really, really hard to get to the 'no way this can happen' point.
The truth is out there. Every year the crowds playing this game get smaller. If any veteran player is pumped for this edition, it's most likely because they've been on a ten year hiatus and feel the nostalgic pull of the game again, not because the edition would be in any way good. Almost every edition has been inferior to its predecessor.
Honestly i prefer it over 6th so far. The only thing that outside a tournament really grinds my gears is the Jink change but i can live with it, its not a total neuter to the rule it just less effective. I dont play tournaments, this game was not intended to be a competitive sport so i will not play it as such, and all my friends at the FLGS are the same way (minus one wraithknight spammer).
Psyker phase seems a little.....lacking imo but i have never used psykers (weirdboyz do NOT count.... lol) so its hard for me to judge it. By throwing some practice dice though, hmm kinda nasty in the risky department lol.
New warlord traits are something to die for....wait that cancels the effect NEVERMIND lol. Seriously though, in the 6th ed ones my tau really didnt care about any of them aside the "rerolls of 1 within objective" and my orks only wanted the Challenge VP bonus one, or Outflank if i had bikerboss around. Now, holy CRAP all 3 branches bring 3-4 traits that my boss would LOVE to get lol. Fearless + IWND? o god yes YES! lol.
@Klerych: sorry but there is absolutely no way you can justify Farseers or loyal Librarians summoning Daemons and using them as if they were part of the same army. We are not talking about a psyker being devoured by a Daemon and then the Daemon materializing and killing everything. This is a formerly loyal psyker who summon Daemons, which in 99% of the cases means dooming the entire world, and then the Daemons obey his orders and the rest of the army is OK with that. It is the ultimate heresy, the definite step towards damnation. And the rest of the army does nothing? And how did the loyal Librarian learn how to control Daemons? Does he have an entire section about Daemons in the Librarium or is he a natural who hear demonic voices since he is a child?
Did you miss the part about recently corrupted / fresh renegade Chapter or ignored it on purpose? I just brought up ideas to justify it fluff-wise. If you really can't think of any example of anyone summoning daemons, then okay, let me list first few that come to my mind:
- fresh Renegade Chapter played using Codex: Space Marines because as mentioned earlier - CSM can't really pull off renegades from recent times and mostly focus on whatever spills from the Eye of Terror. As mentioned - think Blood Ravens from DoW2;
- desperate Librarian not wanting his brethren to die and condemning his soul to oblivion to save them and turn the odds against enemy forces. He will be branded a traitor and the company will be brought before the Inquisition, but they might survive if they win;
-Planetary defense forces ran by corrupt Governor whose sorcerer advisor(primaris psyker) summons daemons to show him the might of the Ruinous Powers they are going to serve to release themselves from the imperial chains and his men are too scared to make a move against them. That, or they're slowly getting corrupted too. Basically prelude to full-fledged separatist treachery;
-During a routine patrol someone found a presumably archeotech artifact that turned out to be some prototype machine with warp affinity as it activated during the battle and started spawning Daemons, but surprisingly that artifact allowed him to control them. Fluff-wise he'll most likely be set ablaze by Ordo Hereticus and his company will be decimated, but then again that happens to almost every company that had contact with Daemons or Grey Knights, so nothing new here;
See, not that hard.
da001 wrote: And your Dark Angels are now Chaos Space Marines?
I am fairly sure there are enough hints that some of DA successor chapters' are of questionable loyalty. Either that or, ding, ding, ding, ding, you could play them as the Fallen and tah-dah!
It doesn't have to be a well-thought plan to win the war. It might be a one-timer scenario, fluffy idea for a short story. It doesn't have to work in the long run! You can even end the victorious battle with your friend with "Despite the victory, there was no joy among the men - having condemned their souls in the eyes of the Emperor they knew that it won't be long before Black Ships arrive to cleanse them with holy flames of His righteous retribution."
da001 wrote: How do you forge a narrative about that?
Just like that. Again - just because you don't have the imagination to think of a narrative for something, it doesn't mean there's none. Think about it.
da001 wrote: And Grey Knights can do it too. They can get some IG psykers as allies and fight side by side with Daemons.
Even that can be justified through a narrative. From something as simple as "a guy had warp outburst, lol; termination imminent right after the battle" to an idea that GK worked with a radical Malleus inquisitor that deemed it the only way to achieve victory. AND BAM. Justified! I don't remember anyone bitching about Daemon Hosts in GK armies.
da001 wrote: I understand the 'do not do it if you think it is not correct' argument, but trying to justify this butchering of the setting by saying that this is something that may occur in the setting... no way. It makes no sense. If you play because you like the background, this rule is badly damaging the game.
I just proved that it can be plausible if you're smart enough to make up a believable story. See - you can run a Renegade Chapter in Codex: Space Marines. You can run traitor Guard using Astra Militarum Codex. Hell, even a Farseer summoning daemons as he and his force went mad from, say, nearby Warp Storm eruption. That's pretty far-fetched, but it's no worse than most the gak GW puts in their Codexes or writers put in Black Library books.
Long story short - don't be narrow-minded. People smart enough can make it work with enough imagination and it is in no way fluff-breaking. Of course if someone claims his SM force to be 110% loyalist then of course it's bad and unfluffy to summon daemons(say, for gaming advantage), but it's just him playing it the way he wants as he doesn't care about fluff. GW gave possibility for both the fluffmongers AND casuals to play the way they want. If someone decides to deliberately dismiss it as something bad, it doesn't mean that there's something wrong with the rule, but with that person.
1) You made some really good points.
2) I am yet to see how the rule is worded.
I am not sold anyway. The part that really disturbs me is not the summoning thing, it is
a) the psyker is controlling the Daemon, and
b) the rest of the army is OK with that. Particularly when there are Commissars, Sisters, Templars, GK or similar around. The setting is full of uncompromising zealots. Imagine a Sister with a flamer and an ally summoning Daemons nearby in your narrative.
About Daemonhosts in Inquisition armies (and GK): the Daemonhosts were radical-only right until Ward´s 5th edition Codex. Quote from the 3rd edition Codex: "If Daemonhosts are chosen the Inquisitor in charge is branded a Radical and may not include Grey Knights in his force." There was a LOT of bitching about the 5th edition GK Codex, I am surprised you mentioned it. By the way, the rule I just quoted is an example of fluffy-friendly rule. You want Daemons? -> No GK for you. And there is more! The 3rd edition Codex also included a rule called "Daemonic Infestation" to provide BALANCE (gasp!) for any 'GK vs Daemons' match.
Look:
Spoiler:
Daemonic Infestation
The presence of Grey Knights indicates intense daemonic activity and an imminent breach of catastrophic proportions. To represent this, Daemon Packs, Nurglings and Daemonic Beasts Packs (but not Greater Daemons, Daemon Princes or any other type of Daemon) gain the Sustained Attack scenario special rules (see the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook) in any mission where they are opposed by Grey Knights. Daemons brought back into play in this manner are not summoned (they re-enter the table from the edges as detailed in the Sustained Attack rules) and cannot claim mission objectives, table quarters, etc.
Designers’ Note: The Daemonic Infestation rule is intended to offset some of the Grey Knights’ considerable advantages when fighting Daemons. This is done rather than simply making them cost more points, so they are not penalised unfairly when fighting non-daemonic opposition.
^This is how you make a game balanced and narrative-friendly.
Oh and a little something: as awesome as the background of the Black Ships is, doing an Exterminatus is not part of their job. Their main function is to collect the Tithe, they are like the delivery guy from Telepizza for the Emperor, bringing him yummy things to eat.
But I'm not rage-quitting either, so you can calm down, OP.
Individually, I'm fairly content with most of the new rules. Same as was mentioned in the OP, the most ludicrous BS will be calmly ignored. I like the D-weapon nerf, as that means if someone wants to use their Revenant or whatever, I won't just tell them to sod off. Most of the small changes are fine, some are even great, and I even accept the ones that hurt me without it being too big of a deal.
There are, however, a few very negative aspects with 7th. And I don't mean the two year lifespan of 6th, or the price increases or whatever. I don't care about that.
The biggest negative for me is the longer games and increased amount of bookkeeping. I'm not against the psychic phase, per se, but I think it's implemented rather poorly and will just add to the bloat of dice rolling you have to go through just to keep the game progressing. I love the idea of the new missions, but again, I think they are poorly implemented.
Another serious drawback is the increasing fragmentation of the player base. WAAC players, competitive players, casual players, and FAAC players. I try to be critical of my own nostalgia, but I'm fairly sure I can remember a time when there were just players. You would show up at the shop, or the club, or your mom's basement with your army. And then you'd play a game. No problemo. Imbalance issues were restricted to "don't bring a cheesy list" and unlike now cheesy lists were not a massive grey area. If you played Eldar, you didn't bring a 30-man Seer Council. Sorted. Everyone's happy.
Now, in reality, for me, that's not a super big issue. I play at a club, and there's mostly a tacit understanding of where the line goes. But then again, new players is not really something that happens anymore. But consider that conversation with a new guy: "Oh, you can't bring 8 Riptides, even though the rules allow it, because that would be a dick move." For those of us who have been sucked so far into GW's alternative reality that makes perfect sense, but to a normal person it's absurd. It would be like telling a new chess player that the Yugoslav attack is a really good tactic, but if he tries it everyone will hate him and think of him as TFG who ruins people's fun. What?
Then there are the more general balance issues which are still going strong. You like Blood Angels? Hah. Joke's on you. Against half the room, you'll have lousy games no matter how much they have intentionally crippled their own armies.
And, finally, because I'm an old fogey. As time goes on, I like allies less and less. Armies don't really look like armies anymore. They look like incoherent motley groups of dudes who just met at a Whetherspoon's and decided to go out for a romp. Even as a tournament-minded player, it still annoys me. I might like the competitive aspect of 40k, but I'm in 40k because it's 40k, not because it's any old game.
KommissarKarl wrote: (...)
Except there are plenty of cases in the fluff of loyalist psykers summoning deamons, either because they've turned or they think it'd help defeat chaos.
That´s the problem. It is quite the contrary indeed: there are none.
I am not talking about a radical Inquisitor or a random Librarian. I am talking about a Farseer or a known loyal Chapter. And it is not summoning a Daemon, it is doing it and then commanding them to battle with the rest of the army being OK with it. And what about the Imperial Guard? A random psyker of the IG summoning Daemons and the Commissars saying 'ok no problem, they will help us in battle; it is not that if I don´t kill you on the spot we are all gonna be killed either way because Daemons are such a horrific moral threat that the Imperium blows up entire worlds if there is even a small risk of someone knowing that they physically exist'.
You're picking two random examples from a possible list of *hundreds* of possible combinations. It has been explained to you why it does not break the fluff, and examples have been presented of a loyalist marine chapter summoning demons - the blood ravens in DOW - as well as and number of inquisitors I could mention.
You are taking the "omg imperium hate demons" thing far too seriously. The vast majority of imperial citizens - even higher ups like planetory lords - have no idea what demons are, and the fact that there's a branch of the Imperium dedicated to fighting demons probably doesn't mean much to them as the Grey Knights are just as unknown as demons are.
Thud wrote: "Oh, you can't bring 8 Riptides, even though the rules allow it, because that would be a dick move." For those of us who have been sucked so far into GW's alternative reality that makes perfect sense, but to a normal person it's absurd. It would be like telling a new chess player that the Yugoslav attack is a really good tactic, but if he tries it everyone will hate him and think of him as TFG who ruins people's fun. What?
Thank you for that one, you made my day
Automatically Appended Next Post: @KommissarKarl: ok point taken. Fair enough. I answered to Klerych above and the answer applies to your words too.
You are taking the "omg imperium hate demons" thing far too seriously. The vast majority of imperial citizens - even higher ups like planetory lords - have no idea what demons are, and the fact that there's a branch of the Imperium dedicated to fighting demons probably doesn't mean much to them as the Grey Knights are just as unknown as demons are.
I don't think you're taking it seriously enough. If a loyalist sees another loyalist summon a demon, they're going to purge them without question.
You are taking the "omg imperium hate demons" thing far too seriously. The vast majority of imperial citizens - even higher ups like planetory lords - have no idea what demons are, and the fact that there's a branch of the Imperium dedicated to fighting demons probably doesn't mean much to them as the Grey Knights are just as unknown as demons are.
I don't think you're taking it seriously enough. If a loyalist sees another loyalist summon a demon, they're going to purge them without question.
The logical conclusion being that whoever saw them summoning a demon presumably knows that a demon is and is themselves heretical, no? Why would a heretic execute another heretic for treason?
The fluff is also littered with demons tricking imperials into thinking that they're benevolent spirits or even imperial saints - do you think a space marine commander would execute a librarian for summon a living effigy of the emperor?
As a 'veteran player' I'm having horrible 2nd edition flashbacks with GW bringing back the psychic phase.
It added a substantial amount of time to games with a superfluous, cumbersome phase. Integrating it with the shooting phase was intuitive, and people who didn't care to play with psychers didn't miss out.
Every edition I become increasingly convinced that GW isn't looking for ways to improve, only ways to make the game "feel fresh", no matter how inane and counterproductive the changes may be.
For example, I don't know of anybody who thought the Allies Matrix was a step in the right direction. Yet now we have GW moving further in that direction with "Just take whatever you want! Everything allies with everything!" This is destroying the atmosphere of the game as well as the entire background... If every race is cool hanging out with all the other races, then why would they be compelled to fight? They all seem to be getting remarkably tolerant of one another.
On top of this, the game has been gradually reverting back to 2nd edition's needless over-complexity and "Win-Button" abilities.
It's as if the more fans ask for solid rules and tournament balance, the more GW makes ambiguous rules and ignores the beloved tournament scene.
Therion wrote: The truth is out there. Every year the crowds playing this game get smaller. If any veteran player is pumped for this edition, it's most likely because they've been on a ten year hiatus and feel the nostalgic pull of the game again, not because the edition would be in any way good. Almost every edition has been inferior to its predecessor.
Yeah, 3rd was awesome, 4th was worse and 6th was horrible.
Oh dang, except that's not true. 3rd was an unbalanced piece of crap, 4th was a little better but soulless, and 6th, minus one codex, actually worked really well. It's just the fact that 2++ stacking existed and that it was a 2 year cycle instead of a 4year one that will be a black mark against 6th.
1) You made some really good points.
2) I am yet to see how the rule is worded.
I am.. surprised. Most Dakkites would just blindly oppose me without even trying to understand my reasoning, stuck too far in their narrow vision. You restored my faith in the community. I'm sorry if my post turned out offensive - never intended that and only noticed that I might've sounded a bit douchy even though I didn't want to. I guess that my style of writing is a bit too.. serious making me sound like I'm mad or something.
da001 wrote: I am not sold anyway. The part that really disturbs me is not the summoning thing, it is
a) the psyker is controlling the Daemon, and
b) the rest of the army is OK with that. Particularly when there are Commissars, Sisters, Templars, GK or similar around. The setting is full of uncompromising zealots. Imagine a Sister with a flamer and an ally summoning Daemons nearby in your narrative.
Well, that's really, really hard to justify and in my book it is a bit too close to "too cheesy to find it justified unless someone provides very extreme and well-thought scenario for that to happen". At least I think that summoned Daemons will still be meant to be run with Codex: Daemons, which still makes those summoned allies a "Come The Apocalypse" allies choice, somewhat impairing loyalist units when they're near the Daemons. But yeah, while I could excuse the Commissars to be traitor overseers(bonus points for using the Tetchvar model from Dark Vengeance and converting him to wear a Commissar hat!), Sisters and Templars should be ticked off as a big "no no" for daemonology psykers just as the latter can't even take regular Libbies in their detachment. GK might still be somewhat explained to be 'forced' into cooperation with a radical inq. Even if a bit of a stretch, it can be considered plausible just like butchering Sisters in the GK fluff. x)
da001 wrote: ^This is how you make a game balanced and narrative-friendly.
Totally agree. I guess GW's main crime here is that they expect players to sort it out if they want or just comply if they don't care. It'd take some extra effort for GW to make all those little 'conditions' for various stuff working together on the table and we know they're too lazy to do so! Fortunately I don't have to care that much because in my FLGS most people like fluffy lists and narratives(most come from RPG) and any WAACTFG is either toned down to our level of 'fun play between reasonable, mature people' or just ignored, so he has to look somewhere else.
da001 wrote: Oh and a little something: as awesome as the background of the Black Ships is, doing an Exterminatus is not part of their job. Their main function is to collect the Tithe, they are like the delivery guy from Telepizza for the Emperor, bringing him yummy things to eat.
Well, yeah, kinda used that example more figuratively, but they sometimes were said to be used as the "official" envoys of the Inquisition when they wanted to make sure that everything is going smooth on planets that caught it's eye.
1) You made some really good points.
2) I am yet to see how the rule is worded.
I am.. surprised. Most Dakkites would just blindly oppose me without even trying to understand my reasoning, stuck too far in their narrow vision. You restored my faith in the community.
It was a trap you fool!
Truth is, I feigned my defeat only for taking over the control of the discussion! I am the only one holding the truth in this forum!
Bwahahaha!!!!
Yeah I meet people like that all the time. To be fair, it was a combination of your post and this one (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/595699.page#6861371) that changed my mind. I really need to get more information before rending judgement on this matter. It doesn´t sound that bad if it is given as a tool to create very specific scenarios, some of which you described.
I'm sorry if my post turned out offensive - never intended that and only noticed that I might've sounded a bit douchy even though I didn't want to. I guess that my style of writing is a bit too.. serious making me sound like I'm mad or something. (...)
Not at all! I always think people seem angrier on the Internet that they actually are.
Lobukia wrote: Not flame bait... seriously. After adding the house rule "2 detachments max, LoW/Fortifications need to have substitute points incase opponent doesn't want to deal with them, Battle forged only, only primary detachment units and allied troops score" I think I'm good. My club won't bat an eye at that restriction and after we get over that this is a really good edition.
I love the objective placement, psychic, jink, allocation, and scoring changes. Cover tweaks are better, Str D is better, Vehicle damage is much better as are Walker, MC special rules. The change to night fight is huge (for good), I'm good with the FMC changes (like them in fact).
Don't like:
Too much battle bro-fisting
Can't assault out of stationary vehicle... that's about it
Don't mean to sound dismissive, but what's all the troubles gents? I've read every stinking post in the News Rumors threads and most here, and I'm just not seeing any problems once you get over the FoC issues. The rage quitters and edition banners just seem to be generating nerd-rage white noise. Seriously, look at the armies I play (sig). The ones I run the most are Daemons/CSM allies (lots of FMC), SM varieties, Guard. I play against/with a ton of Tau, Cron, Eldar, Nids. I don't see any of these getting overtly nerfed.
All in all this a fairly subtle and needed edition change. I don't see these rules as complex (not at all). Come on. I think a deep breath, a moment of mature calm reflection, and taking a step back is needed for the DakkaDakka community as a whole. IMO 6th was the best edition yet (played at least a little of all, owned models since the RT days) and in 7th I see only improvements if you have a club of even barely socially aware, reasonable people. If you don't why would you play there anyway?
If you've looked at my posts, I'm hardly a glass half full guy or a GW apologist (those epic, morons), but I'm a big enough man to give the rules a fair shake and it looks good to me.
I am a vet about same time as you in the hobby/game. I decided to preorder it and the cards... though i really like bolt action right now... i am curious as to how the rules might be changed with the new edition and I have been listening to the things i like to hear. I think the psychic phase simular to wfb in setup (i know the current magic phase in that game is said to be OP) is a good thing in that I like the simularities because i play both games... as i get older its a pain in butt for me trying to not confuse rule sets . I also like how the book is seperate from the other sections so its not a massive bible to read thru while gaming... and dont have to skip over fluff and pictures to find rules. That is all i can say at the moment because mine wont be here probably til tuesday...
That said I am training a new player, and were on hold til get 7th edition book and read up on it as i rather teach him current game... so that sort of makes me pumped... my brother is a little less excited about 40k.. he is pumped up about his new wfb empire army... but i am sure after i read some rules to him he probably buy a book and probably get some Imperial Knights etc lol.
The assumption that GW intended for SM dexes to be used for recently turned chaos marines seems flawed given the combination of there being a chaos codex, unbound lists, and GW purposefully not making IG battle brothers with chaos to represent renegade guard.
- "You can use the SM codex to represent the very rare fringe cases where a recently turned SM summoning daemons might be be fluffy, despite the rules still allowing them to ally with GKs and what not, and despite being able to do so already adequately with the CSM 'dex or with unbound lists." - "No you cannot use the IG codex to represent the very common renegade guard despite not having a viable alternative." (Outdated FW lists are not a viable alternative due to "omg no FW!!" etc)
So here's our house rules. Short sweet, simple, probably change later.
1 detachment for each 1k points being played (only 1 Lord of War, period)
Battle forged only
Warp Charge limit of 15 per turn
Malefic powers can each be activated only once per player per game
2+ saves rerolls are 4+
Now that's done, we're all pretty excited and ready to go. I think, with minimal effort, best edition yet.
PS: Gdub is ran by idiots shooting holes into a sinking ship, but we have a blast and am willing to put minimal effort into fixing the game to keep our great times rolling.
There are those that like a strategy game and there are those that enjoy exploits/listbuilding.
7th ed being a blatant cash grab only appeals to those players that enjoy exploits/listing. There will no longer be strategy in the game. Its all bout building exploits.
In the past there was a bit of balance between the 2 styles of play. 4th ed was the best edition at achieving the balance between the two types of players.
Jervis Jhonson took over as lead rules designer for 5th ed. He has slowly led the game to favor the exploit style of play. 7th is he crowning achievement of incompetence. Skip this edition, send a message to finally fire this useless ass clown.
curran12 wrote:
But in all, I exalt this because this whole 7th thing is showing the worst side of Dakka. There are legitimate questions and concerns, but they are drowned out by histrionics and nonsense yelling without any kind of complete picture to react on.
Leth wrote: loving it, cant wait to put the maelstrom missions through their paces
Also chariots got super buffed so I would not worry about wanting to play them. Seriously read the shooting allocation and then get back to me.
"O your shot can hurt my armor, I will take it on my 2+/3++ character, if not it is on my chariot" Seriously really the new chariot rules, they are CRAZY.
Interesting... I will check it up. Some Daemon Chariots may see some action.
@Klerych: sorry but there is absolutely no way you can justify Farseers or loyal Librarians summoning Daemons and using them as if they were part of the same army. We are not talking about a psyker being devoured by a Daemon and then the Daemon materializing and killing everything. This is a formerly loyal psyker who summon Daemons, which in 99% of the cases means dooming the entire world, and then the Daemons obey his orders and the rest of the army is OK with that. It is the ultimate heresy, the definite step towards damnation. And the rest of the army does nothing? And how did the loyal Librarian learn how to control Daemons? Does he have an entire section about Daemons in the Librarium or is he a natural who hear demonic voices since he is a child?
Also... what´s the point? You stopped the Orks so now the Doors of Hell are open and the entire planet is devoured by Daemons or doomed by Exterminatus? And your Dark Angels are now Chaos Space Marines? In which sense is this a victory? How do you forge a narrative about that?
And Grey Knights can do it too. They can get some IG psykers as allies and fight side by side with Daemons.
I understand the 'do not do it if you think it is not correct' argument, but trying to justify this butchering of the setting by saying that this is something that may occur in the setting... no way. It makes no sense. If you play because you like the background, this rule is badly damaging the game.
You know we should have a rule if anyone summons a Daemon that really shouldn't be able to, then another battle quickly happens. That lone psyker or the unit it is with that agrees with it has to face an Inquisition to battle them. If the Inquisition player wins, that person who had the mins summon a daemon has to give up his minis to that person then.
A legit, Battle-Forged Daemons list can summon an extra 1000 points' worth of models onto the table by turn 3.
The inherent design flaws, bad decisions, and yes, blatant attempts to get everyone to adopt a pay-to-win approach to a tabletop strategy game are only going to get worse as the codices are released.
Lobukia wrote: How cute, I'm calling the rage quitters, rage quitters.... cause they're in a rage... and quitting... all over Dakka, everywhere (and we know they'll mostly be back in 6 months).
I'm not rage quitting, because I honestly don't see the point getting that emotionally unstable over a hobby.
I wouldn't even say I'm quitting. My Tyranids are still there, and even get a bit of painting done to them occasionally.
I will not, however, be buying the new edition or any other Games Workshop products, aside from possibly paint for the forseeable future. It's just not the game I used to like, and not a game I want to support while it's in this form.
Not rage quitting, more "meh" quitting. Game is too bloated, takes too long, and requires too much fixing by the playerbase. It therefore isn't worth the ridiculous price tag. But I'm not angry, just a little exasperated and disappointed.
But hey. My models don't cease to exist because I'm a bit fed up of the current edition. I intend looking into other systems that I can use for my models (if I have to negotiate with my opponent, it may as well be for a ruleset I actually enjoy) and waiting to see if GW actually release anything decent in the coming months. If they release a nice new starter, I'll probably pick it up.
Da Boss wrote: Not rage quitting, more "meh" quitting. Game is too bloated, takes too long, and requires too much fixing by the playerbase.
Much the same. Once upon a time I was heavily into 40K , I would play 3+ games a week and spent far too much of my limited means on toy soldiers. When 3rd was released I didn't like the rules much and I liked the direction that the game had taken even less but I persevered for a year or two until I left university and moved away from my gaming group. I have tried every subsequent edition simply because it is relatively easy to find games, I still have substantial armies and I still like the core concept of 40k but they have never been games that I have actively sought out. Initially 6th was a reasonable (for GW) ruleset but now its a horrible, bloated mess of 'toy' units and hopelessly broken armies so yet again I have cut my losses.
7th sounds horrible, especially from a fluff perspective. 6th ed's ally rules were extremely badly put together but the new 'unbound' lists sound 10 times worse. Its very possible that I will finally walk away from tabletop 40k after over 2 decades because GW can't be arsed to make a good ruleset.
So here's our house rules. Short sweet, simple, probably change later.
1 detachment for each 1k points being played (only 1 Lord of War, period)
Battle forged only
Warp Charge limit of 15 per turn
Malefic powers can each be activated only once per player per game
2+ saves rerolls are 4+
Now that's done, we're all pretty excited and ready to go. I think, with minimal effort, best edition yet.
PS: Gdub is ran by idiots shooting holes into a sinking ship, but we have a blast and am willing to put minimal effort into fixing the game to keep our great times rolling.
A bit steep IMHO, but certainly better than other proposed houserules i saw. What do you think about self allying? Especially for nids.
One thing i would add is "Dedicated transports cannot gain the Objective secure" rule.
I don't like the possibility of screwing 1' charges. If you say that the possibility is 1/36 - i'd say that this will happen every 3-d game to me. And the problem with assault-oriented forces that if you screw a charge - you're most likely loosing a game. Cause charges allready happen once per game with a squad of footslogas at best and they are VERY important. Yep, i don't like this 2d6 - 2.
Other than that...probably strange shooting sequence for different weapons firing not-simultaniously. It's gona screw guyz with low-ranged weapons being unable to fire at all sometimes just cause you got to decide if you want to shoot a melta or rapid fire bolters at 12'.
Yep, and obviously daemons summoning daemons summoning daemons is not a good game design as it is right now. Spammable and annoying. Not every army can alpha-strike your summoners turn one.
Lobukia wrote: How cute, I'm calling the rage quitters, rage quitters.... cause they're in a rage... and quitting... all over Dakka, everywhere (and we know they'll mostly be back in 6 months).
I'm not rage quitting, because I honestly don't see the point getting that emotionally unstable over a hobby.
I wouldn't even say I'm quitting. My Tyranids are still there, and even get a bit of painting done to them occasionally.
I will not, however, be buying the new edition or any other Games Workshop products, aside from possibly paint for the forseeable future. It's just not the game I used to like, and not a game I want to support while it's in this form.
The GW apologists love to pull this kind of thing. If you complain about something that is blatantly horrible they want to insult you. The apologists have a long way to go on this edition. Calling a spade a spade is what those of us that are complaining about 7th are doing. Those saying 7th is fine, you just need house rules, ect, ect, are the ones trying to call a maggot infested turd a prize winning orchid.
Jervis Jhonson has been in charge of GW rules since 5th edition. The game has been losing market share since then. Stop apologizing for this morons incompetence. The guy is horrible at his job. We won't see the change we want to see so long as he has his job at GW.
Triton wrote: Fewer people are buying GW products now than this time last year. They're not bringing in new blood.
So true, their pricing and lack of rules support is killing them (as is the bafflingly bizarre one man store approach and their screw the FLGS tactics). Though a good chunk of the blame is at the feet of the bitter and self destructive vocal minority that's practicing a scorched earth policy on the old interwebz and the unwillingness of club/league/pick up game organizer to set ground rules.
I am certain you believe it is your fault that your spouse hits you.
Davor wrote: (...)
You know we should have a rule if anyone summons a Daemon that really shouldn't be able to, then another battle quickly happens. That lone psyker or the unit it is with that agrees with it has to face an Inquisition to battle them. If the Inquisition player wins, that person who had the mins summon a daemon has to give up his minis to that person then.
That´s one possibility. There are many....
I am still on the fence regarding this new 'edition'. It looks like most of it is a copy-paste of 6th. The background sections seem to be, word by word, the same I bought two years ago, and the same goes for most of the rules. I will try to get a copy to read it carefully before taking a decision.
@dresnar, read what I've actually typed, then call me an apologist.
I never even implied that if you didn't like it you're a rage quitter. Simply stated that if you can get past all the repetitive hyperbole, there's a redeemable game that I'm actually excited for. Should I have to tweak/edit a ruleset to make it work? No. Do I even like the G'dub management and marketing, epic no. I've always said so.
Not sure how someone like me could even be called an apologist. But I'm not unable to see the great game that the good guys in the design studio have tried to slide by the Jervis bloc. What's silly is that the negative guys refuse to see any good. That's rage not reason.
Lobukia wrote: @dresnar, read what I've actually typed, then call me an apologist.
I never even implied that if you didn't like it you're a rage quitter. Simply stated that if you can get past all the repetitive hyperbole, there's a redeemable game that I'm actually excited for. Should I have to tweak/edit a ruleset to make it work? No. Do I even like the G'dub management and marketing, epic no. I've always said so.
Not sure how someone like me could even be called an apologist. But I'm not unable to see the great game that the good guys in the design studio have tried to slide by the Jervis bloc. What's silly is that the negative guys refuse to see any good. That's rage not reason.
You're right, you didn't imply, you said it outright.
Maybe the criticisms seem repetitive because many different people have the same criticisms? If that's the case, maybe they actually have something to say.
Show me, quote box it. I said that rage quitters and edition banners were generating white noise. Look around. People were, and kinda still are complaining about stuff when they clearly haven't read through the rules or even done the math on how probable their "Sky falling" scenarios were.
There are valid complaints. I've acknowledged many, voiced some, agreed on others. I'm just amazed at the inability of the community to self regulate. If there are so many consistent concerns, then league/club/tournament ground rules should be a breeze. Flip off G'dub, right the ship of whine, and get some great games in... or flip the table and sell everything on eBay. One seems more practical to me. I guess some others just want to see the game burn. Great. Go away.
I'm more likely to quit reading Dakka than quit playing 40k over this edition.
It would be "Come the Apocalypse" for Dakka if GW put out the perfect edition cause no one would have a target for their nerd rage. Oh, except they would claim that a complete reboot that such an edition would require would be nothing more than a "blatant money grab" on their part.
helotaxi wrote: I'm more likely to quit reading Dakka than quit playing 40k over this edition.
It would be "Come the Apocalypse" for Dakka if GW put out the perfect edition cause no one would have a target for their nerd rage. Oh, except they would claim that a complete reboot that such an edition would require would be nothing more than a "blatant money grab" on their part.
Did you have anything of value to contribute, or just to lump anyone who's opinion you disagree with into some fictional group who's only feeling is 'Nerd rage'.
helotaxi wrote: Seriously, has there been anything of value in this whinefest over the last couple days?
That people are willing to get shystered out of money and then defend the company against legitimate complaints with ignorant apologetic non arguments?
44Ronin wrote: I love how the ragers rage on without having a copy of the rules, and actually even playing 7th.
All the rage, but where's the quit?
Lol. Agreed. Double down on the quit folks so us on the walls can fix the problems and enjoy the fruits of our labors. If you're genuinely mad, email the top investors of G'dub and tell them why 7th will kill their golden goose. That might actually get some real change.
44Ronin wrote: I love how the ragers rage on without having a copy of the rules, and actually even playing 7th.
All the rage, but where's the quit?
Lots of assumptions in your post.
The thing is, all of the so-called "Nerd-Ragers" and "Rage Quiters" and any other slurs you want to label them with. They all understand where you are coming from, because all of them at some point in the past where you. Looking down on those upset about an edition change. But they also know without any doubt you will join them eventually. Because "White Knights" always become "Nerd-Ragers". Cycle of life.
As for the "quit" you are demanding I'm sure plenty of people are putting you on their ignore lists.
44Ronin wrote: I love how the ragers rage on without having a copy of the rules, and actually even playing 7th.
All the rage, but where's the quit?
Lots of assumptions in your post.
There's no assumption. Read through the 7th rumor thread. It's hilarious.
Ragers screaming, BROOOKUUNNNN! then, someone with the rules quotes the actual rule and they move on to whine about something else, completely ignoring the fact they were wrong and foolhardy.
The thing is, all of the so-called "Nerd-Ragers" and "Rage Quiters" and any other slurs you want to label them with. They all understand where you are coming from, because all of them at some point in the past where you. Looking down on those upset about an edition change. But they also know without any doubt you will join them eventually. Because "White Knights" always become "Nerd-Ragers". Cycle of life.
Nice Assumptions
As for the "quit" you are demanding I'm sure plenty of people are putting you on their ignore lists.
I never demanded anything. I was just wondering why they haven't these people carried out their threats yet?
Makumba wrote: And If demons are your main army , then I am sure your happy for 7th , they got better. On the other hand tau got nerfed a lot . My AM won't work unless I take ally . I for example have nothing that can counter a demon spawning list that drops 2-3 squads of horrors per turn , while buffing their invs and stoping my two casters from doing anything.
*Sigh.* Let me nip this in the bud right here.
I know the theory Tzeentch list. Let's get real.
Say in 2000 points (and that you even agreed to play it), they have 30 warp charge. Plus average 3 per turn. So 33.
You want to conjure anything (with the exception of a Herald, which requires a sacrifice), you have to get 3 Warp Charge. To do that, they'll need to throw 5 dice at each attempt. Say they get more Horrors... so? Horrors are T3 with a 5+ save. They fall to bolter fire easily, and are still limited to Change powers, which can admittedly be handy, but if they're using their powers, that's less dice to summon. So you can just shred the units without much trouble. Oh, they want to buff their guys, too? Ok, that's two dice to do that for each Daemon trying it.
Let's assume three of the bigger daemons have the buff power, and they spread out to share the love. That's six dice. 27 left. Now you through out five summons, you can still have a couple left, but the likelihood is one of those summons failed. You now have more targets for light arms. Congrats!
Those Heralds giving more dice? Toughness 3, two Wounds each. Anything S6 or higher will insta-kill them and knock out a caster and three dice. You have a good chance to take out 3-4 in the first turn, putting a serious knock in his army's dice. Also, light arms just tearing through Horrors... which also reduces the number of dice. Goodness, that dice pool is shrinking!
Oh, they still have the FMCs? Well, they can't hold objectives until they come down from the sky.
They're stopping your powers? Don't invest so much in psychic powers. Use the points for guns they can't nullify that will tear up their Heralds and Horrors.
And, of course, the player has to have enough models for the conjured daemons.
So while on paper the army sounds really scary, the reality is that it will likely fall flat. I might have to talk someone into doing a proxied force to try it out and see whether it's effective at all.
Just a quick note that I posted in another thread.
At the advent of 8th ed Fantasy, there was a lot of angst and gripes by various people who didn't like the direction the game had gone in, or who wanted to change/houserule things. A certain segment of the community responded by telling those people to shut up, quit and go away. And people listened, and did... and I haven't seen a game of Fantasy in years now.
So I'm just saying, be careful what you wish for, as it might come true. A person upset with the game may eventually come around and try it out again. A person who's been told by the community to piss off and shut up because they didn't like some aspect, however, is more likely to just stay away.
Maddermax wrote: Just a quick note that I posted in another thread.
At the advent of 8th ed Fantasy, there was a lot of angst and gripes by various people who didn't like the direction the game had gone in, or who wanted to change/houserule things. A certain segment of the community responded by telling those people to shut up, quit and go away. And people listened, and did...
All I've said from square one IS to house rule/change things. I want people to help us all fix this, not just spew negativity about the edition. I think very brief ground rules, 4 sentences, makes this edition change from groan/face palm into great/fun. Help fix it for your own enjoyment.
I'm pretty hyped about the new rules. I've just given them a cursory looking over at this point but they seem pretty good. They're close enough to sixth which is great because I just started learning those a few months ago.
I had been planning on doing some Grey Knights anyway so now this is just all the more reason to. Also I'd wanted to get some green stuff and try my hand at sculpting some sort of Daemonic thingamabobs.
If you need opponents permission, then why can't house rules form part of that permission? Adding a proviso in the form of a house rule is still permission, which is in the rules.
Everyone's happy.
Most of the changes are good, so for me it's good that it came out so quickly after 6th. I'm not so tight-fisted that I want to play a lackluster game while they're ready to print better ones.
Maddermax wrote: Just a quick note that I posted in another thread.
At the advent of 8th ed Fantasy, there was a lot of angst and gripes by various people who didn't like the direction the game had gone in, or who wanted to change/houserule things. A certain segment of the community responded by telling those people to shut up, quit and go away. And people listened, and did... and I haven't seen a game of Fantasy in years now.
So I'm just saying, be careful what you wish for, as it might come true. A person upset with the game may eventually come around and try it out again. A person who's been told by the community to piss off and shut up because they didn't like some aspect, however, is more likely to just stay away.
A GW apologist gets what he wants, everyone that complained about how terrible the edition was leaves. All his name calling and false assumptions have finally done the trick, the GW apologist can finally play a game in peace. He looks around the room, no one is there.
All I've said from square one IS to house rule/change things. I want people to help us all fix this, not just spew negativity about the edition. I think very brief ground rules, 4 sentences, makes this edition change from groan/face palm into great/fun. Help fix it for your own enjoyment.
The onus is on GW to produce good rulesets if they can't be arsed why should the player base be forced to pick up the pieces? If you need to create house rules to make the game work you would be far better off using a competently designed ruleset as a base.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maddermax wrote: Just a quick note that I posted in another thread.
At the advent of 8th ed Fantasy, there was a lot of angst and gripes by various people who didn't like the direction the game had gone in, or who wanted to change/houserule things. A certain segment of the community responded by telling those people to shut up, quit and go away. And people listened, and did... and I haven't seen a game of Fantasy in years now.
So I'm just saying, be careful what you wish for, as it might come true. A person upset with the game may eventually come around and try it out again. A person who's been told by the community to piss off and shut up because they didn't like some aspect, however, is more likely to just stay away.
I was one of the people who walked away from Fantasy (I had been playing since 4th edition, so since about 1993) and while 7th was pretty bad 8th was a step too far. I have now given away most of my fantasy stuff and the remainder sits forlorn in a box. People can and do just walk away if they don't see the point of staying, GW's rapidly diminishing market share is proof enough of that.
Shrilly accusing people of childishly rage quitting is entirely missing the point and its something that you may well rue when you can no longer find anyone who is interested in playing 40k with you.
Can't really say I am excited at all about it. I was enjoying 6th edition. I don't see why they needed to come out with 7th when Fantasy was definitely in need of an update, and people in general seemed to be enjoying 6th edition.
I guess they needed a quick influx of cash. Every player has to fork over $85 to keep playing basically.
I'm torn between really wanting to just give it a go, and just giving in and selling everything while it's probably worth more. As a daemons player with a horde of metal daemonettes and pink horrors and plenty more besides this is probably the point at which I could sell them for the most they'll ever go for, and I'm more than a little disillusioned after getting a new edition after less than two years. I love the fluff I really do, and I'm quite proud of even my worst models, but the games are just getting longer and more imbalanced. Meanwhile other systems are flourishing and have a much lower buy in which means I could happily splash out on whatever I wanted with the proceeds from my GW minis.
All that said though I think I'll probably end up staying in from a mix of apathy and nostalgia, I'd also miss the occasional apoc battles, other systems don't really offer anything quite like that, at least none I'm aware of. Also having two kickstarters delivering what is essentially 40k product this year are a bit more incentive to keep going, it's probably a feeling that will pass but seeing battle reports of 7th I'm not so sure that it will.
I was once a GW defender. (never a blind white knight though) I liked 6th edition a lot. But now I can't see myself supporting a company that doesn't care about its own game and are in blatant "cash grab mode."
For the apologists out there that are telling the people voicing criticisms to 'go away,' I don't think you fully realize what's happening here. You're asking people like me, who might have been playing since RT, to never come back to a game they've been playing for twenty years or so. For them, the game has turned into one they no longer enjoy. I'm shelving my armies with the hopes that 40k will come back to being good. I want that to happen. I want to see new, shiny plastic Sisters of Battle, put them together and then bring them to a game for the first time. I love that stuff.
So, don't call me a hater. I love 40k but I can't support what GW is doing with it.
And one day you may get your wish and find yourself with your unbound demons summoning army, alone in a store hoping someone else comes along while everyone else is playing X-wing, warmachine, Infinity, Dust, etc.
MWHistorian wrote: I I don't think you fully realize what's happening here. You're asking people like me, who might have been playing since RT, to never come back to a game they've been playing for twenty years or so. For them, the game has turned into one they no longer enjoy. I'm shelving my armies with the hopes that 40k will come back to being good.
And one day you may get your wish and find yourself with your unbound demons summoning army, alone in a store hoping someone else comes along while everyone else is playing X-wing, warmachine, Infinity, Dust, etc.
So melodramatic. Who's asking people to never come back after 20 years? We're saying that if some one tells us they're leaving to stop coming back and telling us why they're leaving, again, and again, and again... just leave already.
If the game's turned into something you no longer enjoy, why not expend a minimal effort to turn it back? I'd rather the community give G'dub an "up yours", and unite with rules we can all enjoy and accept. We could enact some positive peer pressure and move the game our own direction (like most TOs will have to for GTs anyway). Axis and Allis Minis, Magic, CAV players, to name a few, have all done this... why are we shackled to the drama and emotion of 2 or 3 idiotic rules in an otherwise very strong ruleset and game? Limit invulns/rerolls, enact good FoC guidelines, moderate summoning... done.
And no one here (this thread) wants unbound, no one wants unlimited summoning, so stop hoisting that strawman. I've repeatedly and clearly said. "Ditch the dumb crap, make pretty universally accepted guidelines, have fun, voice your displeasure at the GW morons". Somehow that makes me a white knight who wants people to leave and likes unbound lists... whatever.
Go ahead and take away quickpost again if wanting people to man up and enjoy the game that this site draws more from than any other somehow is impolite.
Listen, peope will make whatever they want of the game. Some people like to be really strict to the rules, others don't care about winning and just use the rules as a template for games. You can't post saying people should be more into houserules and expect all this not to happen.
One thing to know is this: Most people that play Warhammer and Warhammer 40k are CASUAL, but it's just the INTERNET that is dominated by the competeive scene. In real life it's easer to make a point about this, but on the internet you can't do this and not expect people to get emotional. This hobby is a big part of us.
The life blood of most games will always be alive and it's amlost always pioneered by the guys and gals who play older editions and use whatever codex/army book they want.. Just look at the OLDHAMMER community.
Dont quit the game, just play by another edition... no one is saying you can't, but if you don't have a group to do that with, I highly DOUBT that if i bring my 3rd edition Dark Eldar codex to a pick up game my opponent will care.
Just a thought because most warhammer and 40k players think its impossible to mix aand play other editions. Love the game, but dont quit Just because its a new edition.
On the other hand, listen to other people's critcism and play your own way.
I pre ordered my 7th edition book, I think it sounds cool. I love the idea of unbound because i like thematic armies and games, BUT i still play Rogue Trader, 3rd and 4th edition if I dont feel like it, even with my new codex books.
One thing to know is this: Most people that play Warhammer and Warhammer 40k are CASUAL, but it's just the INTERNET that is dominated by the competeive scene. In real life it's easer to make a point about this, but on the internet you can't do this and not expect people to get emotional. This hobby is a big part of us.
Yeah, I'm gonna have to go ahead and ask for some numbers.
Further, define casual. Plenty of people 'casually' go to tournaments/leagues just to get in a lot of games against nicely painted armies on nice tables. Further, how is the internet any more dominated by the 'competitive' scene than it is by the 'casual' scene.
MWHistorian wrote: I I don't think you fully realize what's happening here. You're asking people like me, who might have been playing since RT, to never come back to a game they've been playing for twenty years or so. For them, the game has turned into one they no longer enjoy. I'm shelving my armies with the hopes that 40k will come back to being good.
And one day you may get your wish and find yourself with your unbound demons summoning army, alone in a store hoping someone else comes along while everyone else is playing X-wing, warmachine, Infinity, Dust, etc.
So melodramatic. Who's asking people to never come back after 20 years? We're saying that if some one tells us they're leaving to stop coming back and telling us why they're leaving, again, and again, and again... just leave already.
If the game's turned into something you no longer enjoy, why not expend a minimal effort to turn it back? I'd rather the community give G'dub an "up yours", and unite with rules we can all enjoy and accept. We could enact some positive peer pressure and move the game our own direction (like most TOs will have to for GTs anyway). Axis and Allis Minis, Magic, CAV players, to name a few, have all done this... why are we shackled to the drama and emotion of 2 or 3 idiotic rules in an otherwise very strong ruleset and game? Limit invulns/rerolls, enact good FoC guidelines, moderate summoning... done.
And no one here (this thread) wants unbound, no one wants unlimited summoning, so stop hoisting that strawman. I've repeatedly and clearly said. "Ditch the dumb crap, make pretty universally accepted guidelines, have fun, voice your displeasure at the GW morons". Somehow that makes me a white knight who wants people to leave and likes unbound lists... whatever.
Go ahead and take away quickpost again if wanting people to man up and enjoy the game that this site draws more from than any other somehow is impolite.
When you tell people to just leave, that's telling them you don't want them back. Maybe that's not what you meant but that's how it comes across.
In pick up games I can't house rule stuff, so "fixing the game" isn't really an option. And it I shouldn't have to fix it.
And let me just take a moment for this: "man up and enjoy the game?" I'm getting the opposite. Playing a game by a company that actively ignores the players and doesn't even like them, makes rushed out rules just for money grabs, isn't "manning up." It's more like being GW's lap dog. Man up and keep playing a game that sucks. LOL! You have strange ideas that come from you playing in a group of like-minded people where you can work together to fix the rules. I don't have that luxury.
MWHistorian wrote: I I don't think you fully realize what's happening here. You're asking people like me, who might have been playing since RT, to never come back to a game they've been playing for twenty years or so. For them, the game has turned into one they no longer enjoy. I'm shelving my armies with the hopes that 40k will come back to being good.
And one day you may get your wish and find yourself with your unbound demons summoning army, alone in a store hoping someone else comes along while everyone else is playing X-wing, warmachine, Infinity, Dust, etc.
So melodramatic. Who's asking people to never come back after 20 years? We're saying that if some one tells us they're leaving to stop coming back and telling us why they're leaving, again, and again, and again... just leave already.
If the game's turned into something you no longer enjoy, why not expend a minimal effort to turn it back? I'd rather the community give G'dub an "up yours", and unite with rules we can all enjoy and accept. We could enact some positive peer pressure and move the game our own direction (like most TOs will have to for GTs anyway). Axis and Allis Minis, Magic, CAV players, to name a few, have all done this... why are we shackled to the drama and emotion of 2 or 3 idiotic rules in an otherwise very strong ruleset and game? Limit invulns/rerolls, enact good FoC guidelines, moderate summoning... done.
And no one here (this thread) wants unbound, no one wants unlimited summoning, so stop hoisting that strawman. I've repeatedly and clearly said. "Ditch the dumb crap, make pretty universally accepted guidelines, have fun, voice your displeasure at the GW morons". Somehow that makes me a white knight who wants people to leave and likes unbound lists... whatever.
Go ahead and take away quickpost again if wanting people to man up and enjoy the game that this site draws more from than any other somehow is impolite.
When you tell people to just leave, that's telling them you don't want them back. Maybe that's not what you meant but that's how it comes across.
In pick up games I can't house rule stuff, so "fixing the game" isn't really an option. And it I shouldn't have to fix it.
And let me just take a moment for this: "man up and enjoy the game?" I'm getting the opposite. Playing a game by a company that actively ignores the players and doesn't even like them, makes rushed out rules just for money grabs, isn't "manning up." It's more like being GW's lap dog. Man up and keep playing a game that sucks. LOL! You have strange ideas that come from you playing in a group of like-minded people where you can work together to fix the rules. I don't have that luxury.
Seconded, the people that truly suffered from this edition are the players that don't have a group or friends to play with the ones that rely on pick-up games.
One thing to know is this: Most people that play Warhammer and Warhammer 40k are CASUAL, but it's just the INTERNET that is dominated by the competeive scene. In real life it's easer to make a point about this, but on the internet you can't do this and not expect people to get emotional. This hobby is a big part of us.
Yeah, I'm gonna have to go ahead and ask for some numbers.
Further, define casual. Plenty of people 'casually' go to tournaments/leagues just to get in a lot of games against nicely painted armies on nice tables. Further, how is the internet any more dominated by the 'competitive' scene than it is by the 'casual' scene.
You can even leave aside the tourney scene and still question that line of reasoning. I casually play competitive games all the time, from beer league hockey to Settlers of Catan to FPS team deathmatches. The suggestion that I don't want fair, balanced, comprehensible, and enjoyable rules in all of those because I don't do them 'competitively' is a little wild.
I see what the OP is saying, and I'd agree. I think with 7th, GW have embraced what 40k really is: a game for so many different people.
Some people don't give a crap about what's broken or what the Internet says, and they'll just like to stick some cool models on the table and have a game. For them, Unbound is perfect.
For more serious gamers, the only issue is the FoC shenanigans, something which is easy to house rule. A rule saying "Battle Forged only, max X detachments" is something that a lot of people will readily accept and, for those people, the game just got a lot better. The Allies chart is less broken, and changes to MC and Jink rules gave a much needed nerf to some of the more broken units in the game.
Yeah, 7th needs house-ruling, but with some minor changes implemented by a local club, it's one of the best editions we've had in a while.
If you're playing in a stable group, I'm sure you can make the game work for your group. But many of us are not in that position and rely on pick up games with strangers. For us, the stability of the game is a major bonus. Negotiating games is more difficult for this group.
Added to that, if I'm paying premium for your rules, I don't expect to have to fix them before I play, no more than I expect to have to sculpt parts of the minis myself.
Your attitude, frankly, reeks of "I got mine, so I don't care about your complaints, even if they are valid!"
I am glad you like 7th, and I hope you have fun with it. There's no need to use loaded language like "man up" just because I don't share your enthusiasm.
Yeah this seems a little strange. I do more hobby work than playing since I have a lot going on. But I never play anything but casual games anymore.
My 2 cents:
1. The rulebook is ridiculous. But so have all the latest codicies and rule books. They're rules. I don't want a hard bound copy of rules that expire in a few years. If someone wants them, fine, have it as an option. Let me buy a cheap-o rules pamphlet for 15 bucks or a down-loadable PDF.
2. Unbound or whatever seems silly. This is why - it does seem to make the game very difficult to play for pick up games and tournaments. Like I said, I really don't play those anymore, but lots of people do. If GW is giving carte blanche to casual gamers to do whatever they want and ditch the FOC. Guess what? We have been doing that since Rogue Trader. So I am missing the point of this and feel sorry for competitive players out there.
3. It seems like the pace of things at GW is just too fast. Like they just think that the way to deal with any problem is to slam out rules changes and new products, etc. I hope they realize this isn't a video game, and it takes time for people to get caught up and we can't just download a patch for 40k and be up to date.
Don't get me wrong. I am looking for the freaking 7 year old Ork update, but it seems like some of the other things they've released lately have been just slammed out change for the sake of change.
MOST of us (most) even those with a decent cash flow, aren't putting aside hundreds of dollars (or whatever your currency) each month for more 40k models. Plus, 85 bucks on a rules book? No that's money I could spend on models. I can just keep playing the existing/old rules and have more army options.
I have a tournament with a bunch of newish players coming up in a few weeks. I can't wait to mercilessly crush every single one of them with my Infinite Daemons Summoning army.
I have a tournament with a bunch of newish players coming up in a few weeks. I can't wait to mercilessly crush every single one of them with my Infinite Daemons Summoning army.
MOST of us (most) even those with a decent cash flow, aren't putting aside hundreds of dollars (or whatever your currency) each month for more 40k models. Plus, 85 bucks on a rules book? No that's money I could spend on models. I can just keep playing the existing/old rules and have more army options.
So whole thing seems kinda strange to me.
i agree here
The Shadow wrote: I see what the OP is saying, and I'd agree. I think with 7th, GW have embraced what 40k really is: a game for so many different people.
Some people don't give a crap about what's broken or what the Internet says, and they'll just like to stick some cool models on the table and have a game. For them, Unbound is perfect.
For more serious gamers, the only issue is the FoC shenanigans, something which is easy to house rule. A rule saying "Battle Forged only, max X detachments" is something that a lot of people will readily accept and, for those people, the game just got a lot better. The Allies chart is less broken, and changes to MC and Jink rules gave a much needed nerf to some of the more broken units in the game.
Yeah, 7th needs house-ruling, but with some minor changes implemented by a local club, it's one of the best editions we've had in a while.
I agree here too. I also think that its not too hard for a couple of strangers to just discuss something before they play, competetive or not. I always ask if we could do ''no flyers'' every time and its fine, for instance.
I agree here too. I also think that its not too hard for a couple of strangers to just discuss something before they play, competetive or not. I always ask if we could do ''no flyers'' every time and its fine, for instance.
Unless of course that person has brought flyers as a large part of their army. If you have to pre-arrange things its absolutely no use for pick up games.
Sadly, this edition seems like an updated 6th with some of the flavor removed and 2 expansions thrown on top. The psychic phase is nearly a complete waste of time. Now that casting is a 50/50 shot or slightly better, many more of your casting rolls will fail than before. Now add the fact that they can be nullified quite easily if that is what you are trying to do and after that, if you are using witchfire, go ahead and roll to see of you hit with your usually well above average BS. On top of psychic powers doing nothing half the time, you now have to deal with an insane, near instant lose a game table that is perils of the warp. . I played a maelstrom of war game this weekend which went 5 turns. I had a lvl2 sorcerer with 4 powers including force. Psychic powers were only able to be used in 2 turns. The other 3 turns of the psychic phase was a whole lot of rolling dice for no reason at all, ultimately. Why make a fancy new psychic phase and make a wise general NEVER take psykers. It is just too random to ever rely on the powers going off when you need them to.
I have a tournament with a bunch of newish players coming up in a few weeks. I can't wait to mercilessly crush every single one of them with my Infinite Daemons Summoning army.
I don't know if you're joking or being serious.
Within the context of the discussion, it doesn't really matter.
I have a tournament with a bunch of newish players coming up in a few weeks. I can't wait to mercilessly crush every single one of them with my Infinite Daemons Summoning army.
I don't know if you're joking or being serious.
Within the context of the discussion, it doesn't really matter.
Exalted, well played, touché (I think that covers all possibilities).
After quiting GW because of 6th, i really enjoyed the 7th.
They dont solved any of the problems of 6th, and added new ones, but now the game really have the feeling of fluff/narrative before rules...
It is a good system for narrative, it is bad for competitions. Still, competitive wargame have better (and free) rules around, so if this is an issue, people can simple migrate into another system (in the same world).
On plus: looj at all those random stuff, that will be fun as hell to play in a narrative way.
I mean, take a "game master" who say "this is the scenario, bring the armies you want up to x points, those units are forbiden".
Now it need really campaing rules, with XP for warlords, and it is done...
I have to ask how is random stuff fun to play in a narrative way? I've personally always been annoyed with random warlord traits, psyker traits, speed of getting mutations, not getting to buy some to show your exploits, random perils that erase your mind, randomer psyker powers, random objectives, random VP, and that's not even mentioning my CD's army that is filled with random upgrades/rewards as well as the storm. To me at least, it just slows things down.
It is a good system for narrative, it is bad for competitions. Still, competitive wargame have better (and free) rules around, so if this is an issue, people can simple migrate into another system (in the same world).
If a shop doesn't run the game , then they will have no place to play and I doubt shop owners are going to be jumping on non GW systems , specialy in parts of the world which PP or CB ignore as a market.
StarTrotter wrote: I have to ask how is random stuff fun to play in a narrative way?
Because randomness creates unpredictable events that are memorable, and its this kind of event that will feed and guide a 'narrative'. For example I had an IG squad Sgt who managed to kill a bike mounted Chaplin in 2 consecutive games with his lasgun, or my Praetorian with a grenade launcher who never missed, or my Commissar who always managed to roll hatred on the Tyranid attack table or....
There is definitely a place for randomness in wargames. Have things gone too far? Possibly but a game with very limited and tightly controlled randomness would lose its soul, just like 3rd ed did. Warlord traits and such like should have a points cost and be selectable but I am completely fine with things like random charge distances and the Eye of the Gods table.
That is one game. How is it good , if you can't do the same thing over again. Lets say you even kill a chaplain , which is hard to imagine in the first place as the only place where chaplains were used in 5th or 6th was death company .
If the whole game was driven by I roll 2x6 and I win , it would make no sense at all to even start .
Or did you mean you had a chaplain fight 5-6 power ax armed sgts in a blob and die to them , that I can imagine.
StarTrotter wrote: I have to ask how is random stuff fun to play in a narrative way?
Because randomness creates unpredictable events that are memorable, and its this kind of event that will feed and guide a 'narrative'. For example I had an IG squad Sgt who managed to kill a bike mounted Chaplin in 2 consecutive games with his lasgun, or my Praetorian with a grenade launcher who never missed, or my Commissar who always managed to roll hatred on the Tyranid attack table or....
There is definitely a place for randomness in wargames. Have things gone too far? Possibly but a game with very limited and tightly controlled randomness would lose its soul, just like 3rd ed did. Warlord traits and such like should have a points cost and be selectable but I am completely fine with things like random charge distances and the Eye of the Gods table.
Yes, randomness creates memorable, unpredictable events. But I would argue that it is a bad thing. For example, I had 500 points of my army run off the table just the other day because I rolled double sixes for their leadership check twice. Even with a re-roll, they still failed. That effectively ended the game. Did my opponent out-think me? Did I use poor strategy? No, and no. What did I learn from this game? Don't roll double sixes.
Hour of setup time, takes an hour to play two turns, then an hour to put everything away. 3 hours of wasted time for a game that none of us enjoyed.
Yes, randomness creates memorable, unpredictable events. But I would argue that it is a bad thing.
The only alternative to things like that is to have a very tightly constructed ruleset with completely predictable actions, chess for example. I'm not very fond of chess.
Yes, randomness creates memorable, unpredictable events. But I would argue that it is a bad thing.
The only alternative to things like that is to have a very tightly constructed ruleset with completely predictable actions, chess for example. I'm not very fond of chess.
That's the only alternative you can think of? You have a poor imagination.
The other option is a tighter ruleset that allows player skill to determine the outcome more. Yes, some randomness is necessary, but it shouldn't be the level that GW has now. Good memories should come from when you did something cool like out thinking your opponent or beat back odds that were against you, not "I pulled a card and rolled for how many victory points I got." That's not what makes a game memorable.
The difference between the different types of randomness you guys are talking about is the difference between risk and uncertainty.
You can make judgements based on risks. You can't make judgements based on uncertainty.
So, rolling to hit vs. a high WS opponent is a risk- I can clearly see my chance of success and decide whether it is worth it or not.
Drawing random objectives or rolling random warlord traits introduces uncertainty- I have no real information about what is going to be a good move until I see my cards or take the roll, so I cannot plan until I receive them.
The lack of ability to plan reduces player agency, and for some of us that really reduces the fun of the game. Palindrome, pretty much every thing you pointed to in your examples were examples where you knew the risk. The things people most often have problems with are uncertainties.
That's the only alternative you can think of? You have a poor imagination.
If you had been paying attention you would have seen that I was explaining that there will always be 'bad' results in any game involving a random factor and the only games in which these 'bad' events can't occur is those with no random elements. Incidentally 'bad' events can also create memorable games in a good way.
MWHistorian wrote: Today I sent GW an e-mail stating my reasons that I will no longer be buying any of their product.
I listed my complaints about 7th ed coming too soon, too expensive, too random and breaking the fluff.
I also listed their lack of support for my favorite faction, Sisters of Battle.
Do I think it will do any good? Not at all.
Well done anyway.
I do believe that if everyone leaving the game did the same, they would listen. But most people just quit and say nothing.
Also, what about playing an older edition, or using a fan-made set of rules? There are a lot of small groups developing home-made systems, or going back to 2nd, 5th, 3rd or even RT.
The FAQs have confirmed that I won't be continuing with 40k for the foreseeable future.
I don't care about 'competitive' games but the sheer idiocy of the Malefic powers just beggers belief. Not only is it fluff heresy of the highest order it is also quite possibly the most broken thing that GW has ever done. Well done GW, well done. The sooner you crash and burn the better, at least someone competent may pick up the pieces and do something postive with them.
Palindrome wrote: The FAQs have confirmed that I won't be continuing with 40k for the foreseeable future.
I don't care about 'competitive' games but the sheer idiocy of the Malefic powers just beggers belief. Not only is it fluff heresy of the highest order it is also quite possibly the most broken thing that GW has ever done. Well done GW, well done. The sooner you crash and burn the better, at least someone competent may pick up the pieces and do something postive with them.
I'm a fluffy/casual player as well and these changes hurt me worse than it does the competitive players.
i don't see the problem really. like OP stated, i think i'll like this edition. I still have to test play in a couple of days, but i believe that the tactical objectives bring the solution to most of my problems.. mainly
the 'i camp in a corner, ignore all cover and just shoot your army' players. With the objectives in game, if they don't move, they just lose because of victory points. Makes the game more mobile.
but hey, that's just my opinion
The ramdomness is easily solved with house rules, wich are easy to do in a group of player who want to play narratively (at least if you have something like a Narrator or Game Master).
Like: so you warlod rolled the same thing for 3 consecutive games? Ok them, you can choose him to have that as a permanent rule (you dont roll the tabble anymore).
Points? Those becames just tools for balancing the narrative, that is, the Narrator tell you X points, and place weathever he wants into the enemy force (strugling for balance, but not limited by it).
I have a tournament with a bunch of newish players coming up in a few weeks. I can't wait to mercilessly crush every single one of them with my Infinite Daemons Summoning army.
I'm entering a tournament next month and I can't wait to crush guys like you. I'm bringing space wolves in drop pods. Your casters are dead before you even get to use them. And if any survive, I'm denying them with my runic weapon. The tournament organiser has already laid down the rules (eg: battle forged only, no lords of war, etc...). It just takes a decent TO or a decent opponent and the game is very playable. There have always been people who play over powered list, and it happens in magic cards too, that's why they have a banned cards list. It always takes a while of people winning tournaments with it before it's banned. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I have never played against one of these scary internet lists of doom. And there is always a counter.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ps. I'm keen for this edition too. Vehicles got tougher, yay!
Memorable games and actions by models does not require random "forging a narrative" tables. I have just as many from WM/H as with a more random game of 40k, and it's nowhere near as random as 7th. The example given above is not even by said random tables, but by shooting, which is acceptable in randomness to most people.
Am I pumped for 7th ed "The House Rule Edition". Why heck yeah!!!
I finally don't have to buy a BRB To play at my flgs. Instead, I just make up whatever rules needed to run my "non-comp" list made up of nothing but Land Raiders, Monoliths and Pink Horrors.
Seriously, "Did any of you actually pay $85 US for a 200 page book that essentially tells you to make up your own rules?
This release was the first one since third ed that did not sell out at the game stores in my area. Anecdotal? We will see.
The ramdomness is easily solved with house rules, wich are easy to do in a group of player who want to play narratively (at least if you have something like a Narrator or Game Master).
What is a Narrator or Game Master ,something like the store owner or something ?
I have a tournament with a bunch of newish players coming up in a few weeks. I can't wait to mercilessly crush every single one of them with my Infinite Daemons Summoning army.
I'm entering a tournament next month and I can't wait to crush guys like you. I'm bringing space wolves in drop pods. Your casters are dead before you even get to use them. And if any survive, I'm denying them with my runic weapon. The tournament organiser has already laid down the rules (eg: battle forged only, no lords of war, etc...). It just takes a decent TO or a decent opponent and the game is very playable. There have always been people who play over powered list, and it happens in magic cards too, that's why they have a banned cards list. It always takes a while of people winning tournaments with it before it's banned. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I have never played against one of these scary internet lists of doom. And there is always a counter.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ps. I'm keen for this edition too. Vehicles got tougher, yay!
I think he might have been joking.
Also, go read the new SWFAQ and see what that does to your enthusiasm (hint: your runic staffs won't be denying as much as you think, and you won't be jawsing anything).
The ramdomness is easily solved with house rules, wich are easy to do in a group of player who want to play narratively (at least if you have something like a Narrator or Game Master).
What is a Narrator or Game Master ,something like the store owner or something ?
A GM or Narrator is a neutral third party who arbitrates the rules to make sure both players have fun, and that the game tells a good story. More common in roleplaying games like Dungeons and Dragons but there's a fair tradition of it in Wargaming too, with narrative campaigns and so on.
The ramdomness is easily solved with house rules, wich are easy to do in a group of player who want to play narratively (at least if you have something like a Narrator or Game Master).
What is a Narrator or Game Master ,something like the store owner or something ?
A GM or Narrator is a neutral third party who arbitrates the rules to make sure both players have fun, and that the game tells a good story. More common in roleplaying games like Dungeons and Dragons but there's a fair tradition of it in Wargaming too, with narrative campaigns and so on.
40k started as a mix between role-playing games and strategy games. A Gamemaster was not needed but it was recommended, because the rules were just too much complicated and it helped a lot to have a 'referee' having decisions on the spot about how a rule was to be applied.
Having a Gamemaster also helps a lot in narrative games and campaigns. He/she is the one who prepare the setting, writing the story to be told, giving missions to the players and, well, constantly fixing the game whenever something appears broken. Instead of playing, the Gamemaster creates a world for the players to play, staying aside and above, only going down to their level when they ask for mediation. Like a god.
Some sick, wretched individuals like me take more pleassure from being a Gamemaster than from actually playing the game.
The ramdomness is easily solved with house rules, wich are easy to do in a group of player who want to play narratively (at least if you have something like a Narrator or Game Master).
What is a Narrator or Game Master ,something like the store owner or something ?
A GM or Narrator is a neutral third party who arbitrates the rules to make sure both players have fun, and that the game tells a good story. More common in roleplaying games like Dungeons and Dragons but there's a fair tradition of it in Wargaming too, with narrative campaigns and so on.
how does that work . you both come with your armies and then he does what , because I tried to find any rules for narrators in the rulebook , but couldn't find any.
The ramdomness is easily solved with house rules, wich are easy to do in a group of player who want to play narratively (at least if you have something like a Narrator or Game Master).
What is a Narrator or Game Master ,something like the store owner or something ?
A GM or Narrator is a neutral third party who arbitrates the rules to make sure both players have fun, and that the game tells a good story. More common in roleplaying games like Dungeons and Dragons but there's a fair tradition of it in Wargaming too, with narrative campaigns and so on.
how does that work . you both come with your armies and then he does what , because I tried to find any rules for narrators in the rulebook , but couldn't find any.
A GM is required for a story telling game such as D&D. The GM/DM/whatever acts as the narrator and guides the players through a story.
A strategy game doesn't need a GM because it's two players using the same rules facing off against each other.
But seeing as how now 40k needs a GM to keep everything straight means that the game is a mess of rules. A fun, narrative strategy game shouldn't require a GM except for unique, pre-arranged situations.
The ramdomness is easily solved with house rules, wich are easy to do in a group of player who want to play narratively (at least if you have something like a Narrator or Game Master).
What is a Narrator or Game Master ,something like the store owner or something ?
A GM or Narrator is a neutral third party who arbitrates the rules to make sure both players have fun, and that the game tells a good story. More common in roleplaying games like Dungeons and Dragons but there's a fair tradition of it in Wargaming too, with narrative campaigns and so on.
how does that work . you both come with your armies and then he does what , because I tried to find any rules for narrators in the rulebook , but couldn't find any.
Ostensibly it wouldn't exist for a pick-up game, but pretend you're playing in a campaign with a map. Let's say you're playing Space Marines and your attacking a quadrant held by an Eldar player. The GM would come up with a scenario based on the scenario - for example, maybe the world is a lush jungle world with some ancient Eldar ruins, and your army goal is to seize some relic while the Eldar's objective is to hold the line until reinforcements can arrive. The GM decides that you'll be playing a mission with the relic in the middle on a jungle themed board with ruins with the Eldar force defending it and your army is allowed to Deep Strike on Turn 1 but not within 12" of the center; you win if you have uncontested control of the relic at any point after Turn 2, but the Eldar player wins at the end of Turn 6 if you don't (i.e. their reinforcements arrive and your strike force needs to retreat). Additionally, the GM also decides that the world has some dangerous monsters, and creates a random table that has a chance to spawn some weird monster that he decides to use Chaos Spawn stats for (the GM will control these creatures if any show up)
That's the general idea - the GM tweaks the scenario and comes up with the narrative behind the game and anything else that defines what you're playing, and can add ad-hoc modifications to fit the scenario or add additional things to the game. Of course as stated that's the domain of campaigns, not the more common "Hey I'm going to be at the game shop at 7 tonight if anyone is up for a game" kind of situations.
The problem in general here is that 40k touts itself as a wargame, meant for large scale games, but the whole concept of having a GM and a specific scenario lends itself to smaller skirmishes (like the original Rogue Trader), and random tables/cards are a poor substitute. The GM is meant to handle the actual "forge the narrative" part of the game, yet the GM isn't a required part and the game itself lends itself towards campaigns, but campaigns aren't a default part of the game when IMO they should be the focal point of 40k.
I think that I personally would be a lot more accepting of 40k (besides the prices, of course) if it was only intended to be done in a campaign and if there were solid campaigns for it. As it stands though, my local meta is entirely pickup games and the occasional tournament, no league or campaign, so the appeal of dealing with 40k is lessened because it's not suited to games outside of that, but in the same breath the company states that balance isn't their concern, competitive play isn't their concern and the game is ideal for 2000+ points when that just increases the imbalance, when IMO the ideal spot for 40k is around 1,500 point games as part of a full-blown map campaign or linked narrative.
I have a tournament with a bunch of newish players coming up in a few weeks. I can't wait to mercilessly crush every single one of them with my Infinite Daemons Summoning army.
I'm entering a tournament next month and I can't wait to crush guys like you. I'm bringing space wolves in drop pods. Your casters are dead before you even get to use them. And if any survive, I'm denying them with my runic weapon. The tournament organiser has already laid down the rules (eg: battle forged only, no lords of war, etc...). It just takes a decent TO or a decent opponent and the game is very playable. There have always been people who play over powered list, and it happens in magic cards too, that's why they have a banned cards list. It always takes a while of people winning tournaments with it before it's banned. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I have never played against one of these scary internet lists of doom. And there is always a counter.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ps. I'm keen for this edition too. Vehicles got tougher, yay!
I think he might have been joking.
Also, go read the new SWFAQ and see what that does to your enthusiasm (hint: your runic staffs won't be denying as much as you think, and you won't be jawsing anything).
Oh ok. I guess I missed that with all the overt moaning on here. I don't care much for jaws. I've had limited success with it. I've been using divination or biomancy. The runic weapon thing has been coming for a long time. Oh well. +2 deny for Njal is not too shabby though.
I'm not an overly competitive player at 40k so I like the rules. It's always been this kind of game since 2nd edition when I started. It's just about having battles with cool models. It's just not a tournament game! It never was! When will people accept it?
It's just not a tournament game! It never was! When will people accept it?
Which has no relevance as an argument for the game when there are plenty of people who don't play in tournaments that don't like the current iteration or direction of the game.
Understand that definitions like 'casual' and 'competitive' and not mutually exclusive in the slightest, and the overlap between is significant. Further, alleged 'casual' players can still hold a negative opinion of a game that is poorly written and poorly balanced, because, much to the surprise of many, it impacts these so called 'casual' players as well.
I have a tournament with a bunch of newish players coming up in a few weeks. I can't wait to mercilessly crush every single one of them with my Infinite Daemons Summoning army.
I'm entering a tournament next month and I can't wait to crush guys like you. I'm bringing space wolves in drop pods. Your casters are dead before you even get to use them. And if any survive, I'm denying them with my runic weapon. The tournament organiser has already laid down the rules (eg: battle forged only, no lords of war, etc...). It just takes a decent TO or a decent opponent and the game is very playable. There have always been people who play over powered list, and it happens in magic cards too, that's why they have a banned cards list. It always takes a while of people winning tournaments with it before it's banned. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I have never played against one of these scary internet lists of doom. And there is always a counter.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ps. I'm keen for this edition too. Vehicles got tougher, yay!
I think he might have been joking.
Also, go read the new SWFAQ and see what that does to your enthusiasm (hint: your runic staffs won't be denying as much as you think, and you won't be jawsing anything).
Oh ok. I guess I missed that with all the overt moaning on here. I don't care much for jaws. I've had limited success with it. I've been using divination or biomancy. The runic weapon thing has been coming for a long time. Oh well. +2 deny for Njal is not too shabby though.
I'm not an overly competitive player at 40k so I like the rules. It's always been this kind of game since 2nd edition when I started. It's just about having battles with cool models. It's just not a tournament game! It never was! When will people accept it?
Thank goodness for Kavish! All those tourneys I've attended over the years, all the people I met, all the games played, all pointless!! Yay, Kavish said 40k isn't for tournament play! All of us who have played in and enjoyed tournament play, we had it wrong.
From now on I'll do it Kavish style, hold up my models and go, "pew, pew, pew, I got you, yay rules don't matter!!!". Yeah that's how you do it, like I did when I was 5 years old.
You know why these rules appeal to the five years and under crowd? They were written by Jervis Jhonson.
Kavish wrote: I'm not an overly competitive player at 40k so I like the rules. It's always been this kind of game since 2nd edition when I started. It's just about having battles with cool models. It's just not a tournament game! It never was! When will people accept it?
You wrongly equate "balanced" and "well-written" and "concise" rules with "tournament". Yet mostly every other tabletop miniatures game out there has well-written, concise and for the most part balanced rules that can appeal to both casual and tournament gamers; 40k alone has ambiguous rules, blatantly admits that balance is of little concern and outright gives the finger to competitive gamers as an audience.
It is possible to have both. Just look at, well... virtually any other miniatures game. Malifaux, Warmachine, X-Wing, Kings of War, Hail Caesar, the myriad of Napoleonic and Civil War games, even DBA for all its pedantry is concise and well-balanced (although that particular game goes a bit too far to the right in the balance spectrum IMO) and yet each of these games can satisfy tournament and casual players alike. Why? Because their rules are actually well thought out and written to be concise to avoid ambiguity and the 40k standard of "roll a die for it". There isn't some magical divider (well seemingly outside of 40k) whereby a concise and unambiguous rules set cannot be used for noncompetitive play.
40k is a great game for narrative gaming and campaigns (especially if you have a neutral GM to arbitrate things), and an extremely poor game for anything other than that. Yet as I said above, 40k pretends to be a game that can satisfy all spectrum of gamer, when it really can only appeal to the noncompetitive crowd. And 40k stands alone in this regard - no other game requires such a level of "Here's a bunch of rules, pick what you want to make your game" as 40k does.
Kavish wrote: I'm not an overly competitive player at 40k so I like the rules. It's always been this kind of game since 2nd edition when I started. It's just about having battles with cool models. It's just not a tournament game! It never was! When will people accept it?
You wrongly equate "balanced" and "well-written" and "concise" rules with "tournament". Yet mostly every other tabletop miniatures game out there has well-written, concise and for the most part balanced rules that can appeal to both casual and tournament gamers; 40k alone has ambiguous rules, blatantly admits that balance is of little concern and outright gives the finger to competitive gamers as an audience.
It is possible to have both. Just look at, well... virtually any other miniatures game. Malifaux, Warmachine, X-Wing, Kings of War, Hail Caesar, the myriad of Napoleonic and Civil War games, even DBA for all its pedantry is concise and well-balanced (although that particular game goes a bit too far to the right in the balance spectrum IMO) and yet each of these games can satisfy tournament and casual players alike. Why? Because their rules are actually well thought out and written to be concise to avoid ambiguity and the 40k standard of "roll a die for it". There isn't some magical divider (well seemingly outside of 40k) whereby a concise and unambiguous rules set cannot be used for noncompetitive play.
40k is a great game for narrative gaming and campaigns (especially if you have a neutral GM to arbitrate things), and an extremely poor game for anything other than that. Yet as I said above, 40k pretends to be a game that can satisfy all spectrum of gamer, when it really can only appeal to the noncompetitive crowd. And 40k stands alone in this regard - no other game requires such a level of "Here's a bunch of rules, pick what you want to make your game" as 40k does.
Pffftbahahaha! *wipes tears out of eyes* In all seriousness, I get what you are saying but it's horrid even for narrative gaming and campaigns. Not everything works like it should. You say it appeals to the noncompetitive crowd. Thing is, I'm noncompetitive, I play this game with friends and we slap down some of the worst models in the game sometimes. That said, the games are horrid even for us. Certain armies get blatant advantages, some matches become foregone at turn 1. There are so many crazy broken things it breaks one's will and certain styles of play are punished heavily for no reason (try to play a Ksons army or even a Tzeentchian CSM army). We can make our own house rules but there's only so far we can go. We want balanced rules because broken rules mean only one thing to competitive players. It means you get stuck with those lists. Casual players? We'll grab what we love and suffer with them and that's where imbalance shows up the worst.
Kavish wrote: I'm not an overly competitive player at 40k so I like the rules. It's always been this kind of game since 2nd edition when I started. It's just about having battles with cool models. It's just not a tournament game! It never was! When will people accept it?
You wrongly equate "balanced" and "well-written" and "concise" rules with "tournament". Yet mostly every other tabletop miniatures game out there has well-written, concise and for the most part balanced rules that can appeal to both casual and tournament gamers; 40k alone has ambiguous rules, blatantly admits that balance is of little concern and outright gives the finger to competitive gamers as an audience.
It is possible to have both. Just look at, well... virtually any other miniatures game. Malifaux, Warmachine, X-Wing, Kings of War, Hail Caesar, the myriad of Napoleonic and Civil War games, even DBA for all its pedantry is concise and well-balanced (although that particular game goes a bit too far to the right in the balance spectrum IMO) and yet each of these games can satisfy tournament and casual players alike. Why? Because their rules are actually well thought out and written to be concise to avoid ambiguity and the 40k standard of "roll a die for it". There isn't some magical divider (well seemingly outside of 40k) whereby a concise and unambiguous rules set cannot be used for noncompetitive play.
40k is a great game for narrative gaming and campaigns (especially if you have a neutral GM to arbitrate things), and an extremely poor game for anything other than that. Yet as I said above, 40k pretends to be a game that can satisfy all spectrum of gamer, when it really can only appeal to the noncompetitive crowd. And 40k stands alone in this regard - no other game requires such a level of "Here's a bunch of rules, pick what you want to make your game" as 40k does.
Fully agreed. I'm a fluffy, casual player and I want better written rules that allow more balanced armies. That would let my fluffy penitent SOB list to put up a fight against most other lists. As it is the fight wouldn't last long enough to be amusing for either party. As a casual player, I want better rules and not the current' "whatever goes" mess we have now.
Wow! I didn't expect to get such a strong reaction. Nobody HAS to use the overpowered lists you know. If they do, tell them to GTFO. It's pretty simple to me. We have a pretty strong 40k scene here in Canberra, Australia. I have no shortage of opponents and can think of only two guys who play nasty lists (Venom spam, and the guy I ran into today who's Daemons army is now a daemon factory). I don't have to play those guys. And if I end up facing them at an event, it will be an interesting novelty to see what daemon spam is like (it will certainly look impressive). I've played against the venom spam guy before and it wasn't much fun, but since then I got a buch of drop pods, so he won't be staying out of my range anymore!
Kavish wrote: Wow! I didn't expect to get such a strong reaction. Nobody HAS to use the overpowered lists you know. If they do, tell them to GTFO. It's pretty simple to me. We have a pretty strong 40k scene here in Canberra, Australia. I have no shortage of opponents and can think of only two guys who play nasty lists (Venom spam, and the guy I ran into today who's Daemons army is now a daemon factory). I don't have to play those guys. And if I end up facing them at an event, it will be an interesting novelty to see what daemon spam is like (it will certainly look impressive). I've played against the venom spam guy before and it wasn't much fun, but since then I got a buch of drop pods, so he won't be staying out of my range anymore!
You're right, nobody has to use overpowered lists, but who's to judge someone if that's the kind of games they enjoy playing/building? Telling them to GTFO isn't any better of an attitude to have than the person playing strong/broken lists.
Turning down a game because of a list isn't so much of a solution as it is a symptom.
Reaction at our FLGS, who've already run one tourney, seems overwhelmingly positive. Surprisingly so. Especially to the more dynamic, fluid nature of the game.
Kavish wrote: Wow! I didn't expect to get such a strong reaction. Nobody HAS to use the overpowered lists you know. If they do, tell them to GTFO. It's pretty simple to me. We have a pretty strong 40k scene here in Canberra, Australia. I have no shortage of opponents and can think of only two guys who play nasty lists (Venom spam, and the guy I ran into today who's Daemons army is now a daemon factory). I don't have to play those guys. And if I end up facing them at an event, it will be an interesting novelty to see what daemon spam is like (it will certainly look impressive). I've played against the venom spam guy before and it wasn't much fun, but since then I got a buch of drop pods, so he won't be staying out of my range anymore!
Great.
So, first the community splits in two. Competitive players on one side and casual/fluffy/narrative players on the other.
And then, I, a fluffy/narrative/whatever player, decide that Farsight Enclaves (or Mechanized Eldar) is the army I want to play. I just think it's awesome. And then you tell me to bugger off because the things I like happen to be too good for you.
So the community splits again.
But then I find a guy who doesn't mind that the army I like is OP, but he has a Transcendant C'tan. And I don't want to play with super heavies or gargantuans.
So it splits again.
But more importantly, for all players, it creates a situation where someone like you starts shaming someone like me because the rules designers at GW are incompetent, and feels justified in doing so. If I go to a chess club and use the Yugoslav attack, no one is going to call me a cheesy git, but if I play you and start summoning Daemons you're going to ragequit, call me a douche, and still be incapable of seeing that there just possibly might be something wrong with the game we're playing and that the problem is not limited to tournament play? Really?
But yeah, you have a great community in Canberra, and I'm sure it will remain like that forever. After all, it's not like GW's revenue in Australia fell by 20% over one year. Oh, hang on...
The issue at hand is that the crazy Unbound lists are legal. It might be a d-bag move to bring say 10 Riptides or whatever to a game, but it's *allowed*. Therein is the issue with an unbalanced game; balance is an agreement rather than something hardwired into the rules, and therefore subjective. You basically need to have a gentleman's agreement with every opponent you ever face that you won't try and make the game unfun for each other (and then hope it doesn't happen inadvertently due to 40k's randomness).
Telling the 10 Riptides guy to GTFO makes *you* the jerk, even if you're right (which IMO you still are), because you're the one telling somebody they can't play with what is a legal army. It would be another story if it was outright cheating, but it's not anymore.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Reaction at our FLGS, who've already run one tourney, seems overwhelmingly positive. Surprisingly so. Especially to the more dynamic, fluid nature of the game.
Army lists for the Emperor's Children, Death Guard, Sons of Horus, World Eaters, Word Bearers, Night Lords, Iron Hands, Salamanders, Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion, Imperial Fists and Raven Guard can be found in these 2 books. Bam.
I have a tournament with a bunch of newish players coming up in a few weeks. I can't wait to mercilessly crush every single one of them with my Infinite Daemons Summoning army.
WayneTheGame wrote: I really wish people would stop pointing to 30k and say "Here are your legion!". 30k is a *different game*.
Not to GW it isn't. Look at Word Bearers and tell me that isn't a Chaos Legion. And FW says all the legions will get more "chaosy" as the series moved forward. For crying out loud, in the era of unbound, what does a HH supplement matter?
WayneTheGame wrote: I really wish people would stop pointing to 30k and say "Here are your legion!". 30k is a *different game*.
Not to GW it isn't. Look at Word Bearers and tell me that isn't a Chaos Legion. And FW says all the legions will get more "chaosy" as the series moved forward. For crying out loud, in the era of unbound, what does a HH supplement matter?
Looking at Word Bearers.... No this isn´t a Chaos Legion. At all. It is a Space Marine Legion with a few unique traits. My 5th edition WB were far more 'Word Beary' than anything I can do with 30k at this point. The differences between, say, Raven Guard and Word Bearers are similar to the differences between Raven Guard and Iron Hands. Which should be telling.
I am totally lovingFW´s HH stuff, but they are not giving us Chaos Legions. Perhaps they will in the future but at this point 30k has only two armies: Mechanicus and Space Marines. Which, coming to think of it, is a really big problem on the long term.
On the other side, I totally agree on the "For crying out loud, in the era of unbound, what does a HH supplement matter?". Yeah, there should be any problem in playing Mechanicum 30k vs X 40k. I am not sure about SM 30k vs SM40k. There are more than enough marines everywhere already.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Reaction at our FLGS, who've already run one tourney, seems overwhelmingly positive. Surprisingly so. Especially to the more dynamic, fluid nature of the game.
Yea! Yew! Positivity! That's what I like to hear!
Every time a new edition comes out, people on the internet say that the game is ruined and 40k is dead. Then it turns out to be good, and much fun is had. Quit with the doom and gloom guys!
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Reaction at our FLGS, who've already run one tourney, seems overwhelmingly positive. Surprisingly so. Especially to the more dynamic, fluid nature of the game.
Yea! Yew! Positivity! That's what I like to hear!
Every time a new edition comes out, people on the internet say that the game is ruined and 40k is dead. Then it turns out to be good, and much fun is had. Quit with the doom and gloom guys!
7th ed is different and unique, just like every other codex and edition before it. We're concerned when we go for pick up games or tournaments, our worst fears become realized when someone brings an army so min/maxed it makes it terrible to play against (even if you win it's horrible to play against).
For casual fights, I'd be more forgiving. if I go to an Unbound tournament at 2000 points and someone brings 666 grots and wins because he drew the random objective cards that gives him Objectives VPs and we don't get to the third turn, that is what I fear the most.
Byte wrote: Strategy cards are more auto lose/win than unlimited battle forged detachments or unbound armies IMO.
Agreed. I'm trying to figure out some slightly tweaked ground rules of the cards (like must discard and draw a new one each turn, or something) to keep it from being imbalanced. I doubt I'll settle on that, but the simpler, the better.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Reaction at our FLGS, who've already run one tourney, seems overwhelmingly positive. Surprisingly so. Especially to the more dynamic, fluid nature of the game.
Yea! Yew! Positivity! That's what I like to hear!
Every time a new edition comes out, people on the internet say that the game is ruined and 40k is dead. Then it turns out to be good, and much fun is had. Quit with the doom and gloom guys!
I have played some games and seen several and 7th edition rocks, the new missions are fun. Everyone likes them in my area if you can play the game and stay away from the internet you will find that the game is fun. I haven't played a unbound army though but I am not concerned about it.
Kavish wrote: Yea! Yew! Positivity! That's what I like to hear!
Every time a new edition comes out, people on the internet say that the game is ruined and 40k is dead. Then it turns out to be good, and much fun is had. Quit with the doom and gloom guys!
6th wasn't good. 7th wasn't good. 5th was arguably not that good.
A shrinking customer base, falling sales, and a downward trend while the rest of the market segment is trending up don't leave a lot of room for positivity. Cheering on a determined loser doesn't help anybody.
There were people positive right up to the end of Fantasy, too.
Kavish wrote: Yea! Yew! Positivity! That's what I like to hear!
Every time a new edition comes out, people on the internet say that the game is ruined and 40k is dead. Then it turns out to be good, and much fun is had. Quit with the doom and gloom guys!
6th wasn't good. 7th wasn't good. 5th was arguably not that good.
A shrinking customer base, falling sales, and a downward trend while the rest of the market segment is trending up don't leave a lot of room for positivity. Cheering on a determined loser doesn't help anybody.
There were people positive right up to the end of Fantasy, too.
Yet your still playing. Last time I checked, fantasy isn't over. I don't play it but there is a dedicated community of WFB players around here. I sometimes fantasise (lol, bad pun) about getting into it, then I realise that I haven't the extra time nor money.
Kavish wrote: Yea! Yew! Positivity! That's what I like to hear!
Every time a new edition comes out, people on the internet say that the game is ruined and 40k is dead. Then it turns out to be good, and much fun is had. Quit with the doom and gloom guys!
6th wasn't good. 7th wasn't good. 5th was arguably not that good.
A shrinking customer base, falling sales, and a downward trend while the rest of the market segment is trending up don't leave a lot of room for positivity. Cheering on a determined loser doesn't help anybody.
There were people positive right up to the end of Fantasy, too.
Yet your still playing. Last time I checked, fantasy isn't over. I don't play it but there is a dedicated community of WFB players around here. I sometimes fantasise (lol, bad pun) about getting into it, then I realise that I haven't the extra time nor money.
Yes there is a dedicated community, but it's been dying. Look at sales, it went from the 3rd most selling wargame a while back to not even being in the top 5.
As per playing, I play, not sure about Seaward, he might or he might be here due to having armies but not enjoying the game anymore, but, thing is, the game isn't only about the rules. It's the customization + your guys + painting + the rules for the game + fluff + the game.
Most of us here have sunk at least a thousand into this hobby, very likely even more. It's a fallacy but we want to justify it, make it be worthwhile. Then there is the fact that, although it's diminishing, in many regions it's the only game people will play that is a wargame. Finally, there is charm to your guys + the fluff. So many post saying the rules suck but if you play this, play it for the fluff. I hate the game's rules, it hardly functions even for casual games and sucks for narrative games so badly that their "Forge the Narrative" makes me laugh. I can't remember a good edition but this one just feels worse with its blatant disregard for everything and continuously makes the Imperium more and more the shining good guys rather than the tyrannical despotic system that is just as bad as everybody else but many root for in the hopes it gets better. Also, there is a shrinking customer base. People are getting priced out, upset, angered, and the company doesn't really advertise. Oh wait it does in its own rulebooks.
Stoked to try out 7th, at first glance I love all the tweaks, psychic phase etc. Only thing that worries me is daemon summoning and invisibility but I will reserve judgement until a trial by fire occurs.
However, what I am most stoked on and continue to be entertained by possibly even more than 7th or 40k in general has been dakka's fever pitch nerd rage over the past week.
I just sold my Imperial Fist army and bought two Infinity armies today. And the rules and army builders are free on line!
So, I guess I did get pumped for this edition!
Kavish wrote: Yea! Yew! Positivity! That's what I like to hear!
Every time a new edition comes out, people on the internet say that the game is ruined and 40k is dead. Then it turns out to be good, and much fun is had. Quit with the doom and gloom guys!
6th wasn't good. 7th wasn't good. 5th was arguably not that good.
A shrinking customer base, falling sales, and a downward trend while the rest of the market segment is trending up don't leave a lot of room for positivity. Cheering on a determined loser doesn't help anybody.
There were people positive right up to the end of Fantasy, too.
Yet your still playing. Last time I checked, fantasy isn't over. I don't play it but there is a dedicated community of WFB players around here. I sometimes fantasise (lol, bad pun) about getting into it, then I realise that I haven't the extra time nor money.
No, I'm not. I haven't played a game of 40K since 5th ended, and I haven't bought a Games Workshop product since I bought the 6th Edition BRB.
I've enjoyed X-Wing instead.
And if you think Fantasy's a thriving game, I don't know what to tell you, aside from "Pay attention."
MWHistorian wrote: I just sold my Imperial Fist army and bought two Infinity armies today. And the rules and army builders are free on line!
So, I guess I did get pumped for this edition!
I guess getting pumped for another game is also a way to get pumped for 7th editon.
Not that I blame you, I have been unimpressed from what I have seen thus far.
MWHistorian wrote: I just sold my Imperial Fist army and bought two Infinity armies today. And the rules and army builders are free on line!
So, I guess I did get pumped for this edition!
I guess getting pumped for another game is also a way to get pumped for 7th editon.
Not that I blame you, I have been unimpressed from what I have seen thus far.
lol he is fibbin why else would he still be here crying.
MWHistorian wrote: I just sold my Imperial Fist army and bought two Infinity armies today. And the rules and army builders are free on line!
So, I guess I did get pumped for this edition!
I guess getting pumped for another game is also a way to get pumped for 7th editon.
Not that I blame you, I have been unimpressed from what I have seen thus far.
lol he is fibbin why else would he still be here crying.
Now watch his gallery for more 40k to come :p
You should really remember rule number one of Dakka. Be polite. There is no need to make an insulting comment regarding his mental state.
That doesn't mean that he is still playing, or even buying. I still occasionally paint 40k stuff (mostly 2nd ed guardsmen which I already own) and I have no intention of playing 40k until it gets some decent rules.
MWHistorian wrote: I just sold my Imperial Fist army and bought two Infinity armies today. And the rules and army builders are free on line!
So, I guess I did get pumped for this edition!
I guess getting pumped for another game is also a way to get pumped for 7th editon.
Not that I blame you, I have been unimpressed from what I have seen thus far.
lol he is fibbin why else would he still be here crying.
Now watch his gallery for more 40k to come :p
Are you such a blind kool-aid drinker that you can't imagine someone leaving the game? Do you have any idea how desperate you sound? Sold my IF army along with a few Marines Malevelants and bought two entire infinity forces. Nomad and Adriana. I still have my SOB army which I'll play with a few close friends. But I will continue to post pics of my armies. Here's a pic I took of my Warmachine army that I started when I heard the rules for 7th.
If you think people leaving isn't a real thing or somehow good for 40k, you're sadly mistaken.
Next pic will by my Infinity armies.
That doesn't mean that he is still playing, or even buying. I still occasionally paint 40k stuff (mostly 2nd ed guardsmen which I already own) and I have no intention of playing 40k until it gets some decent rules.
My point is plain and simple if you are going to quit you would. No one stands in the door screaming I AM LEAVING for weeks, they just want people to know they aren't happy. My kids do it all the time, I tell them no they get mad stomp their feet stand by the door saying dad ....dad....dad.... I say what they say I am leaving I say oh ok, then after about 5 minutes of standing there saying I am leaving they wonder off to play with something else.
We are in a modern area were people need instant gratification, give it a week or 2 and it will stop. This happens every time a new anything comes out. People find a single word that bugs them and scream about it on the net for a week or 2 then they fall asleep. I have been here for 3 or 4 ed now maybe more and every time it is still the same thing.
Key thing to remember, older players will not be as likely to come on the net to complain about something that,s not going to change or to say I quit. They didn't invest this much time and money into something to get upset over a rule change. If they are upset they will just sit the edition out or play with friends.
So want to see how many people are happy/don'tcare. it's simple count the people in this forum mad, times it by 2 then subtract them from the estimated fanbase. That's how many are happy lol Formula is like this people who complain will seek out a way to complain for some reason times it by 2 for those who may quit because of other reasons related to 7ed money something seems off ect. Probly not to accurate but probly closer then one thinks lol.
I'm fairly excited. I'll probably play a few games and see how it is. That being said I don't get round to playing much anyway. Only managed one game of 6th. That rulebook was a great investment.
That doesn't mean that he is still playing, or even buying. I still occasionally paint 40k stuff (mostly 2nd ed guardsmen which I already own) and I have no intention of playing 40k until it gets some decent rules.
My point is plain and simple if you are going to quit you would. No one stands in the door screaming I AM LEAVING for weeks, they just want people to know they aren't happy. My kids do it all the time, I tell them no they get mad stomp their feet stand by the door saying dad ....dad....dad.... I say what they say I am leaving I say oh ok, then after about 5 minutes of standing there saying I am leaving they wonder off to play with something else.
We are in a modern area were people need instant gratification, give it a week or 2 and it will stop. This happens every time a new anything comes out. People find a single word that bugs them and scream about it on the net for a week or 2 then they fall asleep. I have been here for 3 or 4 ed now maybe more and every time it is still the same thing.
Key thing to remember, older players will not be as likely to come on the net to complain about something that,s not going to change or to say I quit. They didn't invest this much time and money into something to get upset over a rule change. If they are upset they will just sit the edition out or play with friends.
So want to see how many people are happy/don'tcare. it's simple count the people in this forum mad, times it by 2 then subtract them from the estimated fanbase. That's how many are happy lol Formula is like this people who complain will seek out a way to complain for some reason times it by 2 for those who may quit because of other reasons related to 7ed money something seems off ect. Probly not to accurate but probly closer then one thinks lol.
Maybe this is because I'm in Australia but everything you are saying about people not leaving and all that amazes me.
Down here GW are hemoraging sales. The Combat Company, one of (maybe the) biggest on line retailers in our neck of the woods, was saying on Facebook that the new edition of dystonian wars has outsold the new edition of 40k 6:1.
When someone says they are quitting down here they sure as hell mean it and I find it hard to believe its much different anywhere else in the world.
Kavish wrote: Yea! Yew! Positivity! That's what I like to hear!
Every time a new edition comes out, people on the internet say that the game is ruined and 40k is dead. Then it turns out to be good, and much fun is had. Quit with the doom and gloom guys!
6th wasn't good. 7th wasn't good. 5th was arguably not that good.
A shrinking customer base, falling sales, and a downward trend while the rest of the market segment is trending up don't leave a lot of room for positivity. Cheering on a determined loser doesn't help anybody.
There were people positive right up to the end of Fantasy, too.
Yet your still playing. Last time I checked, fantasy isn't over. I don't play it but there is a dedicated community of WFB players around here. I sometimes fantasise (lol, bad pun) about getting into it, then I realise that I haven't the extra time nor money.
No, I'm not. I haven't played a game of 40K since 5th ended, and I haven't bought a Games Workshop product since I bought the 6th Edition BRB.
I've enjoyed X-Wing instead.
And if you think Fantasy's a thriving game, I don't know what to tell you, aside from "Pay attention."
If you haven't played a game since 5th then you can't possibly say that 6th and 7th suck. That's like saying you don't like shortbread when you've never tried it.
Sorry, I know MWHistorian. He sold his Space Marine army to FTW games. Look up Spikey Bits, I bet you'll see a bunch of yellow marines for sale. Don't call people liars when you know nothing about them, just a tip.
Kavish wrote: Yea! Yew! Positivity! That's what I like to hear!
Every time a new edition comes out, people on the internet say that the game is ruined and 40k is dead. Then it turns out to be good, and much fun is had. Quit with the doom and gloom guys!
6th wasn't good. 7th wasn't good. 5th was arguably not that good.
A shrinking customer base, falling sales, and a downward trend while the rest of the market segment is trending up don't leave a lot of room for positivity. Cheering on a determined loser doesn't help anybody.
There were people positive right up to the end of Fantasy, too.
Yet your still playing. Last time I checked, fantasy isn't over. I don't play it but there is a dedicated community of WFB players around here. I sometimes fantasise (lol, bad pun) about getting into it, then I realise that I haven't the extra time nor money.
No, I'm not. I haven't played a game of 40K since 5th ended, and I haven't bought a Games Workshop product since I bought the 6th Edition BRB.
I've enjoyed X-Wing instead.
And if you think Fantasy's a thriving game, I don't know what to tell you, aside from "Pay attention."
If you haven't played a game since 5th then you can't possibly say that 6th and 7th suck. That's like saying you don't like shortbread when you've never tried it.
I've never been stabbed, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like it. it is possible to learn from other people's experience.
We are in a modern area were people need instant gratification, give it a week or 2 and it will stop.
Except that it doesn't stop, how else do you explain GW's steadily falling sales?
I went to a club that I hadn't visited for about 18 months yesterday; when I last visited it was only GW games, mostly 40k but also some fantasy. Yesterday however it was 50% FoW and 50% 40k and that is apparently the usual split. I know that the plural of anecdotal evidence is not data but this is something that I have read time and time again on wargaming forums and GW's sales are declining (in a rapidly growing market), how can that be explained if people are still playing 40k? The 'ignorant internet' defense, such as it is, falls down completely in the face of real world evidence.
I was very much into 40K just before 6th edition got announced. When it did, I preordered the limited edition and everything, since it was my first new 40k edition that came out while I was playing.
In the beginning, it worked out fine in my regular group, and we were playing 40K every week, but after the first few couple of codices, the ruleset really started to show its flaws. We started doing all sorts of house rules and experimenting with army selection systems, but we never really got the game to a state where every player in the group enjoyed it.
Some people wanted themed lists, some people wanted fluffy lists and some people just wanted to play with the miniatures they had used for the last ten years.
I purchased Apocalypse when it came out, since I had been waiting for an updated ruleset since I didn't want to purchase an outdated Apoc book. We played one game of Apoc and it went fine, but the regular game still suffered from the new codex releases.
Things really started going downhill when the Tau and Eldar codices came out. The two guys playing Tau and Eldar were really seasoned players, but they had always been used to playing well because of their old, sub par armies. When they got new rules, their new armies became so powerful that they anihilated any opponent despite bringing the worst models that they had. We had all been used to playing really sub optimal outdated armies, and the codex releases of 6th edition were really messing with the balance of the game.
People stopped finding 40k entertaining enough to play every week. Some people started selling their armies because they didn't enjoy their playing style anymore, and after a couple of months of trying different things, like Kill Team, we stopped plying 40K entirely.
Now 40K is something a couple of us play a few times a year. I have had like one game of 40k the last five months or so, and the worst thing is I'm not really missing it.
People moved on to other games (we are all long time tabletop war gamers, nothing can kill out hobby). Some began on Malifaux, some went on to play Warmachine exclusively, and some (including myself) started playing Flames of War.
I have heard some decent things about 7th edition, and some bad. My point is that it is simply a bit too late for an edition change, since 40K is dead here. It died out completely at my club, and nobody even plays it at my FLGS anymore, they play the three games I mentioned above.
I'm just a bit annoyed that I spent a fortune on hardback rulebooks that lasted me under a year or two, and that means I'm really holding back when it comes to buying rules from GW again, since they cost a fortune and get outdated so quickly, while being poorly written. At my club, GW's prices didn't kill 40K, since most players had plenty of disposable income, their miniatures didn't kill 40K, since everybody had their personal favorite army, and the fluff didn't kill 40K, since many had played it for a decade. The rules killed 40K around here, and I really think that says something about the game designers.
While maybe not FoW as the other 50%, I must say that when I started everyone here was playing w40k or WFB . Some people also had armies for other systems , even the press gangers and the guys doing promo work for infinity , were known w40k and wfb tournament players . Time jump to know and half the people don't own a GW army and most of the w40k/WFB players are veterans who bought their armies in 5th or 6th. Eldar for example were one of the power builds in 6th, there was one new player who had enough cash to buy all those serpents , tau and dark eldar ally and the recast titan. All the other 6 eldar players were people who had eldar armies in 4th or 5th. There were 0 new nid players.
There are actualy people who are starting table top gaming with something else then GW games , what in my times was unheard of . You started with w40k or WFB if you were super rich , then if you wanted to be cool you played Warmahordes or if you wanted to pain pin up girls started infinity.
Yeah, I have seen FoW players introduce entirely new people to the hobby with FoW. Imagine a world where people playing miniature war games never have played 40K or fantasy. Here it's starting to become a reality, and I honestly think that GW should fear for that.
The plural of anecdote is not data aside, when I started wargaming over ten years ago, it was via 40k space wolves and tau. All the clubs played 40k. It was 'the' game, and gw was 'the' hobby. Bear in mind also, the internet ten years ago wasn't the internet of today. As 'informed' as we were, there were few alternatives. Warzone was one. But generally, people played 40k. People moaned about balance. People sucked it up as there were very limited alternatives. Essentially, if you didn't like 40k, you played fantasy - the 'other' gw game.
Essentially though, everyone got into gaming via gw games. The idea that someone didn't play gw games was strange enough in itself. We knew they probably existed 'somewhere', but it wasn't something you'd often come across. The idea that people played wargames, and didn't get into it via gw - wow, kinda mind blowing. It just wasn't done like that.
Now?
In the last three or four years, I've met a lot of people who got into gaming though other games.flames of war, warmachine, malifaux. You talk to them, as we do, and chat about other games they play, or how they got into it. More and more, it's not 'I started playing 40k and then got into other stuff'. It's 'I never played gw games'. First few times - I was surprised. Now? I'm used to it. Gw should be a bit concerned about it too!
Bonde wrote: Yeah, I have seen FoW players introduce entirely new people to the hobby with FoW. Imagine a world where people playing miniature war games never have played 40K or fantasy. Here it's starting to become a reality, and I honestly think that GW should fear for that.
I was at a FLGS I don't normally go to (it's 40 minutes away so it's iffy when i can play at a friend's house 5 minutes away) for a tourney in December. It was maybe my third time playing at this particular store and I was amazed to see children there for the first time (previously it had been late nights, this time I was there during the day). Those children where playing Warmachine, not 40k.
Dreadball has added more players to tabletop for me. The next step is to get them into Deadzone, and then Warpath. Small team based > strike force based > army based. All with well designed rules (assuming Warpath rules get revised this year) set in the same universe with unifying fluff which is important, and just as important low barriers to entry. After playing Dreadball and Deadzone, it really brings to light the sad state of 40k rules - though coming from pc gaming, I was already /facepalming at the horrible balance and unnecessary complexity.
Im yet to try 7th but I have had a good read of the book and Almost all of the changes seem positive.
I agree with the OP's house rules and I will look to implement these with my gaming group aswell. Capping the allies and reducing their mission capability is a great idea, as is the LOW substitute.
My main gripe is the daemon summoning but until I have played it is difficult to judge how it actually effects the game.
That doesn't mean that he is still playing, or even buying. I still occasionally paint 40k stuff (mostly 2nd ed guardsmen which I already own) and I have no intention of playing 40k until it gets some decent rules.
My point is plain and simple if you are going to quit you would. No one stands in the door screaming I AM LEAVING for weeks, they just want people to know they aren't happy. My kids do it all the time, I tell them no they get mad stomp their feet stand by the door saying dad ....dad....dad.... I say what they say I am leaving I say oh ok, then after about 5 minutes of standing there saying I am leaving they wonder off to play with something else.
We are in a modern area were people need instant gratification, give it a week or 2 and it will stop. This happens every time a new anything comes out. People find a single word that bugs them and scream about it on the net for a week or 2 then they fall asleep. I have been here for 3 or 4 ed now maybe more and every time it is still the same thing.
Key thing to remember, older players will not be as likely to come on the net to complain about something that,s not going to change or to say I quit. They didn't invest this much time and money into something to get upset over a rule change. If they are upset they will just sit the edition out or play with friends.
So want to see how many people are happy/don'tcare. it's simple count the people in this forum mad, times it by 2 then subtract them from the estimated fanbase. That's how many are happy lol Formula is like this people who complain will seek out a way to complain for some reason times it by 2 for those who may quit because of other reasons related to 7ed money something seems off ect. Probly not to accurate but probly closer then one thinks lol.
You don't really understand what's going on here, do you? Yes, I've left GW games until they make drastic changes. I'm sticking around because people like you don't understand why.
5ish years ago nearly everyone in my small city played 40k/WFB and so did i. Near the end of 5th when i felt GW started going full ****** i stopped playing, i was hoping 6th edition would bring me back but it was the opposite of what i wanted.
This edition has locked the door and thrown and away the key. Regardless of being determined to never give GW money again, i will likely never even play the game again.
The once pretty large 40k scene is now very tiny and people are playing a wide variety of games. Which is cool, but not for me becuase Infinity, Warmachine etc don't scratch my itch.
My dream is that somebody with competent designers buys the IP and makes a good game out of it, becuase 40k as a wargame is so bad its almost funny.
I shelved all my 40k stuff about 6 months into 6th edition. The wonkie-ness with allies and rules shenanigans really turned me off. 7th Edition looks to be more of the same. I'll continue to stay away. Literally everything I own that's GW is sitting in storage and will stay there until the rules-set becomes much, much tighter and some resemblance of balance is ushered in.
I've decided to protest quietly with my wallet. Most of the 40k gaming group I played with have done the same and moved on to Warmachine. Talking with them over the past month, most haven't played a game of 40k in almost a year. Some are selling off all their excess armies and keeping one, just in case. I'll be feeding the coffers of Privateer Press along with them.
So congrats GW. You've pushed away a 20+ year veteran with more disposable income than time allows me to spend.
I don't get in many games - 1 every few months, maybe - but the mere fact that they've released a slightly different version of the game, for $100 here in Canada, irks me enough that I won't be buying it. If I play again this year, I will be playing 6th or earlier edition. This coming from a guy with 10k+ points, who's bought several dataslates and multiple new codices.
A $20 supplement would have sufficed for the changes we have seen. And that's why I won't be supporting this edition, nor buying any new models. When the quality of the product is low - which typical GW rules are - it's unjustifiable.
It seems pretty much the same as 6th to me, with some tweaks here and there. Some of the tweaks I think were really good, like the changes to jink, overwatch being denied by pinning and such, which makes it seem like a good update. I still think people who run 100% close combat lists will bitch about the fact that they still can't run in a straight line across the battlefield and just kill everything, but screw them. I like games that have to be played in a tactical way.
What I am genuinely excited about however, is that I can finally, in a tournament legal way, field a combo of Traitor Guardsmen, CSM and Daemons. I've been waiting for that for so long now. It's fluffy, and it's something I think I can turn into something really nasty to face.
That doesn't mean that he is still playing, or even buying. I still occasionally paint 40k stuff (mostly 2nd ed guardsmen which I already own) and I have no intention of playing 40k until it gets some decent rules.
My point is plain and simple if you are going to quit you would. No one stands in the door screaming I AM LEAVING for weeks, they just want people to know they aren't happy. My kids do it all the time, I tell them no they get mad stomp their feet stand by the door saying dad ....dad....dad.... I say what they say I am leaving I say oh ok, then after about 5 minutes of standing there saying I am leaving they wonder off to play with something else.
We are in a modern area were people need instant gratification, give it a week or 2 and it will stop. This happens every time a new anything comes out. People find a single word that bugs them and scream about it on the net for a week or 2 then they fall asleep. I have been here for 3 or 4 ed now maybe more and every time it is still the same thing.
Key thing to remember, older players will not be as likely to come on the net to complain about something that,s not going to change or to say I quit. They didn't invest this much time and money into something to get upset over a rule change. If they are upset they will just sit the edition out or play with friends.
So want to see how many people are happy/don'tcare. it's simple count the people in this forum mad, times it by 2 then subtract them from the estimated fanbase. That's how many are happy lol Formula is like this people who complain will seek out a way to complain for some reason times it by 2 for those who may quit because of other reasons related to 7ed money something seems off ect. Probly not to accurate but probly closer then one thinks lol.
Not this time Oger. Sales figures just don't lie. This is the first edition that isn't selling out, just one example why nothing in your post is based on anything other than what you wish to be true. My personal story and decline in interest of GW products starts with 6th. I read the reviews, heard the rumors, but I bought the over priced book anyway. The game was total crap. 6th ed defecated on the way I want to play 40k. I play table top games, in order, for Strategy, tournaments, models, fluff, list building, finding exploits. 5th took away a ton of strategy from the game, 6th neutered strategic play. So I, like so many others that solely played 40k games, looked for other options. I found other games and got into them. I soon realized I didn't miss GW as much as I thought I would. News of 7th ed gave me hope. I thought the reason they were coming out with a new edition was to bring some sensible changes to the game and take it away from its market share shedding crap pile 6th left it in. I was shocked that 7th doubled down on all the stuff 6th did to make the game bad. This is the first time since I started with 3ed that I won't be buying the new addition.
7th edition will appeal to a certain type of gamer. 7th is made for people that enjoy finding interesting, usually unintended interactions, in the rules. There is no doubt about that. However, 7th ed DEFACATES on every other type of gamer. Strategy gamer? Defecated on. Fluff gamer? Defecated on. Tournament player? Defecated on. Here is the reason that the rules designers at GW are so terrible at their jobs. If you design a game for the Strategy/Tournament player you automatically or with minimal effort get the other types of players.
The rules team is headed by Jervis Jhonson. You need look no further for the demise of GW games. Jervis has been in charge of rules since 5th ed. He has wrecked both 40k and Fantasy. The best thing GW can do is fire Jervis Jhonson.
People keep talking about how GW's sales drop and other games' get higher.. isn't that kind of... obvious? I mean think about it - the community is limited, there isn't an exponential wargamer influx similar to the one from LotR times so.. If some games get popular doesn't it mean that other games' popularity has to drop? Isn't it obvious that 40k and WFB will have to share their playerbase with other games?
Now don't get me wrong, sports, I ain't saying that GW is doing jolly good lately nor that they're not at fault here(although not entirely), but remember that we live in an age of bajillions of small systems erupting from every hole like orks from crashed Space Hulk. It's only natural that if there are more options the community will spread itself all over them as some of those games particularly hit some people's soft spots. And this will obviously take the customers away from some systems so.. the more systems people turn to, the less popular will be the old ones and the big 'uns will feel it the most as it's their playerbases that they have to share.
See, as for various systems.. it's all matter of preferences. Not everyone likes the gameplay of Infinity, not everyone enjoys the WarmaHordes' designs, not everyone is into skirmish dogfighting that X-Wing provides, not everyone likes to play spaceship battles presented in Firestorm Armada, not everyone... and so on, and so on. Usually it's not that simply a matter of "oh, it's a better system, just move over to it!". Some people still like the feel of 40k, the way it plays, the way the miniatures look or the fluff. Same goes for WFB and others.
While somewhat unhappy with the prices and the time 7th was released, people here are going to pick it up and most of the rules changes are deemed rather fine in our local community. People had fun in 6th given the fact that we're all mature people who don't argue over slowed gak like idiots and if there are any disputes they're often solved by reasonable discussion and if it can't be, then it's a rule of thumb to disallow it to the one that tries to use it to not make anyone think that he's exploiting the ambiguous situation. Again - I know not everyone has the luxury of having to deal with reasonable grown-ups, but frankly I couldn't care less - I act mature and I expect the same of a fellow player that wants to share the time and fun with me. If all he can do is copy-pasting the most ridiculously broken netlists and refuses to act reasonable when politely notified about his exploitative approach at rules then he's not a person I ever want to talk to, let alone spend my free time playing with. If there's any problem on player level we can always ask the FLGS staff to resolve it. It might be their interpretation, but if they run the place, their word is almost as good as GW's if we want to play there.
Funnily enough Corvus Belli and Privateer Press decided to ignore Poland as a market, thus pushing players into GW's arms, although X-wing seems to be growing in my city as a nice, casual game to play a fast and entertaining game. Hell, we're even having new players going for WFB lately for two reasons - proxability(you can play with cutout paper 'regiments' while you collect the miniatures) and popularity of ETC comp. I don't think I know any WFB player in Poland that plays without the ETC rules compilation as our WFB scene is really serious about participating in it in general.
The thing is though the (admittedly not perfect) evidence from icv2 does suggest that there is an influx of new players. When they say the Wargaming market is growing they mean it is growing, not that other games are growing. However many people are leaving GW, there are enough entering the hobby to push that number back into a positive on top of the loss from GW.
jonolikespie wrote: The thing is though the (admittedly not perfect) evidence from icv2 does suggest that there is an influx of new players.
Well, maybe I phrased it incorrectly. Of course that the community is growing worldwide, but it's not -that- huge of a growth that'd be enough to prove that everyone who quits GW's games quits wargaming in general, rather than transfering over to other games.
Again - 40k is expensive and it drives many players interested in starting it away, but there still is an influx of 40k and WFB players. Maybe not as big as the amount of people quitting/transfering altogether, but still. The community is growing rather slowly(although it's gaining momentum compared to what it was like a few years ago), so every new game steals some customers from other games, that's only natural and the biggest titles are the ones that will feel it the most because bigger amount of players will just move onto other systems. With the amount of new games the hobby is branching out, further spreading the community over various titles as more people find their fix in some other systems.
GW is lucky that their system is the only popular non-skirmish sci-fi game with rich fluff and stuff that appeals to various groups of people.
jonolikespie wrote: The thing is though the (admittedly not perfect) evidence from icv2 does suggest that there is an influx of new players. When they say the Wargaming market is growing they mean it is growing, not that other games are growing. However many people are leaving GW, there are enough entering the hobby to push that number back into a positive on top of the loss from GW.
The numbers say otherwise while the sector is growing gws market share is shrinking, people are leaving but the hobby is so expensive new players are put off, after all you can have a full x-wing fleet well under £100, same with battletech/alphastrike and other games.
£300-400 to start before you even play a game is asking an awful lot, even the starter is twice the price of other games intro boxes.
Now the game in my area seems to be "I have 20 Warp Charge at 1500pts, look at all the empty bases I can summon". Unpainted armies. Minimum troops to get max psykers. Those 5 chaos space marines really forge the narrative. Yawn.
HOWEVER, I am not one to impose restrictions on people. It is in the rules, and if you can do it, you should not be stopped.
Nothing will change in 7th edition for me. People already pick and choose opponents, and the people at the store who bring the dumb lists will find themselves sitting games out and watching until they make adjustments. It's been happening for years, and the right to refuse will never go away. I say game on with this edition, and I have a very happy Ahriman.
jonolikespie wrote: The thing is though the (admittedly not perfect) evidence from icv2 does suggest that there is an influx of new players. When they say the Wargaming market is growing they mean it is growing, not that other games are growing. However many people are leaving GW, there are enough entering the hobby to push that number back into a positive on top of the loss from GW.
The numbers say otherwise while the sector is growing gws market share is shrinking, people are leaving but the hobby is so expensive new players are put off, after all you can have a full x-wing fleet well under £100, same with battletech/alphastrike and other games.
£300-400 to start before you even play a game is asking an awful lot, even the starter is twice the price of other games intro boxes.
Um... I don't disagree with any of that. GW does have a laughable buy in.
I was saying that even though GW are shrinking everyone else is growing fast enough that the whole market has been growing significantly the last few years.
I actually plan to take a look at the rules (FLGS has a copy of the book ) so I can make an informed decision, but moreso what sets me off besides the cost is that it entirely relies on having like-minded players. If you play in an area where everyone is more casual and laid-back and enjoys narrative games (I'd love to play a real 40k campaign) you're fine, but if you play in a meta where people still take 40k competitively and treat it as serious business, then it wouldn't matter if they gave away models for free if the game isn't enjoyable.
40k relies way too much IMO on the social dynamic and your particular meta; now all games have some social aspect but 40k can be great with the right opponent, and frustrating garbage with the wrong opponent, because there's such a huge gap between those two people and the kind of game they bring to the table. A fluffy Ork army might be a joy to fight against, some Heldrake+Riptide+Daemons abomination a lot less so. No other game has such a gross imbalance between players. Unbound is cool for those of us who want to field things that are fluffy but we can't do, like an all-Terminator non-Deathwing army, or Kult of Speed or things like that, but in the same breath Unbound allows TFG to build grossly broken armies that are technically legal. All it takes is for one TFG to ruin a meta and/or brand all Unbound players as jerks.
I pretty much agree with Wayne. Of course there are balance issues with other games, but they actually try to solve the issues as they update their games, and they update the rules mainly with this in mind.
What GW does is just exchange one kind of utterly broken for another. When compared to consistent and well written rules design, it pretty much seems like they make things up as they go along. Power levels are all over the place, and what is overpowered one day can be worthless the next.
40K requires so much pre game planning that even if you know the person you are going to play in advance, it still takes a lot of time. You have have two very like minded players, otherwise 40k simply does not work as a game.
It kind of seems to me that they write the game on the assumption that everyone plays in the UK style "gaming club" where a lot of the possible issues can be alleviated. In fact, I'd wager since the GW staff seem to have that sort of club themselves, they are incapable of seeing any issues that arise with pick-up games to say nothing of competitive games (the last competitive person they had on the staff was I believe Alessio) which is where the issues arise. After all, if you play with a group of friends, nobody is going to be a jerk and bring some steamrolling list to crush everyone, but if you play against whoever turns up to the game store on miniatures night then you're at the mercy of whomever, and whatever they show up with so you might get stuck with TFG or you might not.
WayneTheGame wrote: Unbound allows TFG to build grossly broken armies that are technically legal. All it takes is for one TFG to ruin a meta and/or brand all Unbound players as jerks.
WayneTheGame wrote: Unbound allows TFG to build grossly broken armies that are technically legal. All it takes is for one TFG to ruin a meta and/or brand all Unbound players as jerks.
Battle Forged aren't much better sadly.
Very true; I can't speak to experience as I haven't played 40k in a very long time, but my comment was more with the idea that Unbound could be great for things like an all-Termie army without the restrictions of Deathwing, which you can't (to my knowledge?) do with Battle Forged since you still have to follow some semblance of the FoC.
WayneTheGame wrote: Unbound allows TFG to build grossly broken armies that are technically legal. All it takes is for one TFG to ruin a meta and/or brand all Unbound players as jerks.
Battle Forged aren't much better sadly.
Especially with the ability to take as many primary detachments as you want in any game.
People keep talking about how GW's sales drop and other games' get higher.. isn't that kind of... obvious? I mean think about it - the community is limited, there isn't an exponential wargamer influx similar to the one from LotR times so.. If some games get popular doesn't it mean that other games' popularity has to drop? Isn't it obvious that 40k and WFB will have to share their playerbase with other games?
Now don't get me wrong, sports, I ain't saying that GW is doing jolly good lately nor that they're not at fault here(although not entirely), but remember that we live in an age of bajillions of small systems erupting from every hole like orks from crashed Space Hulk. It's only natural that if there are more options the community will spread itself all over them as some of those games particularly hit some people's soft spots. And this will obviously take the customers away from some systems so.. the more systems people turn to, the less popular will be the old ones and the big 'uns will feel it the most as it's their playerbases that they have to share.
See, as for various systems.. it's all matter of preferences. Not everyone likes the gameplay of Infinity, not everyone enjoys the WarmaHordes' designs, not everyone is into skirmish dogfighting that X-Wing provides, not everyone likes to play spaceship battles presented in Firestorm Armada, not everyone... and so on, and so on. Usually it's not that simply a matter of "oh, it's a better system, just move over to it!". Some people still like the feel of 40k, the way it plays, the way the miniatures look or the fluff. Same goes for WFB and others.
While somewhat unhappy with the prices and the time 7th was released, people here are going to pick it up and most of the rules changes are deemed rather fine in our local community. People had fun in 6th given the fact that we're all mature people who don't argue over slowed gak like idiots and if there are any disputes they're often solved by reasonable discussion and if it can't be, then it's a rule of thumb to disallow it to the one that tries to use it to not make anyone think that he's exploiting the ambiguous situation. Again - I know not everyone has the luxury of having to deal with reasonable grown-ups, but frankly I couldn't care less - I act mature and I expect the same of a fellow player that wants to share the time and fun with me. If all he can do is copy-pasting the most ridiculously broken netlists and refuses to act reasonable when politely notified about his exploitative approach at rules then he's not a person I ever want to talk to, let alone spend my free time playing with. If there's any problem on player level we can always ask the FLGS staff to resolve it. It might be their interpretation, but if they run the place, their word is almost as good as GW's if we want to play there.
Here here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brometheus wrote: Now the game in my area seems to be "I have 20 Warp Charge at 1500pts, look at all the empty bases I can summon". Unpainted armies. Minimum troops to get max psykers. Those 5 chaos space marines really forge the narrative. Yawn.
HOWEVER, I am not one to impose restrictions on people. It is in the rules, and if you can do it, you should not be stopped.
Nothing will change in 7th edition for me. People already pick and choose opponents, and the people at the store who bring the dumb lists will find themselves sitting games out and watching until they make adjustments. It's been happening for years, and the right to refuse will never go away. I say game on with this edition, and I have a very happy Ahriman.
Here's some of my Infinity dudemen I got when I sold my Imperial Fist army.
(Because evidently I need proof because some people can't fathom that someone could ever leave the Hhhhhobby, like its some kind of Lovecraftian cult.)
Kyutaru wrote: When they release something as badass looking as a Chaos Space Marine, let me know.
Seeing as how that's a completely subjective thing, that's impossible for me to do because I don't know what you like. I think there are things that are cooler, but you might not think that. Are there things covered in spikes and skulls? No.
It's a completely different asthetic.
For example, I think this:
Is cooler than this.
Am I right? Doesn't matter because it's purely subjective.
But what I can tell you is that the Infinity TAG is actually useful on the tabletop.
Kyutaru wrote: When they release something as badass looking as a Chaos Space Marine, let me know.
Seeing as how that's a completely subjective thing, that's impossible for me to do because I don't know what you like. I think there are things that are cooler, but you might not think that. Are there things covered in spikes and skulls? No.
It's a completely different asthetic.
For example, I think this:
Is cooler than this.
Am I right? Doesn't matter because it's purely subjective.
But what I can tell you is that the Infinity TAG is actually useful on the tabletop.
Although I do agree with you on that MWHistorian, I'd like to point out that TAGs do eat up on a lot of your points, hence can hurt you on your order pool. Still, they are useful for armored support (even funnier if you run a cutter in PanO, and watch your opponents face in awe when he figures out there is such a thing as a TOed TAG if he is new).
As for 7th edition, I can see just playing a game with your friends and just drinking a beer and having fun, which 40k seems to try to market itself as. However, I feel I can do that for other games with a much lower cost and half the frustration of trying to find the time to meet up, set up the pre-rules of the game, and have a game that may or may not be that enjoyable. Hence why I went to some of GW's specialist games, Warmachine/Hordes, Infinity and branched out to try other games.
Infinity has broken things in it too. Like that invisibility armour (can't remember what it's called) coupled with a powerful weapon. You know, the one where you take a photo of where they are hiding without your opponent looking.
It just comes down to a gentlemen's agreement not to use OP stuff. They do it in video games too (anyone remember no Akuma in Street fighter?).
Kavish wrote: Infinity has broken things in it too. Like that invisibility armour (can't remember what it's called) coupled with a powerful weapon. You know, the one where you take a photo of where they are hiding without your opponent looking.
It just comes down to a gentlemen's agreement not to use OP stuff. They do it in video games too (anyone remember no Akuma in Street fighter?).
Are you talking about TO camo? It is not that OP when the model pops out of camo to make a surprise shot on their turn, and has to spend a whole order AND have to be out of line of sight of enemy models in order to get back into camo. Also, camo can be easily taken care of with Flamethrowers and lighting the model on fire.
A gentlemen's agreement can occur in any game, but pretty much is much less of an occurence in many game systems out of GW since the companies attempt to try and take care of the issue where as GW is still kind of behind the times on this.
I don't feel Daemon Factory is going to be that big of an issue.
Invisibility is broken, but luckily it still has points of failure. Seriously bad call. Belekor is the worst offender.
Eldar are still going to dominate, especially with Wave Serpents being Objective Secured.
2++ Rerollable is still a thing, but I feel like it has more points of failure with the new Osychic phase, that Sanctic has a counter, and D Weapons actually have a place in countering.
I'm not a fan of Unbound, but feel Objective Secured Scoring will be strong enough to stop Unbound from being a tournament ore sense and can be avoided casually.
FMCs getting toned down is great.
The reduction in Battle Brothers is great.
Imperium getting Battle Brothers helps them against the Xenos.
No half Max Reserves.
Overall I feel this edition has potential, but will take some clearing up and FAQing for tournament play.
Kavish wrote: Infinity has broken things in it too. Like that invisibility armour (can't remember what it's called) coupled with a powerful weapon. You know, the one where you take a photo of where they are hiding without your opponent looking.
It just comes down to a gentlemen's agreement not to use OP stuff. They do it in video games too (anyone remember no Akuma in Street fighter?).
Except infinity doesn't need a gentlemens agreement because that invisibility thing isn'tOP. In fact unless you're new and haven't encountered a particular strategy before (drop troops seemed amazing the first time they where used against me) nothing is OP.
Kavish wrote: Infinity has broken things in it too. Like that invisibility armour (can't remember what it's called) coupled with a powerful weapon. You know, the one where you take a photo of where they are hiding without your opponent looking.
It just comes down to a gentlemen's agreement not to use OP stuff. They do it in video games too (anyone remember no Akuma in Street fighter?).
Except infinity doesn't need a gentlemens agreement because that invisibility thing isn'tOP. In fact unless you're new and haven't encountered a particular strategy before (drop troops seemed amazing the first time they where used against me) nothing is OP.
Yeah, that's just like 40k then... considering the top 2 finishers in the last 2 major events were Daemons (not screamer star), CSM, Eldar, SM... yeah there are easier lists to get above average wins, but heck, Reecius just won a tourney with Orks.
But if someone shows up to a pick up game/club night with the hardest helldrake/riptide/wave serpent/demon factory spam list they could make how many people will want to play that and how many would ask them to alter the list?
I've seen people accept games against players who bring those kinds of lists and neither player communicates beforehand except to ask how many points the game will be. Once that massive wave serpent list or huge riptide list is on the side of the table, I've noticed that (some) people would rather grind through it unhappily and then be butthurt about it after they lose, rather than have the guts to say "no, I'm not playing that."
jonolikespie wrote: But if someone shows up to a pick up game/club night with the hardest helldrake/riptide/wave serpent/demon factory spam list they could make how many people will want to play that and how many would ask them to alter the list?
I think you'd be surprised how often the mythical "tournament list" gets itself broken wide open by some fluffy list. Tournament lists can struggle against meta busters (lists that would never survive half the tournament games, but are complete death traps for the other half). At the end of 6th I've seen psycannon GK dreads with henchmen tear through a mean wave-serpent list, and a fluffy SWMSU/dread drop pod list dance on the grave of a TauDar list. I know that's not the WAAC vs fluffy narrative that we like to weave, but like most internet conventional wisdom, it's wrong more than it's right.
Heck, I usually bring three lists, let my opponent pick, spot them 500 points and then enjoy the challenge. I can't even remember the last time I was tabled and I like to think my opponents had fun too.
Also, those kind of lists sometimes go against new players that don't know any better. I saw a Necron Air list go against a kid in his first game. It was decided by the end of turn two. I never saw the kid in the store again.
MWHistorian wrote: Also, those kind of lists sometimes go against new players that don't know any better. I saw a Necron Air list go against a kid in his first game. It was decided by the end of turn two. I never saw the kid in the store again.
It takes a special kind of scumbag to pull a stunt like that. I never understood why even the WAAC types think that tabling somebody, especially a newbie, is going to benefit anyone. I get that competitive players exist, but the time to tweak competitive lists for a tournament is in the month or two beforehand and against experienced players; not every game is some ultra competitive "Let me just tweak my list for Adepticon" situation. Like there's a guy at one of the FLGS that I go to where, and I hate to stereotype, just by looking at I figured was one of "those" players. Turns out I was right, and when I was thinking of playing 40k two different people said that he's the powergamer/min-maxer type, and later I talked to someone who played him and experienced the same thing; they brought an extremely fluffy list and the guy spent like 20 minutes trying to figure out how to modify his tournament list for a game, and it was a one-sided and unfun game anyways. Said person left the store in disgust and hasn't been back since.
@Wayne, not directed at you at all, but in reference to that WAAC gamer you mentione, why do people let that happen? Where are the veteran players? Where's store personnel who care about the experience someone has at their store? I run one of the larger "garage clubs" in the area (20 members if everyone ever showed up on the same day), and there's two good sized FLGSs that members of our club get PUGs at too.
Between the three, that just isn't allowed. I know that we play permade lists on 40k night. If someone brings a wicked looking list we pair them with someone looking for that game. Newbs get double points and get to go against someone willing to lose a game to teach. Rule disputes are solved before they escalate with rule books out. 40k players need to take some ownership of their community. It's kinda embarrassing.
Lobukia wrote: @Wayne, not directed at you at all, but in reference to that WAAC gamer you mentione, why do people let that happen? Where are the veteran players? Where's store personnel who care about the experience someone has at their store? I run one of the larger "garage clubs" in the area (20 members if everyone ever showed up on the same day), and there's two good sized FLGSs that members of our club get PUGs at too.
Between the three, that just isn't allowed. I know that we play permade lists on 40k night. If someone brings a wicked looking list we pair them with someone looking for that game. Newbs get double points and get to go against someone willing to lose a game to teach. Rule disputes are solved before they escalate with rule books out. 40k players need to take some ownership of their community. It's kinda embarrassing.
While I still maintain that it is sad that such measures are required, your group should be commended for their approach to community building.
Lobukia wrote: @Wayne, not directed at you at all, but in reference to that WAAC gamer you mentione, why do people let that happen? Where are the veteran players? Where's store personnel who care about the experience someone has at their store? I run one of the larger "garage clubs" in the area (20 members if everyone ever showed up on the same day), and there's two good sized FLGSs that members of our club get PUGs at too.
Between the three, that just isn't allowed. I know that we play permade lists on 40k night. If someone brings a wicked looking list we pair them with someone looking for that game. Newbs get double points and get to go against someone willing to lose a game to teach. Rule disputes are solved before they escalate with rule books out. 40k players need to take some ownership of their community. It's kinda embarrassing.
Exalted. I know I'm going to get e-hate for this but... Get a grip people! You should be ashamed of yourselves! I got the rulebook yesterday, and it's fantastic! If you can't control the urge to build OP lists, or haven't got the guts to tell people their list isn't in the spirit of the game, then it's time to get that sorted!
"But it rapes the fluff!" I hear you cry. No it doesn't. Sure, players can rape the fluff if they want to bring Eldar summoning daemons or something, but they don't have to. I'd tell them how ridiculous it is and tell them I don't want to play against such lists.
Automatically Appended Next Post: 40k has never been perfectly balanced and never will. Games rarely are. One thing I noticed about warmachine is most factions are functionally the same. They just look different. I don't find that interesting.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you want a perfectly balanced game that is all skill, then buy a chessboard and replace the pieces with 40k models.
NO ONE WANTS PERFECT BALANCE, WE WANT GOOD BALANCE
There are tons of games out there that are well balanced and players don't have to hold back, players won't be penalised for bringing fluffy lists rather than meta lists where there aren't lists that make newbies cry and where player skill and knowing how to use what you have means sooooo much more than what you bring.
NO ONE WANTS PERFECT BALANCE, WE WANT GOOD BALANCE
There are tons of games out there that are well balanced and players don't have to hold back, players won't be penalised for bringing fluffy lists rather than meta lists where there aren't lists that make newbies cry and where player skill and knowing how to use what you have means sooooo much more than what you bring.
I agree with this, hence why I moved to other games like Warmahordes and Infinity were I can still take something that is not so good (to a point that is) and still manage to get work done with it with the right things with it, or get ostracized for playing 'x' faction and so on (although I never plan to drop a advanced list that is meant to be competitive against someone who is still learning the game because I do not try to be a dick).
Also, I kind of left 40k from the direction it was taking and the outlandish cost just keep the game and the faction up to date for what I believe to be a really sub-par set of rules. Almost left the hobby because of it, but then I realized I still had a small amount of Warmahordes models and was interested in trying it out, and kind of branched out from there.
Lobukia wrote: @Wayne, not directed at you at all, but in reference to that WAAC gamer you mentione, why do people let that happen? Where are the veteran players? Where's store personnel who care about the experience someone has at their store? I run one of the larger "garage clubs" in the area (20 members if everyone ever showed up on the same day), and there's two good sized FLGSs that members of our club get PUGs at too.
Between the three, that just isn't allowed. I know that we play permade lists on 40k night. If someone brings a wicked looking list we pair them with someone looking for that game. Newbs get double points and get to go against someone willing to lose a game to teach. Rule disputes are solved before they escalate with rule books out. 40k players need to take some ownership of their community. It's kinda embarrassing.
Exalted. I know I'm going to get e-hate for this but... Get a grip people! You should be ashamed of yourselves! I got the rulebook yesterday, and it's fantastic! If you can't control the urge to build OP lists, or haven't got the guts to tell people their list isn't in the spirit of the game, then it's time to get that sorted!
"But it rapes the fluff!" I hear you cry. No it doesn't. Sure, players can rape the fluff if they want to bring Eldar summoning daemons or something, but they don't have to. I'd tell them how ridiculous it is and tell them I don't want to play against such lists.
Automatically Appended Next Post: 40k has never been perfectly balanced and never will. Games rarely are. One thing I noticed about warmachine is most factions are functionally the same. They just look different. I don't find that interesting.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you want a perfectly balanced game that is all skill, then buy a chessboard and replace the pieces with 40k models.
I'm glad you enjoy paying a premium price for an inferior product. Not everybody is okay with that and need a little time to scream, cry, rant, and process whether they want to continue being screwed by GW or not. I know it sucks when people hate something you happen to like, but as you say "get a grip".
Lobukia wrote: @Wayne, not directed at you at all, but in reference to that WAAC gamer you mentione, why do people let that happen? Where are the veteran players? Where's store personnel who care about the experience someone has at their store? I run one of the larger "garage clubs" in the area (20 members if everyone ever showed up on the same day), and there's two good sized FLGSs that members of our club get PUGs at too.
Between the three, that just isn't allowed. I know that we play permade lists on 40k night. If someone brings a wicked looking list we pair them with someone looking for that game. Newbs get double points and get to go against someone willing to lose a game to teach. Rule disputes are solved before they escalate with rule books out. 40k players need to take some ownership of their community. It's kinda embarrassing.
Exalted. I know I'm going to get e-hate for this but... Get a grip people! You should be ashamed of yourselves! I got the rulebook yesterday, and it's fantastic! If you can't control the urge to build OP lists, or haven't got the guts to tell people their list isn't in the spirit of the game, then it's time to get that sorted!
"But it rapes the fluff!" I hear you cry. No it doesn't. Sure, players can rape the fluff if they want to bring Eldar summoning daemons or something, but they don't have to. I'd tell them how ridiculous it is and tell them I don't want to play against such lists.
Automatically Appended Next Post: 40k has never been perfectly balanced and never will. Games rarely are. One thing I noticed about warmachine is most factions are functionally the same. They just look different. I don't find that interesting.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you want a perfectly balanced game that is all skill, then buy a chessboard and replace the pieces with 40k models.
I'm glad you enjoy paying a premium price for an inferior product. Not everybody is okay with that and need a little time to scream, cry, rant, and process whether they want to continue being screwed by GW or not. I know it sucks when people hate something you happen to like, but as you say "get a grip".
I take issue with your misuse of the word rape.
I was re-using the word. That's what others on here have been calling it. Apologies if I offended you.
I make no apologies though, for liking the game. I think they did quite well fixing issues with the game. They may have even found the sweet spot on vehicles being not too tough, not too weak. The pendulum has been swinging back and forth for ages now. It is far from being an inferior product. Have you bought any video games lately? New games go for about $100 in Australia. The rulebook is $140. Many games single player modes go for about 6 hours and the multiplayer is garbage or non-existant. By that comparison 40k is a pretty good buy. I plan on getting hundreds of hours out of mine!
This forum is called Dakkadakka for a reason. It's for people who love Warhammer 40,000. If you don't, you don't belong here.
Exalted. I know I'm going to get e-hate for this but... Get a grip people! You should be ashamed of yourselves! I got the rulebook yesterday, and it's fantastic! If you can't control the urge to build OP lists
Why should people be ashamed? For what? Being critical of a product? For having a different opinion? For disliking something that has many flaws?
Further, its not about the urge to build OP lists, its about the game being poorly balanced that a perfectly fluffy list (think Eldar Wave Serpent mech lists) is looked down upon for being 'WAAC', while an equally, if not less so, list consisting of rough riders, ratlings, and Ogryn for IG is praised for being fluffy and creative. The balance of the game creates this completely arbitrary distinctions within the community.
or haven't got the guts to tell people their list isn't in the spirit of the game, then it's time to get that sorted!
Which spirit of the game? Yours? Mine? Can you define? Can you explain how building a list within the confines of the rules and playing the rules as written is anything other than the 'Spirit of the Game'?
"But it rapes the fluff!" I hear you cry. No it doesn't. Sure, players can rape the fluff if they want to bring Eldar summoning daemons or something, but they don't have to. I'd tell them how ridiculous it is and tell them I don't want to play against such lists.
Great, doesn't change the fact that its clearly poor game design if the rules allow the fluff to be ignored and mutilated as much as you can now.
40k has never been perfectly balanced and never will. Games rarely are. One thing I noticed about warmachine is most factions are functionally the same. They just look different. I don't find that interesting.
Ah, this tired strawman.
No one said perfect balance. You did. Everyone else just wants balance. Normal, plain old, reasonable balance. Something nearly all other companies manage to do significantly better than GW. Just take a look at the day 3 FAQs we had; they very clearly don't proofread or play test and just toss out unfinished products and charge more for them every time.
If you want a perfectly balanced game that is all skill, then buy a chessboard and replace the pieces with 40k models.
What an awful comparison.
Good thing no one is comparing 40k to chess. Or perfect balance.
This forum is called Dakkadakka for a reason. It's for people who love Warhammer 40,000. If you don't, you don't belong here.
You heard it here everyone. If you don't like 40k, you have to go.
Damn, and here I was, enjoying many aspects of the game and background. Its almost as though someone can hold a critical opinion of a product, but still use it for a variety of reasons.
Either way, must be awful living in such a black and white world, where you either love it, or hate it and must go.
Lobukia wrote: @Wayne, not directed at you at all, but in reference to that WAAC gamer you mentione, why do people let that happen? Where are the veteran players? Where's store personnel who care about the experience someone has at their store? I run one of the larger "garage clubs" in the area (20 members if everyone ever showed up on the same day), and there's two good sized FLGSs that members of our club get PUGs at too.
That's just it; I don't think the veterans or store personnel care. They're too preoccupied with their own games or their own needs or just don't give a feth it seems because the card players bring in the money.
I've seen it a couple of times; the staff might not even play the game (from what I've heard at the large FLGS the staff are ex-MtG people, zero interest in wargames) so they don't know or care if there's some donkey-cave steamrolling newbies and scaring them off. At least that's what it seems like. A gaming club regulates itself, but when you have a store that just provides tables and random people show up on "minis night" it's a coin toss who you'll get. I've only seen one game store where the staff took interest enough to basically uninvite people who were unfriendly and were causing people to not return. The others, I think, don't care so long as they buy stuff.
I have to confess, while I'm still happy to put the boot in for all the dumb fethery that GW perpetrate, apparently on an almost daily basis, I've reached some sort of zen state with regard to my relationship with 40K.
My desire for the game to be better is still there, but I think the scope of ridiculousness in 7th is so huge, part of me has just gone "well, if they don't care, why should I?" I've played one game of 7th so far, with the random mission objectives, and while I see how that would be hugely frustrating for a competitive game, in a casual setting, it was actually kinda fun.
For those who love competitive play, and those who are in a community with a strong competitive streak or a lot of competitive players, you have my sympathies, but I think this might be the best edition for casual play in some time, as long as you're lucky enough to have opponents you can trust not to take the piss.
There are still inherent problems with the codexes, but I think the core system, in the right environment, is reasonably solid.
azreal13 wrote: I have to confess, while I'm still happy to put the boot in for all the dumb fuckery that GW perpetrate, apparently on an almost daily basis, I've reached some sort of zen state with regard to my relationship with 40K.
My desire for the game to be better is still there, but I think the scope of ridiculousness in 7th is so huge, part of me has just gone "well, if they don't care, why should I?" I've played one game of 7th so far, with the random mission objectives, and while I see how that would be hugely frustrating for a competitive game, in a casual setting, it was actually kinda fun.
For those who love competitive play, and those who are in a community with a strong competitive streak or a lot of competitive players, you have my sympathies, but I think this might be the best edition for casual play in some time, as long as you're lucky enough to have opponents you can trust not to take the piss.
There are still inherent problems with the codexes, but I think the core system, in the right environment, is reasonably solid.
Exalted. I'm really thinking of just getting back into 40k and just swearing off competitive play - I won't play in tournaments (not that I did before), won't play the competitive group, won't show up at the store to play when it's mostly the competitive guys (although I might watch). For casual play I think it would be fun with like-minded people. The crazy cost is still a deterrent but I can do things slow, and stop when I have like 1500 points or so. Maybe try to talk the store into running another escalation league or a campaign, something to encourage laid back gameplay and not "This is my list for XXX Tournament just modified".
It might be fun. As much as I hate GW I like 40k for its backstory and rich history. Warmachine is a fun game, but it can't hold a candle to that feel you get with 40k. I'll praise Warmachine but really it feels like games are decided early and once decided there's not much you can do. Granted I've only played like two games, but both ended abruptly out of the blue and kind of caught me off guard. That's not to say 40k would be better if you were facing an army that tables you in Turn 2 (at least with WM/H your opponent tends to not be a jerk about it), but it's definitely a different feel to the game.
Exalted. I know I'm going to get e-hate for this but... Get a grip people! You should be ashamed of yourselves! I got the rulebook yesterday, and it's fantastic! If you can't control the urge to build OP lists
Why should people be ashamed? For what? Being critical of a product? For having a different opinion? For disliking something that has many flaws?
Further, its not about the urge to build OP lists, its about the game being poorly balanced that a perfectly fluffy list (think Eldar Wave Serpent mech lists) is looked down upon for being 'WAAC', while an equally, if not less so, list consisting of rough riders, ratlings, and Ogryn for IG is praised for being fluffy and creative. The balance of the game creates this completely arbitrary distinctions within the community.
or haven't got the guts to tell people their list isn't in the spirit of the game, then it's time to get that sorted!
Which spirit of the game? Yours? Mine? Can you define? Can you explain how building a list within the confines of the rules and playing the rules as written is anything other than the 'Spirit of the Game'?
"But it rapes the fluff!" I hear you cry. No it doesn't. Sure, players can rape the fluff if they want to bring Eldar summoning daemons or something, but they don't have to. I'd tell them how ridiculous it is and tell them I don't want to play against such lists.
Great, doesn't change the fact that its clearly poor game design if the rules allow the fluff to be ignored and mutilated as much as you can now.
40k has never been perfectly balanced and never will. Games rarely are. One thing I noticed about warmachine is most factions are functionally the same. They just look different. I don't find that interesting.
Ah, this tired strawman.
No one said perfect balance. You did. Everyone else just wants balance. Normal, plain old, reasonable balance. Something nearly all other companies manage to do significantly better than GW. Just take a look at the day 3 FAQs we had; they very clearly don't proofread or play test and just toss out unfinished products and charge more for them every time.
If you want a perfectly balanced game that is all skill, then buy a chessboard and replace the pieces with 40k models.
What an awful comparison.
Good thing no one is comparing 40k to chess. Or perfect balance.
This forum is called Dakkadakka for a reason. It's for people who love Warhammer 40,000. If you don't, you don't belong here.
You heard it here everyone. If you don't like 40k, you have to go.
Damn, and here I was, enjoying many aspects of the game and background. Its almost as though someone can hold a critical opinion of a product, but still use it for a variety of reasons.
Either way, must be awful living in such a black and white world, where you either love it, or hate it and must go.
I've been into this kind of thing for almost as long as you've been alive. I can say with quite a bit of authority that the "spirit" of the game is; Having fun, and making sure the other players have fun too!
40k is more like Dungeons & Dragons or something. It's not a competitive sport. I don't understand why people continue to try to force it into one, and then complain when it doesn't work. GW have said time and time again that it's not that sort of game. (Before you say that GW say that to get out of making a more competitive rule set, remember that it was never designed that way in the first place, it was never their intention from the start.)
I realise it's not my place to tell people not to hang out here, but it does seem a little weird that all these people spend so much time on a forum concerned mainly with 40k, and heap sh!+ on it constantly. This forum is supposed to enhance our experience, not bring us down.
Ps: wave serpents aren't that tough really. If my opponent likes them then I'll be sure to bring my land raider and drop pods containing melta guns. And long fangs. All that stuff is pretty standard anyway. I'd bring a list like that to any game. I won't need to buy any new models or anything.
I've also slightly abused my position with the local club to introduce a 40K "charter" and I'm pleasantly surprised with the reaction it has got. I've not banned anything, I've just said "if you're turning up with some models to try and find a game without prearranging one, these are the criteria.."
Games are 1500 points.
All lists are battle forged - allied detachments are allowed.
All codexes and dataslates are legal, digital or paper, but must be available for reference and opponent's information during a game.
While we will maintain our usual relaxed attitude to painting (ie it is encouraged but not compulsory) any models that are not part of the starting list (ie are generated via Malefic Daemonolgy) must be properly represented by an appropriate model, fully painted and based.
Superheavies listed in a Codex are permitted, those featured in Imperial Armour, Escalation are not.
Fortifications are not widely used currently, and with the removal of everything from the ADL up from the BRB, may likely remain not especially popular. For the time being, Stronghold Assault will be allowed in it's entirety. The possibility of revising this is reserved should things get popular and lead to games where one player doesn't enjoy themselves facing off against elements from this book. The book or digital rules must be available for reference and your opponent's information.
Forge World units with the "suitable for 40K" stamp are allowed, but must be supported with rules, either digital or physical. It is strongly advised if an opponent is fielding a unit (FW or otherwise) you are unfamiliar with, that you take a moment to familiarise yourself with those rules before the game.
Not so much a rule as a guideline - 40K in it's current form is not what could be considered a tight, balanced or competitive ruleset. At it's core it remains a game that has the potential to be hugely entertaining, with many units and factions to make interesting lists and to try new and different strategies. But, in order to ensure EVERYONE has fun, it needs a little help from those playing to be responsible and conscientious in their list building. Net lists, deathstars, spamming and loophole exploitation are STRONGLY discouraged. Nobody likes spending an hour picking their models off the table as they're killed by the handful, while simultaneously being unable to do anything to retaliate. Remember, nearly every list has a hard counter out there somewhere, so rather than start a massive arms race with players bringing lists each week to get revenge on the player that shafted them last week, please consider your opponents enjoyment alongside your own when putting together an army.
I/We haven't stopped anyone doing anything, but if you want to bring your 3 Warhound Unbound list, you better make sure you set something up and have an opponent who is prepared for you.
Early days yet, but I'm hopeful that if we stick to this, it should help a lot with some of the issues, without telling people they're enjoying it wrong.
Awesome charter!! Have an exalt for that alone. I might borrow that at some point but it's doubtful my FLGS would adhere to that. Too many people want to field 2000+ games to use all their toys.
40k is more like Dungeons & Dragons or something. It's not a competitive sport. I don't understand why people continue to try to force it into one, and then complain when it doesn't work. GW have said time and time again that it's not that sort of game. (Before you say that GW say that to get out of making a more competitive rule set, remember that it was never designed that way in the first place, it was never their intention from the start.)
Please stop sprouting marketing spiel like it is actually true. GW actively promoted and held 40k and WHFB tournaments and a competitive meta for over 20 years and only recently stopped doing them and instead turned to this "non-competitive", "forge the narrative" garbage.
GW can try to re-write its history just like its re-writing the game's fluff, that doesn't mean that people will have forgotten what the game was actually like.
Also, both games experienced their periods of greatest growth during their "competitive" period and have been haemorrhaging players ever since the company decided to leave that route behind. That alone should have been an indicator that the majority of their customers doesn't want this... but instead of a return to a more tactical and less random ruleset we get 7th edition...
WayneTheGame wrote: Awesome charter!! Have an exalt for that alone. I might borrow that at some point but it's doubtful my FLGS would adhere to that. Too many people want to field 2000+ games to use all their toys.
Thanks, it is easier to implement with a club rather than a store. No reason why you couldn't adjust it to 2000 points, but the lower limit does, of course, inherently limit certain shenanigans.
40k is more like Dungeons & Dragons or something. It's not a competitive sport. I don't understand why people continue to try to force it into one, and then complain when it doesn't work. GW have said time and time again that it's not that sort of game. (Before you say that GW say that to get out of making a more competitive rule set, remember that it was never designed that way in the first place, it was never their intention from the start.)
Please stop sprouting marketing spiel like it is actually true. GW actively promoted and held 40k and WHFB tournaments and a competitive meta for over 20 years and only recently stopped doing them and instead turned to this "non-competitive", "forge the narrative" garbage.
GW can try to re-write its history just like its re-writing the game's fluff, that doesn't mean that people will have forgotten what the game was actually like.
Also, both games experienced their periods of greatest growth during their "competitive" period and have been haemorrhaging players ever since the company decided to leave that route behind. That alone should have been an indicator that the majority of their customers doesn't want this... but instead of a return to a more tactical and less random ruleset we get 7th edition...
Do YOU remember what it was like? I played Chaos in 2nd edition and I'm ashamed to admit that I annihilated everyone I faced. Today's 40k is VERY balanced in comparison.
This forum is called Dakkadakka for a reason. It's for people who love Warhammer 40,000. If you don't, you don't belong here.
No it isn't.
As is evidenced by the many threads and sub fora that have absolutely nothing to do with Warhammer, 40K or even GW whatsoever.
If you think this is some sort of 40K based board, you don't belong here.
I realised my mistake and attempted to retract my statement. Your right. And even though you kinda dissed me, I've given you an exalt for that excellent charter. Here's to keeping the fun in 40k.
Kavish wrote: Do YOU remember what it was like? I played Chaos in 2nd edition and I'm ashamed to admit that I annihilated everyone I faced. Today's 40k is VERY balanced in comparison.
Yeah? How'd you manage to do that? Because I played Chaos in 2nd edition too and never felt crazy OP. But then again I fielded a generalist Black Legion army with some squads of Marines, one squad of Berzerkers, one squad of Plague Marines, a squad of terminators, a Dreadnought (that often shot my own guys - guess he was really mad about being stuck in that thing), a single Sorcerer (L2 usually) and a Predator. Outside of broken unofficial Armorcast garbage the main broken things in 2nd were Virus Outbreak (which a White Dwarf issue IIRC even told you to rip it up), Wolfguard Terminators, and maybe a Vortex Grenade because it just oneshot most things.
I've been into this kind of thing for almost as long as you've been alive.
This is relevant how? No one cares about your 'veterancy'.
I can say with quite a bit of authority that the "spirit" of the game is; Having fun, and making sure the other players have fun too!
You have no authority, and your definition of fun is also subjective. Which is the whole issue people have. I may be having fun playing a wave serpent heavy Eldar list, while my opponent my be having fun playing his rough rider heavy IG list. What people dislike about 40k is that these two lists are incompatible in terms of power level, which means one of those players may not be having fun.
Both players are within the realm of the 'Spirit of the Game', but the game's balance issues means they're notions of fun lists differ greatly in power.
That is not a good thing for the game.
40k is more like Dungeons & Dragons or something. It's not a competitive sport. I don't understand why people continue to try to force it into one, and then complain when it doesn't work. GW have said time and time again that it's not that sort of game. (Before you say that GW say that to get out of making a more competitive rule set, remember that it was never designed that way in the first place, it was never their intention from the start.)
And nowhere has anyone likened it to a competitive sport. You'll also notice none of my points have been about making 40k competitive oriented. I speak purely about the balance, which as a casual player myself, hurts my enjoyment of the game as much as any tournament goer.
Further, GW used to run tournaments, lots of them. Whether or not you wish to argue that it wasn't intended to be used that way, the simple point is that for many years GW ran tournaments using their rules. Excusing the poor balance and game design by touting over and over again that its a 'casual' game is nonsense. There's nothing inherently 'casual' about 40k.
And 40k is nothing like D&D. One is a table top wargame, the other is an RPG. One has a set list of victory conditions where two opponents fight eachother, the other is a cooperative story-telling adventure.
I realise it's not my place to tell people not to hang out here, but it does seem a little weird that all these people spend so much time on a forum concerned mainly with 40k, and heap sh!+ on it constantly. This forum is supposed to enhance our experience, not bring us down.
I can hold a critical view of 40k and still play it. I can still collect 40k models and paint them. I can still immerse myself in the lore.
Disliking aspects of the game and wanting a higher quality product doesn't stop me from being able to roll dice with my friends.
Further, I'd argue that having people with differing opinions does enhance the experience. Imagine a forum where everyone agreed with everyone else. It'd be boring. Accept that people will think differently than you and are as entitled to post here as anyone else.
Ps: wave serpents aren't that tough really. If my opponent likes them then I'll be sure to bring my land raider and drop pods containing melta guns. And long fangs. All that stuff is pretty standard anyway. I'd bring a list like that to any game. I won't need to buy any new models or anything.
The point is that a well rounded Eldar army with a core of Wave Serpents is a very powerful list. I'm using the example for illustrative purposes about bad balance matchups.
Blacksails wrote: You have no authority, and your definition of fun is also subjective. Which is the whole issue people have. I may be having fun playing a wave serpent heavy Eldar list, while my opponent my be having fun playing his rough rider heavy IG list. What people dislike about 40k is that these two lists are incompatible in terms of power level, which means one of those players may not be having fun.
Both players are within the realm of the 'Spirit of the Game', but the game's balance issues means they're notions of fun lists differ greatly in power.
That is not a good thing for the game.
This bears repeating, because it's the crux of the issue. In a balanced game, a properly designed game, both of those lists can *work*. Now yes the matchup might be bad and nothing can fix that (sometimes luck of the draw goes sour), but inherently there would not be a huge power game between those lists and even more ideally there would be some way that those lists could work in a game against each other. And, if they really can't, then it should be an extreme fringe situation that almost never happens.
Do YOU remember what it was like? I played Chaos in 2nd edition and I'm ashamed to admit that I annihilated everyone I faced. Today's 40k is VERY balanced in comparison.
No, I don't remember what it was like in 2nd edition because I only started playing in 3rd. The beginning of that 'major growth' period that I mentioned.
Kavish wrote: Do YOU remember what it was like? I played Chaos in 2nd edition and I'm ashamed to admit that I annihilated everyone I faced. Today's 40k is VERY balanced in comparison.
Yeah? How'd you manage to do that? Because I played Chaos in 2nd edition too and never felt crazy OP. But then again I fielded a generalist Black Legion army with some squads of Marines, one squad of Berzerkers, one squad of Plague Marines, a squad of terminators, a Dreadnought (that often shot my own guys - guess he was really mad about being stuck in that thing), a single Sorcerer (L2 usually) and a Predator. Outside of broken unofficial Armorcast garbage the main broken things in 2nd were Virus Outbreak (which a White Dwarf issue IIRC even told you to rip it up), Wolfguard Terminators, and maybe a Vortex Grenade because it just oneshot most things.
It probably had a lot to do with Kharn, a Bloodthirster and infiltrated Chosen with heavy weapons and overwatch.
Do YOU remember what it was like? I played Chaos in 2nd edition and I'm ashamed to admit that I annihilated everyone I faced. Today's 40k is VERY balanced in comparison.
Yeah?
Well I've got 5 years on you, what you gonna do now, noob?
I realised my mistake and attempted to retract my statement. Your right. And even though you kinda dissed me, I've given you an exalt for that excellent charter. Here's to keeping the fun in 40k.
I added an orkmoticon to try and indicate my levity, I can't really do any more than that!
I can't be bothered with all the quoting, but to blacksails: your missing the point. ALL tabletop games are about making sure everyone involved has a good time. That's called being mature. Upsetting other players means no one wants to play with you.
As "veterans" it's our responsibility to teach all new players this principle. THAT is how we save our game.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm going to bed now. It's late in Australia. Peace guys. Try to enjoy yourself.
Kavish wrote: I can't be bothered with all the quoting, but to blacksails: your missing the point. ALL tabletop games are about making sure everyone involved has a good time. That's called being mature. Upsetting other players means no one wants to play with you.
As "veterans" it's our responsibility to teach all new players this principle. THAT is how we save our game.
I agree to a point, but why accept should those be mutually exclusive? With 40k you basically get told you can have chocolate ice cream or get beaten over the head with a barrel of chocolate ice cream until you agree that chocolate is the best kind of ice cream: You have to agree not to make your opponent miserable, you have to agree not to play a legit army by the rules because it's too good. I'm genuinely curious why that's accepted in 40k when I doubt it would anywhere else. Most games are written with clear rules that don't require you to basically have a gentleman's agreement with your opponent to give him a fun game (and vice versa) because the rules don't allow you to *not* have a fun game.
Kavish wrote: your missing the point. ALL tabletop games are about making sure everyone involved has a good time.
I wasn't missing the point because you hadn't made one. This is a point, and I agree. Which my point has always been that the rules of the game are actively working against that aim through poor balance and clunky writing.
That's called being mature. Upsetting other players means no one wants to play with you.
Where did I ever say I was upsetting players? Can you point it out?
Once more; my point has always been that the balance and rules of the game are detrimental to the enjoyment of many players. 40k is the only game I know where people need to be policed on their lists, or accused of not being mature enough to write a list that has suitable levels 'fun', as decided by random strangers.
My point, once again, is that a better balanced game would alleviate most of these issues and benefit everyone. That sprouting lines like 'its casual' or 'Forge a narrative' are awful excuses that hold no water. There is nothing inherently casual or narrative based about 40k.
As "veterans" it's our responsibility to teach all new players this principle. THAT is how we save our game.
Sure, that's part of it I suppose.
But as veterans, how about we demand a better game as well? You know, find the source of these issues and fix it there so all the symptoms go away too?
Every other game I've played doesn't need a 'principle' passed down to mandate how to have fun. All the other games allow you to build a force you like, show up, and play it without being accused of a WAAC cheese mongering douche canoe.
So no, we save the game by saving the game, not creating arbitrary rituals to work around the issues.
WayneTheGame wrote: Unbound allows TFG to build grossly broken armies that are technically legal. All it takes is for one TFG to ruin a meta and/or brand all Unbound players as jerks.
Battle Forged aren't much better sadly.
Very true; I can't speak to experience as I haven't played 40k in a very long time, but my comment was more with the idea that Unbound could be great for things like an all-Termie army without the restrictions of Deathwing, which you can't (to my knowledge?) do with Battle Forged since you still have to follow some semblance of the FoC.
Some years ago we had an all terminator/dreadnaught throw-down of epic proportion! Two chaos armies vs 5 loyalist ones - all terminators and dreads.. Oddly enough we didn't need GW's approval to forge our own narrative.
Though I'm fortunate enough to play with a circle of people who have divested themselves of GW's latest attempts, I do find it ironic that this is reaffirmed easily as much by the fans of 7th Ed as by its critics.
Kavish wrote: your missing the point. ALL tabletop games are about making sure everyone involved has a good time.
I wasn't missing the point because you hadn't made one. This is a point, and I agree. Which my point has always been that the rules of the game are actively working against that aim through poor balance and clunky writing.
That's called being mature. Upsetting other players means no one wants to play with you.
Where did I ever say I was upsetting players? Can you point it out?
Once more; my point has always been that the balance and rules of the game are detrimental to the enjoyment of many players. 40k is the only game I know where people need to be policed on their lists, or accused of not being mature enough to write a list that has suitable levels 'fun', as decided by random strangers.
My point, once again, is that a better balanced game would alleviate most of these issues and benefit everyone. That sprouting lines like 'its casual' or 'Forge a narrative' are awful excuses that hold no water. There is nothing inherently casual or narrative based about 40k.
As "veterans" it's our responsibility to teach all new players this principle. THAT is how we save our game.
Sure, that's part of it I suppose.
But as veterans, how about we demand a better game as well? You know, find the source of these issues and fix it there so all the symptoms go away too?
Every other game I've played doesn't need a 'principle' passed down to mandate how to have fun. All the other games allow you to build a force you like, show up, and play it without being accused of a WAAC cheese mongering douche canoe.
So no, we save the game by saving the game, not creating arbitrary rituals to work around the issues.
This entire thread comes down to this style of argument:
Hate the Players or Hate the Game.
And it's really are you short sighted to think you can change human behavior and live in your own little bubble or realize that everyone has different motivations and having a better made game is more inclusive?
Essentially, "Hate the Player" mentality is always boiled down to finger pointing and toting how their "personal bastion of saintliness" is a shining example for all the community to follow where "Hate the Game" follows the rational logic of pretty much every other game charging less money for rules and has better support from the companies. Paying $135 for rules, minimum, to play the game and needing further house ruling to ensure you and your opponent both compromise on what's fun is asinine. I can't think of anything more ridiculous given you could use your same minis, proxy them for Infinity, and pretend you're playing Kill Team at zero cost. Or just forgo the new editions and continue to house rule armies. Why pay so much money to be an amateur game designer? There's no logic to it.
You have no authority, and your definition of fun is also subjective. Which is the whole issue people have. I may be having fun playing a wave serpent heavy Eldar list, while my opponent my be having fun playing his rough rider heavy IG list. What people dislike about 40k is that these two lists are incompatible in terms of power level, which means one of those players may not be having fun.
Both players are within the realm of the 'Spirit of the Game', but the game's balance issues means they're notions of fun lists differ greatly in power.
That is not a good thing for the game.
Well, I'm not really reading into this thread, but I wanted to say something regarding to this thing I quoted. See - in no game I know all units are equally good. That being said if you like wave serpent list(which is really cool imho as it's how I always imagined Eldar tactics to work due to their limited numbers) you're fine, because they're really, REALLY powerful, but now comparing it to a force focused around Rough Riders.. I don't think it's wise. First of all I can't think how could that even be a good match-up even if they weren't as crappy as they are. I mean.. balance is one thing, but a bad match up is another and even in the all-praised Warmachine it's fairly prominent when you run into an army that is a rock to your scissors. Hell, even in Warmachine you have very sub-par units that some people might want to build their armies around but they will almost always lose, like Man-o-War lists in Khador or building your army around Cygnar Trenchers.
Overall I understand that proper internal and external balance could help a bit, but it's still like deliberately building an army using sub optimal units when there would be much better choices for those slots. Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to justify the poor balance in Codexes, I think that everything should get the chance to be viable on the battlefield, but remember that there's also the problem of army building. Fun armies should be playable but some of 'fun army ideas' can turn out to be very bad due to lack of synergy between units that don't really work in that particular combination.
Unfortunately I think that not all 'fun' lists can ever be equal in terms of power as it's simply impossible for the game developers to make stuff equally good in every single matchup people come up with, so it should be a matter of gentleman's agreement to give a fair handicap to the one whose army is weaker. It's best to try out with a couple of friends to find out what kind of handicap(like bonus points) should be granted while playing with various armies. Basically what ETC committee did for Warhammer Fantasy Battles to achieve their idea of balance. Not really good for pick up games, but it's fairly logical, because no matter what you have in your case, the other player might just bring the cheesiest netlist anyway and no amount of effort will give perfect balance between 'some list' and a perfectly tailored for maximum cheesy effectiveness using best units and every single exploit available list(cause that's what netlists are).
Not sure if I expressed myself properly and clearly enough - english is not my main language, so I'll just state that I still think GW should balance everything much more so there would be no such massive disproportion and that fun lists should be more viable, but I still think that it's only natural that they'll never be on par with a list tailored for maximum effectiveness. They still should be expected to lose unless used by a better player with better strategy, but maybe not that drastically.
Rogue Trader Old schooler here... so far I've been loving the 7th edition and it's probably the most fun I've had with 40K since I was a kid when it was all new.
I've seen some online hate for the Maelstrom of War missions/cards but I have to say we LOVED them and our experience so far has been tremendously fun with these.
I think the Maelstrom missions vary depending on your approach.
If you're a competitive player, what you want is a predictable and stable set of objectives, where you can reliably plan for and attain a specific outcome.
If you're a casual player you're likely to be less concerned.
What the MoW missions do is allow clever play to potentially outperform strongest list, and add value to slightly sub par units that may never see table time otherwise because they offer an advantage in gaining some of the objectives.
As a casual player, I heartily endorse this, while I think that a lot of the random could be taken out of 40K and decision making put back in the hands of the player, this isn't part of it that I necessarily think needs to be.
If I were a competitive player, I could see that doing everything right, playing a well thought out and tested list intelligently with minimal mistakes and being fethed over by the turn of the cards and roll of the die would be incredibly frustrating.
azreal13 wrote: I think the Maelstrom missions vary depending on your approach.
If you're a competitive player, what you want is a predictable and stable set of objectives, where you can reliably plan for and attain a specific outcome.
If you're a casual player you're likely to be less concerned.
What the MoW missions do is allow clever play to potentially outperform strongest list, and add value to slightly sub par units that may never see table time otherwise because they offer an advantage in gaining some of the objectives.
As a casual player, I heartily endorse this, while I think that a lot of the random could be taken out of 40K and decision making put back in the hands of the player, this isn't part of it that I necessarily think needs to be.
If I were a competitive player, I could see that doing everything right, playing a well thought out and tested list intelligently with minimal mistakes and being fethed over by the turn of the cards and roll of the die would be incredibly frustrating.
As a casual player I still don't like them because its just a random mess that I can't form any kind of overall strategy to the game when my objectives change each turn. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying its not what I like to play. Clearly its subjective but I don't think that being a casual player means an automatic green light.
They don't though, they only change if you complete them or choose to discard them (with a few alterations based on exact mission being played) and the objective markers themselves don't move, and holding an objective is always going to be important (you just can't be certain how important each turn) so you can plan an overall approach, but with the proviso you might have to think on your feet a bit too.
Of course, it isn't for everyone, but at least they left the standard missions in too.
Your right. And even though you kinda dissed me, I've given you an exalt for that excellent charter. Here's to keeping the fun in