Right dakka im starting to get cross at all the rubbish flying around. About how your "having to stop 40k as its to op and you just cant win and hate gw".
If you have a problem with armies being op look at the other player look at your self. You want to win, they want to win, do you expect them to take a worse army than yours.
No so when they win rather than be rude about them, or go "oh your that tfg" no you decide thier codex is op. And/or that you hate gw. Because they made changes to your army.
If its not that really you arnt that good, and if you do have a problem they took out units you liked or what not. Play the old ed with old codex wow now you have no need to be annoyed.
If you want armys that are balanced so one side dosent have an advantage play the old. But still you forget that for every advantage there is a disadvantage you need to find it. If you want the new armys or codex but you don't want to play the other new codexs you are tfg. If you don't want to be tfg play 5th or 6th ed. There are plenty of people that think like you.
You are on a site full of them. Open your eyes and think clearly instead of negative oh your force op its a game! Have fun while doing it.
If your to competitive for that your a bad loser and the type of person no one wants to play.
Sorry if that was upsetting that's the way I see it.
Exalted.
Some players are just unable to learn new things or evolve. Sometimes its because they found something to exploit and get mad when it is fixed.
The reason the cry is because they want to stay on top of the pile and have it justified because it is "official".
I have to agree, if you find it so distastefull, play the older edition you prefer and find others of like mind.
To be honest, there have been editions over the years I did not like and aspects/codexes I didnt like but I lived with them and didnt spend all my time complaining. I lived with it and learned new things expanding my skills and abilities to become a better player.
Do like I and many others have throughout the decades, learn to use it effectively. Simple as that.
If you are unable to do that, you have options. One is to expand into other armies that you are better at playing or accept that it may just be an edition where you are not able to effectively play your army well enough to stay on top of the heap. While you were always winning the tourneys before, accept that this time around, someone else will be getting first prize.
Spending all your time moaning and complaining is not fun. Playing the game with your buddies enjoying yourself is. I know which I would choose.
Yes my typing is well rubbish I know. But it would be nice to see a ratio not of 1:100 bad oh I hate so and so rather I enjoy so and so. because I love the hobby I really do but it annoys me people preaching hate, as I introduced 3 friends to the site to find inspiration and all it did was make them quit. so you can see the basis of my thoughts
e.earnshaw wrote: Right dakka im starting to get cross at all the rubbish flying around at how your "having to stop 40k as its to op and you just cant win and hate gw" if you have a problem with armies being op look at the player look at your self you want to win they want to win do you expect them to take a c%&p army no so when they win rather than be rude about them or go oh your that tfg no you decide there codex is op or that you hate gw for ruining your army if its not really you arnt that good and you do have a problem they took out units you liked or what not play the old ed with old codex if you want armys that are blanced in your words but what you really want is identical armys so one side dosent have an advantage well you forget that for every advantage there is a disadvantage you need to find it if you want the new armys or codex if you cant do this play 5th or 6th ed there are plenty of people that would think like you you are on a site full of them open your eyes and think clearly instead of negative oh your op its a game have fun while doing it and if your to competitive for that your a bad loser and the type of person no one wants to play. sorry if that was upsetting that's the way I see it
As a former English teacher I am amazed. This is almost one sentence. You break the streak at the end which is unfortunate because you might have broken a world record.
But let's get started. Balanced doesn't equal the same. Not even close. You're misunderstanding their argument. What balance means is that both sides should have a close to equal chance of winning. (assuming player skill is also equal.) There's internal and external balance, army vs army and units within the same codex. 40k is horrible at both external and internal balance. What this means is that some armies are at a huge advantage over other armies.
For example. Eldar vs Blood Angels. Given that both players are equal, the eldar will most likely win most battles. This become frustrating for many people that repeatedly get curb stomped just because they happen to play a certain army. Some players like close games that come down to the line. Some players like to win by skill and not list building. Some players just want a fair fight. With 40k its hard to get those things and players naturally complain.
Internal balance is when some units are auto takes because they're too good to pass up and some units are horrible that taking them would actually be a handi-cap. (See CSM for several examples of horrible units that do not fulfill the role they were meant for.) As a result if you happen to like Thousand Sons or Howling Banshees, you're out of luck because the units just don't do what they were made to do and the codex has other options that do the same job but better.
As for using old codexs, most FLGS I've been to really won't accept that without bargaining or convincing and that's just a hassle and the new codex should be pleasing to most people.
As for the hate on GW, well, the company does very little to foster good will and does many things that foster ill will. Legal bullies, unfair business practices on independent stores, quotes from leaders in GW that show they have little more than contempt for their customers, etc etc.
e.earnshaw wrote: Yes my typing is well rubbish I know. But it would be nice to see a ratio not of 1:100 bad oh I hate so and so rather I enjoy so and so. because I love the hobby I really do but it annoys me people preaching hate, as I introduced 3 friends to the site to find inspiration and all it did was make them quit. so you can see the basis of my thoughts
First, its not hate.
Second, if people quit the game because they read some stuff on the internet, then I don't know what to tell you.
Third, if there's a lot of negativity going around, perhaps there's a reason why.
Fourth, if your typing is rubbish, go back and put the effort into cleaning it up. No one will take you seriously with a run on paragraph.
If people have to spend time ridiculing you because of poor grammar, it is because they cannot fault your logic.
The failing is in themselves and they have to point a finger somewhere because they dont want to take responsibility for their own behavior, actions or inability to learn new tactics and strategies. they had the easy win before and are now mad that they have to work for it.
pointing it out to them wont change their minds. Just enjoy that players of this caliber are no longer on the top of the heap because next time around, they may be back on top again. When that happens, show that you the better person by not doing the same thing. there have been editions I did not do as well because my playstyle was not in vogue but I learned and lived with it becoming a better player. I also still enjoyed my games and playing because I didnt spend all my time dwelling and crying about it.
If you find it difficult to have fun at the game usually its down to the other person chasing glory. Waac ing isn't nice to the other player and it makes you hate the game and want to quit. I know as after six weeks of losing to a cheating glory hog I quit my gaming club that I set up because he was turning other players to be like him. So I went down to my local gw had a really nice match I lost but I had fun, went back and got my revenge when it came to tournament time and he got us kicked out. He became socially extradited and with out him my club grew to 35 members and we all love it.
EVIL INC wrote: If people have to spend time ridiculing you because of poor grammar, it is because they cannot fault your logic.
The failing is in themselves and they have to point a finger somewhere because they dont want to take responsibility for their own behavior, actions or inability to learn new tactics and strategies. they had the easy win before and are now mad that they have to work for it.
pointing it out to them wont change their minds. Just enjoy that players of this caliber are no longer on the top of the heap because next time around, they may be back on top again. When that happens, show that you the better person by not doing the same thing. there have been editions I did not do as well because my playstyle was not in vogue but I learned and lived with it becoming a better player. I also still enjoyed my games and playing because I didnt spend all my time dwelling and crying about it.
I did both. His grammar made his post almost unreadable and thus breaking one of the forum rules. Also, the whole rest of my post was addressing his concerns.
The failing is in themselves and they have to point a finger somewhere because they dont want to take responsibility for their own behavior, actions or inability to learn new tactics and strategies.
I just wanted to point this out. I don't even have to say anything because this quote says so much on it's own.
It's the internet. Might as well be called "complaints anonymous", because that is what it is used for. Go anywhere, people complain, even you are complaining, and I have had it with people complaining about complainers, you can go to a different forum or something if you hate it so much.
Every edition has had some single army that could roll over other armies. This edition just has more new stuff so people complain more.
Please remember that posting and reading online is a visual format and as such the spelling, grammar and look of your posts is the only way others understand what you are saying. Therefore, in order to be polite, all users are expected to make an effort to use proper spelling, grammar and punctuation and should refrain from using internet shorthand or other distracting methods of writing, such as writing a post completely bolded, with capital letters, in a strange color, etc.
So yes, we do require that effort be made to construct posts so as to be as readable as possible - especially as Dakka Dakka is very much an international forum and English is not everyone's first language.
e.earnshaw wrote: If it annoys you so much I will edit but I am still laughing.
Please do, but in the meantime, fix your view of why people are complaining. They aren't complaining just to hate, like that's a hobby in its own right, but because they have legitimate criticisms that GW doesn't try to address.
The balance issue puts many people off of the game. And your understanding of the balance issue is inaccurate. People are not asking for sameness. I don't know where you got that idea. They want armies to be different but they also want them to be on the same page in terms of power level. Playing Eldar shouldn't give that player an advantage just because he's playing Eldar.
Internal balance has to do with poor codex writing with some units being laughably bad and some being horribly OP. Look at SW vs Howling Banshees. You see SW spam and never see Howling Banshees unless the player is masochistic.
And if GW would do something good and address concerns and communicate with its player base, you'd see less actual complaining and drops in sales.
When 7th hit in my area, the 40K community dried up in a matter of weeks. It started becoming very noticeable when 3 weeks in a row small tournaments were canceled for lack of participants.
The meta here is fairly simple, not many actually bring netlists, not many really care about competitive lists. The games for the tournament were simple low point games to let people explore the finer changes without opening up too much craziness.
Still, it dried up. Not because of the internet hate train. These were people that ran stealth suit swarms, cron footslogging, DA bike armies, and thousand sons lists.
The problem boils down to the maelstrom missions I think. During the first few weeks we had several games to test out the new system. It was a hassle.
The mission cards were sold out so that led to book keeping, which was a hassle. Having to purchase cards just to remove that hassle felt like a tax on the book.
The book was already taxed on it's own, because we had to purchase 2 books we didn't want/like to get the one we needed.
When we played the mission it always ended based around two big issues. The psychic phase and luck of the draw.
Psychich phase was an all in or all out deal now. You couldn't really expect to bring a psyker or two and not expect to be shut down if your opponent brought any defense. Psykers were now a tax or a hassle since you either had to include several in your list. Either that or risk the one or two low levels being useless.
Luck of the draw was terrible. On top of the hassle of book keeping, we had so many games with impossible objectives to claim. Yes there is a way to cycle cards, but over the course of the game you will cycle 5 out at the end of the turn from that. If you drew 3 useless ones in the beginning you are severely hindered.
I'll go ahead and head you off at the pass, yes we know there are many easy fixes to that system. But that's another hassle. There are so many easy fixes and solutions that it becomes a pain to choose 1 and go with it for everyone. It's even more of a problem when you realize how easy it would have been just for GW to print those fixes themselves. It's not a matter of something being overlooked or what ever passive way you could dismiss GW's rule issues before. It is a completely idiotic system on it's own and the fixes are so simple to make it work that it truly shows what a bad rule system it is. This is the heart of 7th. And it speaks volumes in its own right.
So don't try to tell me that hate is the problem to the game. Hate is passion. 40K died here with no passionate cries of anguish. It died in silence as one by one players shelved their armies. Hate didn't kill the game. Apathy killed it. And not from us. From the people who pushed an edition out early.
Played 4th eldar in 5th and 6th and i enjoyed the game a lot more than i do now. Now its either "i cant beat that unit with anything but X, so i have to take X" or "does X shoot better than Y? Take it". The game has gone from a shooting game with assault breaking up gunlines if you could run the right list (and get a bit lucky), to armies having every rule in the rulebook to make shooting better, but assault seeing no buff. Seriously, i think i have had two non-vehicle assaults in all of 7th with my IG or Eldar. I would never take a dedicated assault unit this edition except for Death Korps Riders. My nids are staying shelved due to the horrid codex and lack of ability to run a shooting army.
I cant think how the game is better off in any way from Pre-GK 5th. While the game was not balanced then, you could compete with every army in the game bar Necrons. I took top places in multiple tourneys with genestealer spam nids and harlequin eldar. These tourneys were ~50 people. Now, the tourneys are lucky with 10.
So don't try to tell me that hate is the problem to the game. Hate is passion. 40K died here with no passionate cries of anguish. It died in silence as one by one players shelved their armies. Hate didn't kill the game. Apathy killed it. And not from us. From the people who pushed an edition out early.
Savageconvoy wrote: I'll go ahead and head you off at the pass, yes we know there are many easy fixes to that system. But that's another hassle. There are so many easy fixes and solutions that it becomes a pain to choose 1 and go with it for everyone. It's even more of a problem when you realize how easy it would have been just for GW to print those fixes themselves. It's not a matter of something being overlooked or what ever passive way you could dismiss GW's rule issues before. It is a completely idiotic system on it's own and the fixes are so simple to make it work that it truly shows what a bad rule system it is. This is the heart of 7th. And it speaks volumes in its own right.
So don't try to tell me that hate is the problem to the game. Hate is passion. 40K died here with no passionate cries of anguish. It died in silence as one by one players shelved their armies. Hate didn't kill the game. Apathy killed it. And not from us. From the people who pushed an edition out early.
Don't tell me that we are the problem.
Also, you shouldn't have to fix the rules out of the box. Yes, you can change how Maelstrom missions work, but why pay almost $100 for a rulebook if it's crap and requires modification? Even an actual RPG like D&D, which actually encourages creating your own things, can be played "out of the box" with zero modification if you wanted. Yet a wargame that is intended to be a balanced competition between two players, and the largest and arguably most popular wargame needs to have house rules to make it playable?
Also, you shouldn't have to fix the rules out of the box. Yes, you can change how Maelstrom missions work, but why pay almost $100 for a rulebook if it's crap and requires modification? Even an actual RPG like D&D, which actually encourages creating your own things, can be played "out of the box" with zero modification if you wanted. Yet a wargame that is intended to be a balanced competition between two players, and the largest and arguably most popular wargame needs to have house rules to make it playable?
The issue for me is that the "fixes" are so easy and simple that it's insane they were overlooked.
It is the exact same thing to me if the rule book said:
"This game uses D10. Roll 1D10, results 1-6 apply as normal and 7-10 are re-rolled. You can wipe off any markings on the die or write over them so it's easier to see if you need to re-roll"
The fix is obvious. Use a D6 in this case. But it shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of how the game works that it's baffling to see time wasted in typing, printing, and editing if anyone actually saw it and passed it on thinking it was a good idea.
e.earnshaw wrote: If it annoys you so much I will edit but I am still laughing.
i wouldnt bother. Your fine. English is a second (or third language to some and your grammar is no worse than many others here. They only make fun of you because they cant fault your logic. If you had broken a rule by not having a full grasp of the English language, then 100% of the members here would be because i challenge anyone to prove that they have never, not even once made a grammatical error. Missed a comma, accidentally hit a period, misspelled a word or forgot to capitalize a lett or whatnot. when an admin/mod tells you that you are breaking rules for any of those things, THEN, I would worry about editing.
Your view is spot on. Many players are simply unable to evolve or learn new tactics and strategies or how to learn to play under new rulesets. They think that if they complain enough, the world will change to how they think it should be. The rest of us learn and become better players or accept that we are no longer on the top of the pile. It is just a matter of taking responsibility for yourself an not pointing fingers. Any time, you point this out, you can expect them to lash out at you in any way they can. Faulting your grammar is actually pretty mild lol
e.earnshaw wrote: If it annoys you so much I will edit but I am still laughing.
i wouldnt bother. Your fine. English is a second (or third language to some and your grammar is no worse than many others here. They only make fun of you because they cant fault your logic. If you had broken a rule by not having a full grasp of the English language, then 100% of the members here would be because i challenge anyone to prove that they have never, not even once made a grammatical error. Missed a comma, accidentally hit a period, misspelled a word or forgot to capitalize a lett or whatnot. when an admin/mod tells you that you are breaking rules for any of those things, THEN, I would worry about editing.
We did fault his logic. Several times. Just because you choose to ignore it doesn't make it so.
And a Mod did say that it was breaking the rules.
Bad grammar aside, it is a thing (not a problem) on Dakka. So many people have been in the game for long enough that 40k isn't even remotely the same game. I think the only constant is the Space Marine stat line, but even the Bolter has changed. And the people that complain the loudest are the people that lost something when it changed.
Now, I'm on both sides of that thing. My Tyranids I played in 3rd are nothing like Tyranids in 7th. They're less fun, my favorite units are useless and the main reasons I took them are gone. Including the visual reasons since they did a MASSIVE model overhaul for 4th edition. So when I got back in 40k I essentially dropped Tyranids. I play Space Marines and Eldar now and am making the move into Dark Eldar allies and Inquisition.
People are saying the Dark Eldar codex is awful. I don't know what was lost so I'm looking at Reavers and Farseer Jetbike combos and thinking this is the best thing in the game since 12mm dice. Fresh eyes and things look like a friggin daisy. Now, starting all over again when a new codex or edition drops isn't the most friendly on the wallet way to look at things, and I'll prolly rage at 8th since I am back in the game now, but it's almost like a hard reset every time and people can't let go without making a complaint.
It's really up to the user to get over their complaints however they choose and the other users to let the people be that complain with each other because that's what they want to do. Both sides can have their corners with like-minded people and the friction is where the two collide.
So OP, if you don't like the complaining, don't read those threads. Simple as that. They're not shouting their views in your ear at the Local Gaming Club, they're writing it down in a contained place for people that share their concerns or views to agree, disagree or make conversation about it. But there's no reason to call out a section of players because you don't want to hear what they have to say. Just don't read it.
You faulted it. But your faulting did not change it's validity or truthfulness.
The rules change with each edition. I know having played from Rogue Trader on to the present. Each edition changes and alters a little bit. Why? likely just so they can make more $ selling newer stuff. Also, it is tweaking by the dev team and such to fitdirections they want to go at the time.
has any edition been perfect? Nope. Not even close. lol Has different editions enabled some playstyles and armies to do better than others? Absolutely.
Lets look at that fact for a moment...
This allows different players to rise and fall within gaming groups by making their style in vogue or out of vogue. This means that it keeps people in the game because eventually, how they play will come back around.
There have been times when I have done poorly (to say the least) because I had trouble wrapping my head around different tactics or strategies because they just didnt make sense. I learned them anyway and started doing better. Instead of sitting there crying about how GW ruined the game, I took charge of my life and did something positive about it and educated myself and learned. This made me a better player. Not only in that edition but in later ones as well.
The ones crying now could do the same thing or they can go to online forums and complain. OR they can do as the OP suggested and just play the edition they prefer. I'm curious, has GW personally called up anyone and told them that they are not allowed to play the edition they like? I know I havnt gotten the call and if I did, they did not leave me a message.
Actually, the mod said that an effort be made. That is a FAR cry from a sledgehammer declaration that everyone use perfect English with nary a grammatical error EVER being against the rule. I'm sure that if someone were to read each and every post of each and every member (mods and such as well) that we would eventually find the odd misspelled word, missing comma or un capitaized letter. The OP made that effort. The mod was pointing that out to you guys.
e.earnshaw wrote: If it annoys you so much I will edit but I am still laughing.
i wouldnt bother. Your fine. English is a second (or third language to some and your grammar is no worse than many others here. They only make fun of you because they cant fault your logic. If you had broken a rule by not having a full grasp of the English language, then 100% of the members here would be because i challenge anyone to prove that they have never, not even once made a grammatical error. Missed a comma, accidentally hit a period, misspelled a word or forgot to capitalize a lett or whatnot. when an admin/mod tells you that you are breaking rules for any of those things, THEN, I would worry about editing.
Your view is spot on. Many players are simply unable to evolve or learn new tactics and strategies or how to learn to play under new rulesets. They think that if they complain enough, the world will change to how they think it should be. The rest of us learn and become better players or accept that we are no longer on the top of the pile. It is just a matter of taking responsibility for yourself an not pointing fingers. Any time, you point this out, you can expect them to lash out at you in any way they can. Faulting your grammar is actually pretty mild lol
Bullgak.
Just straight-up, unadulterated, 100% pure bullgak.
His logic is flawed because the premise is flawed, and the suggestion is purile. Unless people are playing in a group of like-minded individuals, there is no real option to play an earlier edition of the game if that is not what your local scene supports. If you're stuck playing in the local shops, and the local shops all play 7th ed (because they always play the latest edition because 1/3rd of them are tourney players, or because they always like to be on the latest-and-greatest, or because that's the books the store stocks, or some other reason entirely), then if you want to play 40k in your area, you're either going to play 7th Ed or you're not going to play at all. Or, option 3, you pack up your things, sell your house, and move to a new city where the gaming groups all play 40K, and all play some-edition-other-than-this-one, and all of them have room for another player. Option 3 isn't really an option.
Newsflash: 40K ain't that popular anymore. Players in the US that are not lucky enough to live in a large, cosmopolitan metropolis that supports gaming/comic shops and their attendant crowds of nerds and geeks (which, let's face it, we all are), are kind of fethed. If they live in a small town with only 5 other 40K players within 500 miles, or live in a place where they are the *only* 40K player within 500 miles and get to play 1 game a month when they can arrange to travel to someone else's store/house/whatever to play... for these people, if the rest of their circle only wants to play this edition, and not that edition ("that edition" being whatever edition it is our illustrative 7th Hater wants to play)... then they're fethed.
It's not much different in the cliques of the larger cities that have multiple local gaming stores (we don't really have GW corporate stores here, not any more). If the crowd in that local store doesn't want to play 4th Ed anymore... then you're not getting a 4th Ed game. And this is assuming that your FLGS even has 40K players. There are many areas (Seattle being one of them), where 40K just isn't played anymore, outside of a few small circles. It's all Warmachine or FoW or Infinity or some other wargame... if it's a wargame at all. MTG is still very popular here (as are CCGs in general), as are RPGs, in our local stores. You are far more likely to walk into a FLGS here and see one table playing Pathfinder, another playing MTG, and two playing Warmahordes, and that's assuming it's one of our few four-table stores.
So people complain because they're now sitting there with several hundred to several thousand dollars worth of stuff that might not be all that fun to play anymore, because the local meta has changed and what they have now is just not at all fun to play anymore, or because they are now expected to shell out a few hundred more dollars to update what they have, or because they had a fluffy army based around certain SCs that simply no longer exist, and now their army is pretty well fethed (it's not Marbo without Marbo's rules, it's just some dumb grunt named Marbo). So that player is not left with a lot of great choices, from their perspective or the perspective of 40K. Their best option, IMO, would be to jump ship to a better-written, cheaper wargame, but many people are reluctant to do that, for a number of reasons.
You may disagree but that does not change the facts or the truthfulness of the post.
As we have seen in every edition, there are two types of players. Type 1. complains and moans and still loses games because they refuse to learn new things or admit that their playstyle does not match the "current edition". they would prefer that GW give them personal priority over every other player in the entire world and customize the game JUST for them.
Type 2. understands that stuff happens and times/editions change. They adapt, buy or convert models to match the "current" powerful ones. They also learn new strategies and tactics that will now work where before they might not have. These players find themselves winning more and more games and becoming better players as a result.
Side note, it might be a good idea to keep the posts at least somewhat polite and un-insulting in case a mod or admin popps in for a surprise visit.
Each edition of 40k was unbalanced in it's own unique way. Playing previous editions won't solve the inherent issues with 40k. Furthermore, why is it always on the player to balance the game? Games Workshop charges us top dollar for it's books. I expect effort.
I agree custom. learning new strategies and tactics however is not balencing the game, it is becoming a better player and learning to adapt.
the players who are complaining about the rules now are the ones who were adept at working with the broken rules of previous editions and are mad that their pet exploits no longer work and are unwilling to learn new ones or unwilling to learn to win without having to rely on those crutches.
I agree with you 100% though.
I am one of these people who generally complains.I started in 5th edition as necrons, i spent lots of money building a good competitive list, monoliths and warriors. Then BOOM 6th edition and new codex. I use all my money to try and change my army to suit the new play style, no problem, then 2 years in 6th edition and ive finally got a decently competitive army and 7th edition comes out and theres a new style of winning games and my army that i just changed for 6th is near useless.
The problem is the game is changing to fast for some players to keep up, i certainly cant and haven't bought a necron model in 6 months. Its just too demanding on some people who have little income. So now i play with an outdated necron list and would play another necron player with a list far superior to mine. and some old moedels such as my destroyers are useless in 7th and haven't seen a battle in months.
It has gotten to the point of GW bringing out new rules, codexs etc that i am now the only 40k player left in my FLGS, the rest couldnt keep up and already sold old parts of their army to buy new ones so we cant even play old editions.
Yargh, I see that your post has been broken up in to sentences and paragraphs now and it is still damned near impossible to read.
I'm going to assume your question is just what your title says... why the hate for 40k? If so, why not play an old edition?
Why the hate for 40k? I get tired of the sloppy rule writing. I get tired of GW's anti consumer actions. I get tired of one edition after another not actually being an improvement but just being a random shuffling of what sucks and what is poorly written. I get tired of the fact the cost is so high that even for the price of just keeping my army updated I could just start entire new game systems.
If so, why not play an old edition? Well I do occasionally. Mostly I don't because it's hard to find opponents. Most my friends who played 2nd, my preferred edition (with some modifications) have quit over the years, so if I want to play 2nd edition I have to teach my opponent how to play it
EVIL INC wrote: You may disagree but that does not change the facts or the truthfulness of the post.
As we have seen in every edition, there are two types of players. Type 1. complains and moans and still loses games because they refuse to learn new things or admit that their playstyle does not match the "current edition". they would prefer that GW give them personal priority over every other player in the entire world and customize the game JUST for them.
Type 2. understands that stuff happens and times/editions change. They adapt, buy or convert models to match the "current" powerful ones. They also learn new strategies and tactics that will now work where before they might not have. These players find themselves winning more and more games and becoming better players as a result.
Side note, it might be a good idea to keep the posts at least somewhat polite and un-insulting in case a mod or admin popps in for a surprise visit.
Oh hey, you make incorrect sweeping generalisations in this thread too. Here I was thinking you were just making sweeping generalisations in the WAAC thread. You sure do love your incorrect sweeping generalisations.
There are vastly more than 2 types of players. Even when you only consider the extremes, there's way more than 2 types. It's a bit naive to think there are only 2.
There's also the type that can adapt fine and aren't losing games but simply don't like the changes.
There's also the type that gets sick of pointless changes and wants an actual improvement on previous rules instead of just random changing.
There are people who love change but are just crappy players that lose anyway.
Then there's everyone else (probably 90% of people) who don't actually fit in to one silly little generalisation and are actually some mix of all things.
You know, I kinda admire these last bastions of GW diehards that are left. Insisting nothing is wrong and everything is hunky-dory. We are merely "haterz" that have failed to adapt and are spewing falsehoods to try and bring down fair lady GW. They truly are willing to go down with this ship. That's some brilliant kind of brand loyalty that money cannot buy.
I think you should look at some rather apt lyrics from the song "System..." by Enter Shikari. sums up the state of the union with 40k perfectly to me.
There was a house in a field on the side of the cliff,
And the waves crashing below were just said to be a myth,
So they ignored the warnings from the ships and the docks,
Now the house on the cliff is the wreckage on the rocks,
Nothing can fix the buildings flawed foundations,
but scaffolding and stilts were the laws and legislation,
this house was doomed but they didn't care,
they invested in a system that was beyond repair,
So, maybe you should try actually looking at why we rats that have deserted this ship a long time ago have left it in the first place. This is not mindless hate and babble. I would gladly come back to 40k if GW stopped being a company who, if it were legal, would grab you by the legs and shake you to see what comes out when you enter their stores and tore down 40k and started again. Right now, it's a schizophrenic mess of a skirmish game with company level amounts of models also featuring artillery and flyers! GW, decide what you want 40k to be then make the game as such. If you do so, balance will follow a lot easier.
Kindly keep the name calling out of it and try to keep the posts on a civil level.? Thank you very much, I'm sure the mods will appreciate it.
OP, , when I see that those who are making fun of and ridiculing you for not having perfect grammar have had perfect grammar in each and every single post they have EVER made, I would give them credence. Until then, your doing fine and the mods have already posted in here telling you your ok because your maing an effort.
Yes, as i said most of those who are complaining are those who are unable or unwilling to learn and adapt to new things instead preferring to rely on crutches they learned in older editions.
Of course, some people will gripe and complain under ANY circumstances "what, you just handed me a million bucks? Now I gotta pay taxes on it drive allllllll the way to the bank to deposit it. blah blah blah". lol
As you can see and would see if you went back to forums over the years (and before internet was so widespread in early editions) there will always be those who complain. It goes beyond 40k to other areas as well. My dad used to hafta walk to school in 5 feet of snow. Uphill. BOTH ways. buses and cars nowadays only make people soft. lol My buddy prefers older cars from BEFORE they put computers into them. There will always be complaints and those who make them. You learn to live with it and eventually learn to not start threads like this because it draws them out.
Their complaints are valid from their perspective and thus they fight to justify them. As in our minds we each have different opinions of what we prefer, we will always disagree. take myself, I disagree with many here. The difference is in how your voice it. You can do it as I do in a polite non-combative fashion or in other less polite ways.
Does that mean the current edition is perfect? Absolutely not. The complainers feel whatever earliers edition they like was perfectof course. I feel NONE of them have been perfect and a "perfect game" is impossible to create. Even chess is not perfect. Heck, I'll be the FIRST to "damn the man" when it comes to GW. I have complained about them for decades on different subjects, but in the case of rules, I have always learned to live with it and work within them until they change for the next edition. Wargaming as a hobby is worth sticking around for and should someone want to lleave the sinking ship of wargaming as a hobby until someone somewhere creates the "perfect game", they may be gone for a long time. lol
EVIL INC wrote: Kindly keep the name calling out of it and try to keep the posts on a civil level.? Thank you very much, I'm sure the mods will appreciate it.
OP, , when I see that those who are making fun of and ridiculing you for not having perfect grammar have had perfect grammar in each and every single post they have EVER made, I would give them credence. Until then, your doing fine and the mods have already posted in here telling you your ok because your maing an effort.
Yes, as i said most of those who are complaining are those who are unable or unwilling to learn and adapt to new things instead preferring to rely on crutches they learned in older editions.
Of course, some people will gripe and complain under ANY circumstances "what, you just handed me a million bucks? Now I gotta pay taxes on it drive allllllll the way to the bank to deposit it. blah blah blah". lol
As you can see and would see if you went back to forums over the years (and before internet was so widespread in early editions) there will always be those who complain. It goes beyond 40k to other areas as well. My dad used to hafta walk to school in 5 feet of snow. Uphill. BOTH ways. buses and cars nowadays only make people soft. lol My buddy prefers older cars from BEFORE they put computers into them. There will always be complaints and those who make them. You learn to live with it and eventually learn to not start threads like this because it draws them out.
Their complaints are valid from their perspective and thus they fight to justify them. As in our minds we each have different opinions of what we prefer, we will always disagree. take myself, I disagree with many here. The difference is in how your voice it. You can do it as I do in a polite non-combative fashion or in other less polite ways.
Purple monkey dishwasher.
You're just answering something that has not been asked. Try reading what people are actually writing, rather than responding with what you think they wrote.
EVIL INC wrote: Kindly keep the name calling out of it and try to keep the posts on a civil level.? Thank you very much, I'm sure the mods will appreciate it.
OP, , when I see that those who are making fun of and ridiculing you for not having perfect grammar have had perfect grammar in each and every single post they have EVER made, I would give them credence. Until then, your doing fine and the mods have already posted in here telling you your ok because your maing an effort.
Yes, as i said most of those who are complaining are those who are unable or unwilling to learn and adapt to new things instead preferring to rely on crutches they learned in older editions.
Of course, some people will gripe and complain under ANY circumstances "what, you just handed me a million bucks? Now I gotta pay taxes on it drive allllllll the way to the bank to deposit it. blah blah blah". lol
As you can see and would see if you went back to forums over the years (and before internet was so widespread in early editions) there will always be those who complain. It goes beyond 40k to other areas as well. My dad used to hafta walk to school in 5 feet of snow. Uphill. BOTH ways. buses and cars nowadays only make people soft. lol My buddy prefers older cars from BEFORE they put computers into them. There will always be complaints and those who make them. You learn to live with it and eventually learn to not start threads like this because it draws them out.
Their complaints are valid from their perspective and thus they fight to justify them. As in our minds we each have different opinions of what we prefer, we will always disagree. take myself, I disagree with many here. The difference is in how your voice it. You can do it as I do in a polite non-combative fashion or in other less polite ways.
There's the magnitude of the complaints though. No other game system has this much criticism without earning it.
For example. Warmachine. My complaints are that some of the plastics have horrible placement for mold lines. Some of the casters are too pigeon holed and some are much better than others. Some armies struggle against other armies and don't have enough tools to deal with them to make the game 100% fair.
It's not a perfect game. No game is. But in spite of its problems you don't hear Warmachine people with this much toxiicity because PP at least tries to address the complaints and communicates with their playerbase. They are also cheaper so they can get away with more before people start complaining.
Try reading the thread grimtough. It may help you out.
LOL, I'll be the FIRST to tell you my grammar is horrible. However, I make an effort and do "ok". If someone wants to make fun of me for it, I dont care. Have at it because I'm sure I give plenty of grammatical errors for ya.
EVIL INC wrote: Instead of sitting there crying about how GW ruined the game...
Is your position honestly that people are too busy complaining instead of playing or learning new ways to play?
1.) This is a wargaming forum. They have access to both the tactics and general threads. They can certainly do both. Just to prove my point I opened another tab to a tactic article that I'll read after I finish this. It took about 45 seconds, cause I was finding the right article I was looking for.
2.) I don't play anywhere near a computer. So if I'm commenting, it's simply because I'm not trying to play a game at the time. It in no way means that when I'm not commenting I'm not playing games.
3.) You're assuming that the people that are complaining aren't winning. This is wrong. I was doing just fine with my army. My other friend quit because his army, GK, was undefeated and games were too lopsided.
I see this a lot. The terrible mistake that complaining some how takes up a large portion of someone's time or prevents them from playing the game. This is just wrong and silly to assume.
To put it in perspective this post took me about 3 minutes to type. 3 minutes out of a day does in no way prevent me from learning or playing a game.
Could it possibly be that I have a negative opinion that isn't based on my win/loss record or my ability to change tactics?
EVIL INC wrote: You can do it as I do in a polite non-combative fashion or in other less polite ways.
I'm sorry but I can't let this comment stand when just a few posts ago you told us there were 2 types of people and you put down "type 1" is being people who complain, moan, loses games and is incapable of learning new things.
That is not polite nor non-combative. You might as well have said:
There are 2 types of people. People like me, who are awesome. Then there's people who aren't like me who suck
EVIL INC wrote: You can do it as I do in a polite non-combative fashion or in other less polite ways.
I'm sorry but I can't let this comment stand when just a few posts ago you told us there were 2 types of people and you put down "type 1" is being people who complain, moan, loses games and is incapable of learning new things.
That is not polite nor non-combative. You might as well have said:
There are 2 types of people. People like me, who are awesome. Then there's people who aren't like me who suck
It's the mantra of the last remaining GW diehards.
How many people worldwide play warmachine and how many play GW games? Likewise, how many years has each game been around and how many editions ect ect? I'm sure you'll find the numbers different. There is a saying "statistics dont lie, people who use them do".
No one has said GW hasnt earned complaints. However, complain about each edition unto itself without comparing them. Each edition is essentially a different game with the same name. This is what causes a lot of problems. I found many faults with each edition of "40k" and I find I like different aspects of each edition to greater or lesser extents. However, to me, what IS, IS and I learn to work with what IS.
As I said, its a matter of different perspectives and views. I am willing to accept others views and still put my own out in a polite way knowing others will disagree. Not everyone is able to do that.
grimtough we are discussing 40k, not football. Although, I'm sure that if you search the internet, you may find some good football sites.My stance has remained the same.
EVIL INC wrote: Yes, as i said most of those who are complaining are those who are unable or unwilling to learn and adapt to new things instead preferring to rely on crutches they learned in older editions.
Could you post some evidence for this ridiculous generalization? Because I get the exact opposite impression, the people who care most about winning have just moved on to 7th edition and started exploiting its balance mistakes instead of 6th's balance mistakes, and most of the outrage about the rules comes from people who have legitimate complaints about how bad the game is.
As you can see and would see if you went back to forums over the years (and before internet was so widespread in early editions) there will always be those who complain. It goes beyond 40k to other areas as well. My dad used to hafta walk to school in 5 feet of snow. Uphill. BOTH ways. buses and cars nowadays only make people soft. lol My buddy prefers older cars from BEFORE they put computers into them. There will always be complaints and those who make them. You learn to live with it and eventually learn to not start threads like this because it draws them out.
Yeah, because complaining about 40k's awful rules is just like "up hill, both ways, in the snow". It couldn't possibly be because GW sells a product that is far below the standards of the rest of the industry, and has given up on even pretending to hide the fact that they're milking the cash cow with half-finished rules at obscene prices.
Wargaming as a hobby is worth sticking around for and should someone want to lleave the sinking ship of wargaming as a hobby until someone somewhere creates the "perfect game", they may be gone for a long time. lol
Yes, wargaming as a whole is worth sticking around 40k. Is 40k? Not really, unless you've already made a big investment in it. Fortunately there's a whole hobby full of better games to play, and you can give up on GW's sinking ship without giving up on wargaming in general. In fact, you'll probably look back at your decision to move on from GW and realize that it was the best thing you could do for your enjoyment of the hobby.
EVIL INC wrote: How many people worldwide play warmachine and how many play GW games?
Player numbers =/= quality of game.
However, complain about each edition unto itself without comparing them.
Why? "This keeps getting worse" is a perfectly legitimate thing to point out.
Each edition is essentially a different game with the same name.
1) This is an unbelievably stupid way to make a game. Good games have an overall design goal, and each new edition converges on the "perfect" execution of the concept for the game. GW, on the other hand, changes a bunch of random stuff every edition just to make it different. The end result is that the game never really gets better, it just costs you another $100 every few years to keep playing.
2) New editions are not different games. 7th edition is just 6th edition with some more half-finished rules thrown onto the bloated mess. You can't really call 7th edition a "new edition" when 5th edition codices still function just fine with a page or less of FAQs.
EVIL INC wrote: However, complain about each edition unto itself without comparing them. Each edition is essentially a different game with the same name.
Except the game hasn't really changed since 1996 1998 with 3rd edition... it's essentially the same game with slightly different details which change the focus, but it's basically the same game, hence why they haven't had to do a full codex rewrite since 3rd.
Personally, at this point I'd RATHER a full rewrite. When you are just updating the rules instead of changing them, it creates a (well warranted) expectation that the game should be improved and refined with each edition, not just a reshuffling.
EVIL INC wrote: However, complain about each edition unto itself without comparing them. Each edition is essentially a different game with the same name.
Except the game hasn't really changed since 1996 with 3rd edition... it's essentially the same game with slightly different details which change the focus, but it's basically the same game, hence why they haven't had to do a full codex rewrite since 3rd.
Personally, at this point I'd RATHER a full rewrite. When you are just updating the rules instead of changing them, it creates a (well warranted) expectation that the game should be improved and refined with each edition, not just a reshuffling.
1998 actually. October 10th 1998 to be precise (40k 3rd was my brother's birthday present). The current core rules will be 16 years old on Friday.
Skink, just saw your earlier post. Please try to keep the graphic sexual statements to yourself. Children come onto the forums and it is not something all parents want their children exposed to.
Perigrin, each edition of 40k is a "seperate game" the genre and fluff and names of units and such remain the same (usually) but the game itself is a different game. You may not agree with this and I am not able to evidence for it. it is just how I and many others feel.To me, if you have two seperate games (lets say starter boxes) and the rules are different, to me, they are different games.
In terms of complaining about the game, your preaching to the choir. There are MANY aspects I dont agree with. There have been MANY aspects I did not agree with in each edition. I just refuse to accept that there is some magical earlier edition that was perfect.
I do have a lot invested in 40k. Lots of $ and decades of effort. that keeps me around. Id it a sinking ship? Maybe, maybe not. No more so today than it was 10 years ago. When 2nd and 3rd edition came around, the Rogue Trader players called it a sinking ship. When 4,5 edition came around 2,3 edition players called it a sinking ship. just because they are not getting YOUR $ does not make it a sinking ship because you have been replaced with someone else.
Not that I agree with that attitude because I feel GW should be loyal to it's players. To me, this would be making an "edition" and sticking to it. NOT changing it every time they change their underwear. I mean release a game and leave it so that 20 years down the road, you can buy it and it be the same.
If each new edition is a separate game, then that's even worse. They should be working on perfecting the game.
Each edition has very similar rules to one another. Calling them different games is less than ideal.
Infinity just came out with 3rd. Its basically the same game but with some minor changes that hopefully will improve the game. That's what an edition is supposed to do, make improvements, not random changes just to have changes.
EVIL INC wrote: Skink, just saw your earlier post. Please try to keep the graphic sexual statements to yourself. Children come onto the forums and it is not something all parents want their children exposed to.
Is it because I said "sucks"? Coz that's the only thing I can see and OMG if that is it then I'm already laughing at your pathetic attempt to ignore what I'm saying
EVIL INC wrote: Skink, just saw your earlier post. Please try to keep the graphic sexual statements to yourself. Children come onto the forums and it is not something all parents want their children exposed to.
Is it because I said "sucks"? Coz that's the only thing I can see and OMG if that is it then I'm already laughing at your pathetic attempt to ignore what I'm saying
Skink, if you have to ask. There is no point in telling you. lets hope you "find it" before the mods do. As a personal favor to you, I did not report it.
MWHistorian, here is the crux. Different players prefer different editions. some thing it has gone downhill, some think it has gone uphill. This depends on who you talk to.
Personally, i like the way it has gone in some ways (for examplbringing guns back into the game) but I still think they have kept the bad parts of being poorly written and balanced. they still tinker with the fluff and take parts out. That has remained a constant.
I would be tickled to death if they were to release a single edition and stick with it bringing all codexes into line with it and it remaining constant. This way, they would be more loyal to the players and be able to add in so much (within the rules). and flesh out the fluff.
EVIL INC wrote: Perigrin, each edition of 40k is a "seperate game" the genre and fluff and names of units and such remain the same (usually) but the game itself is a different game. You may not agree with this and I am not able to evidence for it. it is just how I and many others feel.To me, if you have two seperate games (lets say starter boxes) and the rules are different, to me, they are different games.
The rules aren't significantly different though. Hence why it's still 40k. And it's amusing how you make an assertion and then say "I am not able to [find] evidence for it." You do know that means it's an opinion and not fact, right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EVIL INC wrote: MWHistorian, here is the crux. Different players prefer different editions. some thing it has gone downhill, some think it has gone uphill. This depends on who you talk to.
Personally, i like the way it has gone in some ways (for examplbringing guns back into the game) but I still think they have kept the bad parts of being poorly written and balanced. they still tinker with the fluff and take parts out. That has remained a constant.
I would be tickled to death if they were to release a single edition and stick with it bringing all codexes into line with it and it remaining constant. This way, they would be more loyal to the players and be able to add in so much (within the rules). and flesh out the fluff.
... Bringing guns back into the game? Are you still propagating the illusion that 5th edition or 6th edition was won because assault armies dominated?
EVIL INC wrote: Skink, if you have to ask. There is no point in telling you. lets hope you "find it" before the mods do. As a personal favor to you, I did not report it.
No you aren't getting off that easy. What did I write in this thread that you have such a perverted mind to have taken it to mean something graphically sexual? Please, report it, PM me if you are so noble, but I've read what I've written in this thread 3 times now and can't see any "graphic sexual statements".
I'm honestly not sure if you're crazy, I said something I have no idea what it means or you are just making some really sad attempt to slander me
Please, the suspense is killing me, I need to know what graphic sexual statement I made. Maybe if EVIL is too delicate someone else reading this thread can point it out to me?
EVIL INC wrote: Skink, if you have to ask. There is no point in telling you. lets hope you "find it" before the mods do. As a personal favor to you, I did not report it.
Nope, not going to let libel slide.
Quote the post. Or apologize.
EVIL INC wrote: Skink, if you have to ask. There is no point in telling you. lets hope you "find it" before the mods do. As a personal favor to you, I did not report it.
EVIL INC wrote: Skink, if you have to ask. There is no point in telling you. lets hope you "find it" before the mods do. As a personal favor to you, I did not report it.
MWHistorian, here is the crux. Different players prefer different editions. some thing it has gone downhill, some think it has gone uphill. This depends on who you talk to.
Personally, i like the way it has gone in some ways (for examplbringing guns back into the game) but I still think they have kept the bad parts of being poorly written and balanced. they still tinker with the fluff and take parts out. That has remained a constant.
I would be tickled to death if they were to release a single edition and stick with it bringing all codexes into line with it and it remaining constant. This way, they would be more loyal to the players and be able to add in so much (within the rules). and flesh out the fluff.
I poured over all of Skink's posts in this tread looking for something sexually offensive. I found some that out of context could be humorous in an infantile way and made me smile, but I didn't see anything remotely like what you're talking about.
EVIL INC wrote: Kindly keep the name calling out of it and try to keep the posts on a civil level.? Thank you very much, I'm sure the mods will appreciate it.
Frankly the OP set the tone by implicitly calling anyone with anything negative to say about the game a hater in the thread title. It is a term I loathe, as it isn't accurate and is so frequently used as an over emotive term by white knights (hey, if we're going to use haters, we may as well use the equivalent term) to try and invalidate well reasoned and sensible criticism.
If 5 literate individuals could not find the offending post he was worried about children stumbling across, then it is obviously a falsification on his part.
Savageconvoy wrote: If 5 literate individuals could not find the offending post he was worried about children stumbling across, then it is obviously a falsification on his part.
Skink, if you have to ask. There is no point in telling you. lets hope you "find it" before the mods do. As a personal favor to you, I did not report it.
We all have to ask, because you're lying. And I will call you out on it right here and right now: you, sir/madam, are a liar.
Look at earlier editions where you had first turn assults and the units consolidating from one unit into another without the army being assaulted being able to fire a single shot. i did not specify 5th or 6th edition. I am not going to say that 5th edition was the perfect game just as I will not say 6th or 7th or RT or any other is as is being insinuated by others.
Yes, I made a point to show that each edition being a different game was my personal view. I actually made that quite clear.
Savageconvoy wrote: If 5 literate individuals could not find the offending post he was worried about children stumbling across, then it is obviously a falsification on his part.
True, but I did have fun looking for it.
I'm literally sitting here laughing at my failing attempts to find something graphically sexual in my posts
At this point I'm wanting either a quote or an apology because it's coming across as either a huge error or a really, really sad attempt at slander.
EVIL INC wrote: Look at earlier editions where you had first turn assults and the units consolidating from one unit into another without the army being assaulted being able to fire a single shot. i did not specify 5th or 6th edition. I am not going to say that 5th edition was the perfect game just as I will not say 6th or 7th or RT or any other is as is being insinuated by others.
Yes, I made a point to show that each edition being a different game was my personal view. I actually made that quite clear.
Gonna move the goalposts and not actually own up then?
Ever since 3rd edition the game has basically been the same. 4th, 5th, 6th and now 7th are little more than updates, not new editions. No amount of arguing is going to change that because its not true. The last real edition was during 2nd to 3rd which actually changed up the game, and according to legend the 3rd edition rules were a homebrew 15mm WW2 game from Rick Priestly because the original version of 3rd (a cleaned-up 2nd) was rejected since management wanted to push selling larger armies (personally I think that's why Bolt Action is so close to 40k, because I think Bolt Action used those original rules as well).
Not a single change in that time has really been a change from the core rules and in fact it's likely the changes that do end up occurring are done on purpose to invalidate people's existing forces so they have to buy new things to fix their armies - look at even recent codexes like Dark Eldar where special characters were outright removed for basically zero reason, so those people are SOL with their armies that might have been built up specifically around that character. Couple that with going in a direction many people do not like (adding flyers and superheavies to 40k), and it's easy to see why GW isn't well liked. Nobody likes what is essentially planned obsolescence.
EVIL INC wrote: Skink, if you have to ask. There is no point in telling you. lets hope you "find it" before the mods do. As a personal favor to you, I did not report it.
WE aim for PG-13 here, and nothing Skink's written so far has crossed that line, as far as I can see.
Please don't worry about playing Moderator - if you see something that you think is not in accord with the rules of the site, just use the Moderator Alert Button and the actual Moderators will take a look at it.
Peregrine here, Grimtuff, Evil, me, it is either groundhog day or another thread about rules and 40k.
Some ten thousand pages written around this very topic? I need to make a macro with multiple spoiler buttons to cover the various versions of this.
Nutshell:
We want to play a "common" rule-set for "pick-up" games with strangers. 40k is becoming problematic to do that. With friends you can pretty much do what you want.
Peregrine here, Grimtuff, Evil, me, it is either groundhog day or another thread about rules and 40k.
Some ten thousand pages written around this very topic? I need to make a macro with multiple spoiler buttons to cover the various versions of this.
Nutshell:
We want to play a "common" rule-set for "pick-up" games with strangers. 40k is becoming problematic to do that. With friends you can pretty much do what you want.
Done.
See ya next time. Same Dakka time, same Dakka channel.
EVIL INC wrote:Look at earlier editions where you had first turn assults and the units consolidating from one unit into another without the army being assaulted being able to fire a single shot. i did not specify 5th or 6th edition. I am not going to say that 5th edition was the perfect game just as I will not say 6th or 7th or RT or any other is as is being insinuated by others.
Part of that was remembering the last thread where you brought up "bringing guns back into the game" where everyone (else) agreed that 4th edition was too CC oriented but that had been fixed in 5th and continued getting "fixed" in 6th and 7th... and you said you were happy they were bringing guns back and that assault ruled 5th and 6th.
Regardless - where is this sexual reference you found and many other people tried and could not? Put up or shut up man - libel isn't polite at all.
Peregrine here, Grimtuff, Evil, me, it is either groundhog day or another thread about rules and 40k.
Some ten thousand pages written around this very topic? I need to make a macro with multiple spoiler buttons to cover the various versions of this.
Nutshell:
We want to play a "common" rule-set for "pick-up" games with strangers. 40k is becoming problematic to do that. With friends you can pretty much do what you want.
Done.
Exactly this. Saying that you can ignore all the problems doesn't help if you play at a game store against whoever turns up for a game. For the price you're paying for rules they damn well better be ironclad and worth using, because otherwise why pay for it? If I have to rewrite half of the rules to make the game work, I might as well buy the Bolt Action rulebook for half the price of the 40k rulebook(s) and port over the armies. it would probably work just as well, and not cost nearly $100 for something that is the tabletop equivalent of promising a complete package and when you open up the box it requires assembly and expensive tools to put it together.
EVIL INC wrote: Look at earlier editions where you had first turn assults and the units consolidating from one unit into another without the army being assaulted being able to fire a single shot. i did not specify 5th or 6th edition. I am not going to say that 5th edition was the perfect game just as I will not say 6th or 7th or RT or any other is as is being insinuated by others.
Yes, I made a point to show that each edition being a different game was my personal view. I actually made that quite clear.
Gonna move the goalposts and not actually own up then?
Good to know.,
There you go with football again. Thats rather off topic and has nothing to do with the thread. I'm sure that there are forums designed Specifically for football if you want to talk about it. I'll just stay here and remain constant without changing my stance.
I had honestly not noticed that the rules have not changed over the years. If Ida known that, i coulda just kept my rogue trader book if every rule set since then was a copy/paste with no changes.
Alpharious, not a problem, if that is allowed it is allowed. i have never and will not start playing moderator. i had enough of that when i was on larger forums dont want the job here. Too much headache for me. Just trying to be polite and friendly. Now if only everyone followed suit.
WayneTheGame wrote: Ever since 3rd edition the game has basically been the same. 4th, 5th, 6th and now 7th are little more than updates, not new editions. No amount of arguing is going to change that because its not true. The last real edition was during 2nd to 3rd which actually changed up the game, and according to legend the 3rd edition rules were a homebrew 15mm WW2 game from Rick Priestly because the original version of 3rd (a cleaned-up 2nd) was rejected since management wanted to push selling larger armies (personally I think that's why Bolt Action is so close to 40k, because I think Bolt Action used those original rules as well).
Not a single change in that time has really been a change from the core rules and in fact it's likely the changes that do end up occurring are done on purpose to invalidate people's existing forces so they have to buy new things to fix their armies - look at even recent codexes like Dark Eldar where special characters were outright removed for basically zero reason, so those people are SOL with their armies that might have been built up specifically around that character. Couple that with going in a direction many people do not like (adding flyers and superheavies to 40k), and it's easy to see why GW isn't well liked. Nobody likes what is essentially planned obsolescence.
The only way you can really call it a different game is when you consider how small changes can change how the game is played. I agree with that sentiment, a small change like the damage table on vehicles or being able to assault out of any transport can drastically change how the game is played.
But it's not those sorts of changes that are causing people to "hate" on 40k, as you say the core game hasn't changed since 3rd edition and while I can totally deal with change, after 16 years I'd like to see some actual refinement instead of just change.
I agree with the people who say there is no perfect edition of 40k. There are pros and cons to all of them. The problem is the game has been around for so long and it still feels sub par and there hasn't been improvement. I personally feel 2nd edition was only a few tweaks away from being a really solid game. 4 more editions later and I still think GW haven't nailed a "solid game" yet.
**Skink frantically reads over this post trying to see all the ways it could be taken to mean something sexual**
EVIL INC wrote: Look at earlier editions where you had first turn assults and the units consolidating from one unit into another without the army being assaulted being able to fire a single shot. i did not specify 5th or 6th edition. I am not going to say that 5th edition was the perfect game just as I will not say 6th or 7th or RT or any other is as is being insinuated by others.
Yes, I made a point to show that each edition being a different game was my personal view. I actually made that quite clear.
Gonna move the goalposts and not actually own up then?
Good to know.,
There you go with football again. Thats rather off topic and has nothing to do with the thread. I'm sure that there are forums designed Specifically for football if you want to talk about it. I'll just stay here and remain constant without changing my stance.
metaphor
[met-uh-fawr, -fer]
noun
1.
a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.”.
Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def 1).
2.
something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.
EVIL INC wrote: Look at earlier editions where you had first turn assults and the units consolidating from one unit into another without the army being assaulted being able to fire a single shot. i did not specify 5th or 6th edition. I am not going to say that 5th edition was the perfect game just as I will not say 6th or 7th or RT or any other is as is being insinuated by others.
Yes, I made a point to show that each edition being a different game was my personal view. I actually made that quite clear.
Gonna move the goalposts and not actually own up then?
Good to know.,
There you go with football again. Thats rather off topic and has nothing to do with the thread. I'm sure that there are forums designed Specifically for football if you want to talk about it. I'll just stay here and remain constant without changing my stance.
Good for you!
Personally, if I'd painted myself into the corner you have, I'd probably have left the thread leaving a Looney Tunes style hole in the wall next to the door.
Personally, if I'd painted myself into the corner you have, I'd probably have left the thread leaving a Looney Tunes style hole in the wall next to the door.
Because I feel that different rule sets make for different games and how they are played (mechanics)?
because i feel that there is no "perfect edition"?
because I feel that GW would be better off making a single edition and not changing it?
those are my 3 statements in this thread and if any of those 3 are painting myself into a corner, It must be an awfully wierd shaped room.
Let me add to those 3 since i am evidently "in a corner for the other 3. Players are people. Human beings. Different human beings have different views, perspectives and opinions. people should have the right to have and voice their views and perspectives. Especially over something as minor as a mere game.
EVIL INC wrote: There you go with football again. Thats rather off topic and has nothing to do with the thread. I'm sure that there are forums designed Specifically for football if you want to talk about it. I'll just stay here and remain constant without changing my stance.
You're an intelligent person. I'm sure you know what a metaphor is. And I'm sure you have heard that particular one before.
I'm not sure why you're not acknowledging that it's a metaphor though. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me?
I had honestly not noticed that the rules have not changed over the years. If Ida known that, i coulda just kept my rogue trader book if every rule set since then was a copy/paste with no changes.
It's almost like no one has said that ever. This is why you get accused of moving goalposts (a metaphor meaning that your argument changes slightly when it's proven wrong). Yes, small things change. Overall it's still the same game.
Just like D&D 3rd is basically the same as D&D 1st and 2nd. Sure, new concepts were introduced but at their core they're the same.
i have never and will not start playing moderator.
Except you did by calling him out on an imagined thing.
Just trying to be polite and friendly.
I'm not sure I believe this statement. Deliberate misspelling of someone's name isn't polite.
EVIL INC wrote: Because I feel that different rule sets make for different games and how they are played (mechanics)?
because i feel that there is no "perfect edition"?
because I feel that GW would be better off making a single edition and not changing it?
those are my 3 statements in this thread and if any of those 3 are painting myself into a corner, It must be an awfully wierd shaped room.
Let me add to those 3 since i am evidently "in a corner for the other 3. Players are people. Human beings. Different human beings have different views, perspectives and opinions. people should have the right to have and voice their views and perspectives. Especially over something as minor as a mere game.
Stop saying such offensive things. There are children present.
I would agree that GW would be better off making a single edition, only if that edition was amazing....which hasn't happened yet. What they should be doing is finding out what to improve and each edition making it better.
They clearly are not doing that.
EVIL INC wrote: There you go with football again. Thats rather off topic and has nothing to do with the thread. I'm sure that there are forums designed Specifically for football if you want to talk about it. I'll just stay here and remain constant without changing my stance.
You're an intelligent person. I'm sure you know what a metaphor is. And I'm sure you have heard that particular one before.
I'm not sure why you're not acknowledging that it's a metaphor though. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me?
Maybe he's Drax the Destroyer?
NOTHING GOES OVER MY HEAD! MY REFLEXES ARE FAR TOO FAST!
EVIL INC wrote: Look at earlier editions where you had first turn assults and the units consolidating from one unit into another without the army being assaulted being able to fire a single shot. i did not specify 5th or 6th edition. I am not going to say that 5th edition was the perfect game just as I will not say 6th or 7th or RT or any other is as is being insinuated by others.
Yes, I made a point to show that each edition being a different game was my personal view. I actually made that quite clear.
Gonna move the goalposts and not actually own up then?
Good to know.,
There you go with football again. Thats rather off topic and has nothing to do with the thread. I'm sure that there are forums designed Specifically for football if you want to talk about it. I'll just stay here and remain constant without changing my stance.
I had honestly not noticed that the rules have not changed over the years. If Ida known that, i coulda just kept my rogue trader book if every rule set since then was a copy/paste with no changes.
Alpharious, not a problem, if that is allowed it is allowed. i have never and will not start playing moderator. i had enough of that when i was on larger forums dont want the job here. Too much headache for me. Just trying to be polite and friendly. Now if only everyone followed suit.
So where's the "graphically sexual post" you have accused another poster of making? We're waiting for that, and the fact that you continue to ignore this issue means that not only have you libeled another poster on the forums, but it also calls into question the integrity of anything you might post.
... and your claim that you're not trying to moderate is also a flat-out lie. You just think you're clever about it. If you weren't, you wouldn't have made up this story about a sexually-graphic post. Basically, every time your fingers touch the keyboard, you seem to be hoisting yourself higher on the Throne of Lies upon which you sit.
EVIL INC wrote: There you go with football again. Thats rather off topic and has nothing to do with the thread. I'm sure that there are forums designed Specifically for football if you want to talk about it. I'll just stay here and remain constant without changing my stance.
You're an intelligent person. I'm sure you know what a metaphor is. And I'm sure you have heard that particular one before.
I'm not sure why you're not acknowledging that it's a metaphor though. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me?
Maybe he's Drax the Destroyer?
NOTHING GOES OVER MY HEAD! MY REFLEXES ARE FAR TOO FAST!
In all seriousness, my son has ADHD and metaphors are a bit of a problem.
Some people can have a legitimate reason to not understand and still be intelligent.
Just trying to help out what is becoming a weird and strangely funny moment.
EVIL INC wrote: There you go with football again. Thats rather off topic and has nothing to do with the thread. I'm sure that there are forums designed Specifically for football if you want to talk about it. I'll just stay here and remain constant without changing my stance.
You're an intelligent person. I'm sure you know what a metaphor is. And I'm sure you have heard that particular one before.
I'm not sure why you're not acknowledging that it's a metaphor though. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me?
Maybe he's Drax the Destroyer?
NOTHING GOES OVER MY HEAD! MY REFLEXES ARE FAR TOO FAST!
In all seriousness, my son has ADHD and metaphors are a bit of a problem.
Some people can have a legitimate reason to not understand and still be intelligent.
Just trying to help out what is becoming a weird and strangely funny moment.
I think Evil Inc understood just find.
He's just ignoring everything.
This is far from his first time doing exactly this.
Very early in his posting history you'll find many examples where he accuses someone of saying something, but refuses to produce evidence when called it, hiding under the umbrella of "Nuh-uh, you go find it".
Blacksails wrote: This is far from his first time doing exactly this.
Very early in his posting history you'll find many examples where he accuses someone of saying something, but refuses to produce evidence when called it, hiding under the umbrella of "Nuh-uh, you go find it".
EVIL INC wrote: Alpharious, not a problem, if that is allowed it is allowed.
My goodness you're killing me, what the heck are you talking about?? "If that is allowed"?? If it's allowed then it's obviously not a problem for you to just quote what I said that was so graphic and sexual
Just trying to be polite and friendly. Now if only everyone followed suit.
Libel is not polite and friendly (the polite thing would be to PM me or just report to a mod instead of public slander).
It is not polite and friendly to tell people they either accept changes regardless of anything or otherwise they are selfish losers who refuse to learn new things (the polite and friendly thing is to not insultingly pigeon hole people).
Disregarding complaints as "oh well people would complain even if they were given a million bucks" is not polite and friendly (the polite and friendly thing to do would be to not reply at all if you have nothing nice to say).
Just because you aren't directly insulting an individual does not mean you are not mean you are not insulting people and does not mean you are being polite.
EVIL INC wrote: Because I feel that different rule sets make for different games and how they are played (mechanics)?
I agree that small changes make the game play differently. However the core game is the same, it hasn't changed since 3rd.
because i feel that there is no "perfect edition"?
I agree... however several editions have only been a few small changes away from being really solid and after all these years we still have a bloated mess of a poorly written game.
because I feel that GW would be better off making a single edition and not changing it?
I disagree with you here. The game should be ever changing, small tweaks here and there, updates to fix poorly worded rules, codex changes to rebalance. The problem isn't the changes, it's that the changes are rarely actually refining what they have, they are just shuffling the junk. If they picked an edition and stuck to it, we'd be stuck with Eldar being top dogs, BA being awful, Raveners being pointless, etc etc etc. The thing that gives me hope in 40k is maybe one day they'll actually change it for good instead of just reshuffling it.
rigeld2, i'm not acknowledging that metaphor because it is not relevent. He is trying to say my stance has changed when it has remained constant. The insinuation is untrue and I refuse to acknowledge it.
"basically the same" is NOT the same. By adding in the basically, you are negating the word "same". Each edition HAS changed. Different mechanics different ways of doing things. For example, look at how we do vehicles now. Each facing has an AV and your assumed to hit the facing closest to you. Remember the datacards where there were gridded pictures and you rolled to see where ya hit (cant remember if that was 2nd or 3rd). That whole thing has changed. You mentioned the psychic phase, look at the differences it has evolved through. Remember the charts on rogue trader? How bout the chaos mutation chart? it was D1000 (yes, thats 3 zeros) and every single model in your entire army could have different mutations. Is that how chaos is played now?
I made a point to say that it was MY opinion or view that these differences changed the game enough for them to be considered different games that had a lot of sililarities.
Calling someone out on a behavior is not playing moderator. it was a request from one person to another. Had i been playing moderator, I would have sent him sort of pm notifying him he had broken a rule and edited his post. There is a HUGE difference.
Curious, whose name did I mispell? I was not aware I had and if I did I apologize. Over time, there are people with names that are actual multiple words put together and chosen the main word without any ill will intended and I remember grimtough going by the name of "grimmy" on warseer. Was not aware of doing so. However, I see a lot of posts I see as impolite ridulculing me simply because i disagreed with them on the 3 items I mentioned. of course being the outsider, I make an easy target so it is ok and allowed and I'm used to that.
MWHistorian, I agree that GW has yet to make a perfect set of rules. I'm the one who coined that phrase here. lol I would be content to have a single consistant set of rules even if they arent super amazing. The inconsistance is what is harming us as much as the rules themselves. If was a single set, we wouldnt be having such arguments as to which broken set we like best. I think things like that hurt the community even worse. Because it turns us against each other instead of GW. I'd be happy with a single set just for the consistancy and learn to live and deal with the parts I dont like for that. A price I'd be willing to pay.
AllSeeingSkink, ignoring the parts that are not relevent to the thread...I'm glad you finally seethe points I have made. Been easier pages ago but better late than never. lol I'm ok with your disagreeing on a single edition where the rules dont change. That being said, I didnt mean the current rules. I mean A set this, last, 2nd or an all new one, I dont care. THEN bring all of the codexes in line with it so you dont have one codex being super and another useless. Custom each codex to the rule set and then they could flesh out and add in and tweak new units as time goes on working within the same basic unchanging rules. I think you had misunderstood me on that part. Again, I have no problem with you disagreeing on that as that is a purely opinion based view. I will not call you names or ridicule you, I accept that your view on that is different from mine. I refuse to do to others as has been done to me.
EVIL INC wrote: rigeld2, i'm not acknowledging that metaphor because it is not relevent. He is trying to say my stance has changed when it has remained constant. The insinuation is untrue and I refuse to acknowledge it.
I don't know why I'm going to explain this, but I'm sitting on the sofa with nothing better to do... Then you missed what I was getting at. The rest of the posters (and myself) were waiting for an answer to what exactly was "sexually explicit" in Skink's post(s). You completely avoided answering the question and moved on to answering something nobody had asked. Moving. The. Goalposts.
Do we need to bring Jeremy Paxman into the thread?
EVIL INC wrote: rigeld2, i'm not acknowledging that metaphor because it is not relevent. He is trying to say my stance has changed when it has remained constant. The insinuation is untrue and I refuse to acknowledge it.
Psienesis, as you and everyone else here are well aware, to explain in detail the statement and explain it would be worse than the statement itself. It was officially allowed so I'm letting it be. Nice try trying to trick me into possibly breaking my first rule here though. I'll give ya credit there. Alpharious said was ok, so it was ok.
If the mods allowed it, then repeating it wouldn't be breaking the forum rules. I am still not aware of how Skink said anything inappropriate. Honestly. Please tell me what you thought was inappropriate, even if its in PM because I'm dying out of curiosity.
EVIL INC wrote: rigeld2, i'm not acknowledging that metaphor because it is not relevent. He is trying to say my stance has changed when it has remained constant. The insinuation is untrue and I refuse to acknowledge it.
No, it hasn't. It's stayed basically the same, but not constant. What's that about basically the same?
"basically the same" is NOT the same. By adding in the basically, you are negating the word "same".
Oh.
That whole thing has changed.
Yes - overall the current system is vastly different from rogue trader. That's what I'd expect from something that evolved through Editions.
Calling someone out on a behavior is not playing moderator. it was a request from one person to another. Had i been playing moderator, I would have sent him sort of pm notifying him he had broken a rule and edited his post.
Well, no - you wouldn't have edited his post because you physically can't. Saying that you weren't playing moderator because you didn't edit his post is ... well, we'll go with laughable. Also, you've used the word "suck" before in the same context - just FYI. Might want to edit that post if you find that word offensive.
Curious, whose name did I mispell? I was not aware I had and if I did I apologize. Over time, there are people with names that are actual multiple words put together and chosen the main word without any ill will intended and I remember grimtough going by the name of "grimmy" on warseer. Was not aware of doing so.
Alpharius. And Grimtuff. It's not Grimtough. It takes all of 3 seconds to doublecheck spelling of someone's name.
However, I see a lot of posts I see as impolite ridulculing me simply because i disagreed with them on the 3 items I mentioned. of course being the outsider, I make an easy target so it is ok and allowed and I'm used to that.
No, they're not ridiculing you simply because you disagree. And it has literally nothing to do with being an outsider.
Still failing to see what is sooooo wrong about these 3 statements (4 with the add on)...
Because I feel that different rule sets make for different games and how they are played (mechanics)?
because i feel that there is no "perfect edition"?
because I feel that GW would be better off making a single edition and not changing it?
those are my 3 statements in this thread and if any of those 3 are painting myself into a corner, It must be an awfully wierd shaped room.
Let me add to those 3 since i am evidently "in a corner for the other 3. Players are people. Human beings. Different human beings have different views, perspectives and opinions. people should have the right to have and voice their views and perspectives. Especially over something as minor as a mere game.
Again, If i misspelled someone's name, I apologize, as you well know, my grammar is horrible but I make an effort. Even so, I miss something once in a while and make myself clear. Heck, I misspell my own name on here often because of hitting a wrong key and i challenge ANYONE to prove that they have never ever even a single time made a grammatical error.
To remain on topic,
I was not intending that I thought the current edition should be the one end all last edition that I think they should release. Just that they have one in order to maintain some sort of stable continuity. It is putting out different editions that keep us players at one another's throats instead of at GW's throat where we belong. Then, they could bring all codexes in line with that single ruleset so none get left out or pumped up and maintain a balance. I'd be supportive of a D10 based one.
EVIL INC wrote: Because I feel that different rule sets make for different games and how they are played (mechanics)?
They aren't different games. They're all Warhammer 40k. Or are you comparing 2nd edition to Tiddlywinks? Those are different games.
because i feel that there is no "perfect edition"?
No one gives a damn.
because I feel that GW would be better off making a single edition and not changing it?
Nope, that's not it either.
those are my 3 statements in this thread and if any of those 3 are painting myself into a corner, It must be an awfully wierd shaped room.
If that's all you feel you've said in this thread, sure. But it's not.
people should have the right to have and voice their views and perspectives. Especially over something as minor as a mere game.
Has someone said you don't?
Again, If i misspelled someone's name, I apologize, as you well know, my grammar is horrible but I make an effort. Even so, I miss something once in a while and make myself clear. Heck, I misspell my own name on here often because of hitting a wrong key and i challenge ANYONE to prove that they have never ever even a single time made a grammatical error.
Impossibility of perfection does not mean you can ignore the simple things like your/you're.
To remain on topic,
I was not intending that I thought the current edition should be the one end all last edition that I think they should release. Just that they have one in order to maintain some sort of stable continuity. It is putting out different editions that keep us players at one another's throats instead of at GW's throat where we belong. Then, they could bring all codexes in line with that single ruleset so none get left out or pumped up and maintain a balance. I'd be supportive of a D10 based one.
No, it's not. And most people are "at GW's throat". And even with all codexes "current" with an edition (we're closer with 7th than any edition before that I'm pretty sure) it won't help balance. They have to do much more work before that.
rigeld2 wrote: ... And even with all codexes "current" with an edition (we're closer with 7th than any edition before that I'm pretty sure) ...
2nd and 3rd ed both had full sets of codexes. Although in both cases the last was released fairly soon before the next edition dropped.
I wouldn't go so far as to call each new edition a new game, but they are bigger changes than I feel is good for the game. Big changes to a game system can be good... or they can just drive people away. Not because they struggle to win games with the new rules (I didn't lose any more games of 6th than I did of 5th... I still hated 6th) but simply because they make that part of the game different.
New editions are necessary to keep the game 'alive'... but they should be refinements, not wholesale change for the sake of change. We shouldn't need a new system for calculating wound allocation every single edition. Nor should the rules for, say, a bolter be constantly changing... because there's just no need for those sorts of changes.
That, combined with the sudden sharp drop in the standard of the rules writing, also happening in conjunction with GW's apparent complete and utter disinterest in providing any sort of FAQ support, is where the 'hate' for 7th edition is coming from. Although the specific nature of the changes plays a part as well... 6th/7th edition is in many ways a massive step backwards from the style of game that had been trending from the previous editions up to 5th. It was moving more and more into a squad-based game of massed combat... and then suddenly did a u-turn and returned to micro-management of everything on a model-by-model basis, while still trying to encourage people to put more and more models on the board.
Insaniak, you pretty much summed up what I said but in a more succinct manner. Of course, I'm SURE someone will come along later and falsely deny this to cover their tracks.
The only difference if my belief of the "final" edition. Even then, I'd be ok with refinements or FAQs.
EVIL INC wrote: Insaniak, you pretty much summed up what I said but in a more succinct manner. The only difference if my belief of the "final" edition. Even then, I'd be ok with refinements or FAQs.
Except it's nothing like what you've said, but... Whatever.
Luckily I can play any edition I want because the local 40K environment consists of myself, a buddy, and a wife if I can rope her into playing. So if I want to play skirmish games of 2nd and mass battle games of 4th, whose to judge?
Hell, I can get just as much 40K by playing Epic games, everything around here is so dead. I have one store within 50-75 miles that even carries GW product at all anymore. Hell, they are the only store that carries ANY wargame.
AegisGrimm wrote: Luckily I can play any edition I want because the local 40K environment consists of myself, a buddy, and a wife if I can rope her into playing. So if I want to play skirmish games of 2nd and mass battle games of 4th, whose to judge?
Hell, I can get just as much 40K by playing Epic games, everything around here is so dead. I have one store within 50-75 miles that even carries GW product at all anymore. Hell, they are the only store that carries ANY wargame.
You are fortunate in that you have the 2 friends/spouse that will play with you, and play whatever you want, but also unfortunate in that there's no real store support in your area. It really sucks for the people who may have the latter, but not the former. There's a local store, say, with 5 other players... but none of them want to play 3rd ed (or 5th or whatever) because reasons. That person that doesn't like 7th is kinda SOL in this situation.
There's a reason there's not a "real" 40k computer game. Computers need precision and for the rules to be clearly articulated. GW doesn't do that. The rules are still terrible from a quality control standpoint when viewed that way. If you've bought the rules 4,5,6,7 times... you've shelled out about $200, $300 2014 dollars on them. Plus your codexes. Call it $500 in adjusted dollars, JUST FOR THE RULES. Every time you drop another $50 on a book, much less $20 on a PDF, its a slap in the face.
I think GW's latest push into PDFs is going to make copy infringement worse, as if you need a book and 3 PDFs to get your old list back together, you may as well skip the book. and once you skip one book for a PDF, $0 looks a lot better than $50+rage.
Now a $10/mo subscription would probably work if it gave access to everything, but I don't see GW being that forward thinking.
RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote: There's a reason there's not a "real" 40k computer game. Computers need precision and for the rules to be clearly articulated. GW doesn't do that.
Imagine if GW did actually make a 40k computer game, we'd get so many answers to questions that we currently just randomly guess at
many players do have to decide if they want to travel when there are no locals who want to play earlier editions. it is rare of course to find a player who wont even entertain it. Most players I have come across are more than willing to give it a shot or play other editions once in a while. The problem is they dont want to put $ into it so your likely gonna hafta be the one to provide the rules and stuff for them.
It can indeed be fun. Unfortunately, there are indeed areas where this is not really an option or you might not be able to travel. I remember having to drive 2 hours just to get ANY game in.
RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote: There's a reason there's not a "real" 40k computer game. Computers need precision and for the rules to be clearly articulated. GW doesn't do that.
Imagine if GW did actually make a 40k computer game, we'd get so many answers to questions that we currently just randomly guess at
Or it would make Y2K and Skynet combined look like a minor glitch.
The game would set up some online paradox where multiple instances of the same situation resolved differently and the whole internet would suffer a massive logic conflict and the whole world would shut down.
RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote: There's a reason there's not a "real" 40k computer game. Computers need precision and for the rules to be clearly articulated. GW doesn't do that.
Imagine if GW did actually make a 40k computer game, we'd get so many answers to questions that we currently just randomly guess at
Ive played different 40k games and even worked on the dev team for the 40k mod for Tribes.
I would likely seriously go crazy for a 40k game set up like Civilization. maybe not exactly, but along those lines. Course, maybe I'm just a nut. lol
BrotherOfBone wrote: Oh for goodness sake, another complaint thread about people harking back to old editions.
What purpose doe this post serve other than to increase your post count? You knew what you are getting from the title.
He fulfilled the obligatory complaint of "Not this again!".
I must admit, we are forever optimists of trying to find that magic answer.
Ah, having said that I will have another go:
40k hate is not it specifically.
Just the present rule-set we are saddled with now is not meeting player's needs (more like GW's).
We just wanna play with other people, our friends are fine and all but we are social animals and like to meet people.
Having a game that seems to just beg for argument right out of the gate is contrary to that.
I moved on to X-wing for the pick-up games but am happy to play 40k with those I already know.
By creating this behavior of veteran players: how are new players going to get introduced to 40k?
Probably only when I am playing my buddies and I would be hesitant to play the "new guy".
So wait for a roll of the dice and the rules become more welcoming in the next edition / update / FAQ.
Thank-you all for your patience, I had to do that...
I play since Rogue Trader too and i can and must agree with EVIL INC that there never was a perfect edition.
But there were better ones and worst ones.
The 3rd was so bad many players i know stuck to 2nd (to this day) and GW started "trial rules" within a year that became official in tournaments within 2 years and became 4th edition after 4 years.
The current 7th is the first time since 3rd that i see the same type of reactions.
I have most armies of most GW games (including the Specialist games).
In WH40K and WHFB i never buy or even play the "current good units", i even don't play broken (too good) units on general principle.
I field flexible armies that are different, usually above-average in size and they always do pretty well, win more than i lose (because i know what i am doing) and sometimes win tournaments.
I usually don't mind change in codex or edition, my playing style or even armies are hardly ever hit hard.
I do sometimes buy 2nd hand models from play-to-win-players though when a new codex or edition arrives and the last codex broken unit is bad now, so they sell it :-)
But 7th really is different, more different than usual.
IMO the main reason is how you win: not by beating the opponent or take and hold objectives but just by being faster and reach objectives.
I do have fast armies that could do reasonably well, but it's the first time in many editions that many armies i have do not have a chance at doing well, even though most are 3k+ and never optimised for any codex or edition.
And that IS different in 7th.
That's in my opinion the reason for "WHY THE HATE?".
The answer to "WHY NOT PLAY OLDER EDITION?" is that this just does not happen in a large enough comunity so you get stuck with a few or no players at all after a couple of years.
Many WH40K en even more WHFB players i know have stopped playing the last 5 years and many sold their armies too.
Well its interesting what's happened while I've not been looking at the thread. All the random off topic and all that, but I am pleased to see that people do/want to play old ed. But it seems you cant find any one to play with. So why don't you all use player finder? Ask who wants to do 40k the old way, that way you can all have fun, and wont be so annoyed at gw changes. They will no longer affect you.
RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote: There's a reason there's not a "real" 40k computer game. Computers need precision and for the rules to be clearly articulated. GW doesn't do that.
Imagine if GW did actually make a 40k computer game, we'd get so many answers to questions that we currently just randomly guess at
BrotherOfBone wrote: Oh for goodness sake, another complaint thread about people harking back to old editions.
What purpose doe this post serve other than to increase your post count? You knew what you are getting from the title.
It serves to inform people that this is an overused discussion. What does this thread serve other than to increase yours, and everyone else's here's post count? Just search some of the key words in the searchbar and you'll find similar threads to read through.
Well its interesting what's happened while I've not been looking at the thread. All the random off topic and all that, but I am pleased to see that people do/want to play old ed. But it seems you cant find any one to play with. So why don't you all use player finder? Ask who wants to do 40k the old way, that way you can all have fun, and wont be so annoyed at gw changes. They will no longer affect you.
Because basically what you end up with is finding out that the next-closest person who wants to play the Edition you want to play lives 300 miles away from you. Which is, perhaps, worse than not knowing.
BrotherOfBone wrote: Oh for goodness sake, another complaint thread about people harking back to old editions.
What purpose doe this post serve other than to increase your post count? You knew what you are getting from the title.
It serves to inform people that this is an overused discussion. What does this thread serve other than to increase yours, and everyone else's here's post count? Just search some of the key words in the searchbar and you'll find similar threads to read through.
BrotherOfBone wrote: It serves to inform people that this is an overused discussion. .
For what purpose?
However many times it's been discussed in the past, it's obviously still a topic that the people participating in the discussion want to discuss. If you're tired of the discussion, you have the option of not opening the thread. The topic of discussion was fairly clear from the title.
BrotherOfBone wrote: It serves to inform people that this is an overused discussion. .
For what purpose?
However many times it's been discussed in the past, it's obviously still a topic that the people participating in the discussion want to discuss. If you're tired of the discussion, you have the option of not opening the thread. The topic of discussion was fairly clear from the title.
And there's a rule about necro-threads, so ergo, there are new threads on similar topics.
BrotherOfBone wrote: It serves to inform people that this is an overused discussion. .
For what purpose?
However many times it's been discussed in the past, it's obviously still a topic that the people participating in the discussion want to discuss. If you're tired of the discussion, you have the option of not opening the thread. The topic of discussion was fairly clear from the title.
And there's a rule about necro-threads, so ergo, there are new threads on similar topics.
Why does there need to be a new thread when there is already one, if not several, older threads?
BrotherOfBone wrote: It serves to inform people that this is an overused discussion. .
For what purpose?
However many times it's been discussed in the past, it's obviously still a topic that the people participating in the discussion want to discuss. If you're tired of the discussion, you have the option of not opening the thread. The topic of discussion was fairly clear from the title.
And there's a rule about necro-threads, so ergo, there are new threads on similar topics.
Why does there need to be a new thread when there is already one, if not several, older threads?
A new thread appears when the stars are right and the Old Ones return.
Because there is the full knowledge that the older threads are full of vitriol and re-opening those cans of worms is a sure thing by necroing those thread and members just picking up where they left off.
With a new thread, there is always the hope that "this time around, people will behave". It is also the matter of consistance, it you let one thread get necroed, why not another, and another...
EVIL INC wrote: Because there is the full knowledge that the older threads are full of vitriol and re-opening those cans of worms is a sure thing by necroing those thread and members just picking up where they left off.
With a new thread, there is always the hope that "this time around, people will behave". It is also the matter of consistance, it you let one thread get necroed, why not another, and another...
I'm not implying that people necro old threads, I'm saying that people should just read through them instead of making new ones.
I was thinking about trying to get people to play 3rd for a while, but I think I've finally settled on 5th. IMO 5th was well-received and reasonably balanced, plus my Ork and DE books are still the older copies. Now, I just have to the immensely difficult part of getting people to invest in relearning 5th!
learning new strategies and tactics however is not balencing the game, it is becoming a better player and learning to adapt.
Corrected. 
